GOPiggie Mantra:

Stimulus baaaaaaad!
Oink...scarf...oink!
Obama baaaaaaad!
Oink...scarf...oink!
Socialism...Communism...all-
time baaaaaaad stuff!
Oink...scarf...oink!

Doc,

There is a sucker born every minute.

I love the apologists that will come along and defend the eating from the trough after saying no thanks.

Amazing how quickly moral standards are lowered the moment one of them gigantic checks is put into view.

Oink...scarf...oink!

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-02-09 01:00 PM

Get rid of them. Democrats too.

Term limits would cause lawmakers to be less concerned with re-election, and, thus, more disinclined to act this way. That's the theory, anyhow. We should try it.

#4...ditto.

So..... You are saying that the stimlus should only go to democrats? The money will be spent but the republican states shouldn't get any.

#4 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-09 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree. I am sick of the argument that tenured legislators are assets to their constituents because they know the "legislative process". That's just a nice way of saying they know which rules can be bent and who greases palms the best.

2 term limits for Senators and 4 term limits for the House! Plus, ban all former legislators and government employees from engaging in lobbying activities.

RINOs will be outsted along with the dems in November. We the People are going to cause REAL change in DC.

Term limits have been disastrous in every state they've been enacted, and would further render the Congress useless.

The problem with Senator Bond, for example, isn't that he's accepting stimulus funds after screaming against the stimulus package. The problem with Bond is that anybody took him seriously in his anti-stimulus rhetoric. He's been the Pork King since coming to the Senate.

2 term limits for Senators and 4 term limits for the House! Plus, ban all former legislators and government employees from engaging in lobbying activities.

~Taxman.

Totally Agree Flag.

The revolving door between the public and private sectors needs to be shut.

Entrenched corruption needs to be dislodged.

Be Well.

Term limits would probably make them even more corrupt.

They would have less time to "get that money"

BUT, once this stimulus bill is passed by the house, watch multimillionaire Nancy Pelosi waltz out and do her Leona Helmsly thing (again) by patronizingly boasting about what the Dems have done for the "Little People" and then go back inside and finish counting the gobs of money generated from her family vineyard, restaurants, etc. So nice to have someone so much like an average person being Speaker.

So..... You are saying that the stimlus should only go to democrats?

Snippy, it's immoral for Republicans to take communist money that's placing a debt burden on future generations. You can see they care by the way they've repudiated Reagan and the Bushes for their profligate ways. And Burning Cheney in effigy for saying deficts don't matter.

As God's Own Party it is up to them to stand morally firm and not take Obama's marxist money.

socialism is bad until they get a check.

I guess this is like the cash for clunkers. Everyone is surprised that so many came for the FREE money.

I think the time has come for term limits as well as some sort of restrictions on lobbyists. I will be voting against every incumbant for the next couple of elections. Even if it goes against my true beliefs in what I can only call my own little revolt against the status quo.

No fucking ear marks!!!!!

Do fish have ears?

guess this is like the cash for clunkers. Everyone is surprised that so many came for the FREE money.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-10 12:20 PM

"Opportunity of the Prepared Mind" is a saying of my uber conservative grandfather.

It means that Opportunity only Strikes those Who have prepared for an Opportunity.

It is one of the Tenants of True Conservatism ----- and the Basis of a Capitalist system.

With that said, im not surprise sniper is all upset over the clash-for-clunkers deal --- he wasn't prepared to take advantage of an Opportunity, (commonly known today as Capitalism) so he berates those who were instead.

See, from the perspective of a smart consumer, it doesn't matter where or why the opportunity manifests in regards to getting a "deal" for themselves, a smart capitalist doesn't think about that ---- its only the folks who cant take advantage (i.e. piss poor capitalism) who whine Broken Dick about an opportunity they themselves failed to prepare for or seize upon.

It's called Sour Grapes ------ And is a behavior exhibited mostly by Children.

We the People are going to cause REAL change in DC

Sure you are cupcake.

The political machine has a vested interest in ensuring that no candidate that is going to upset the status quo will ever make it onto the ballot.

2 term limits for Senators and 4 term limits for the House! Plus, ban all former legislators and government employees from engaging in lobbying activities.

And remove private $$$ for campaigns.

i would agree with term limits more heartily if it didn't shift even more power to lobbyists. now, if we could term limit lobbyists in conjunction with congressmen, then I am game.

and the whole 2+ year campaign is retarded (satire!). better to do 4-8 weeks of campaigns and primaries, publicly funded. how retarded (satire!) is it that people have been talking about the 2012 election since Dec. of '08.

In regards to these "republican" senators ------- they should come crawling back.

Their petty politics and the abandonment of their responsibility to govern in favor of "beating democrats" has real costs ---- and those costs have come at the expense of their constituents who, for whatever reason, need some help right now!

We don't need term limits.

We need income limits.

Allow no limit to contributions for office.

But, those running for office must have less than $X in assets/income. X=$ current yearly pay for office position.

funny how all these WingDings who Swore up and Down that "Only Republicans" can do this and that --- all of a sudden want to do away with "all of them" since losing the majority.

You never heard them ever say this when they still believed in their Rovian "Thousand Year Single Party Rule"

Apparently, they are/were thinking that a "term" would consist of one thousand years!?

Go Fucking Figure!
Can any of you WingDingDongs reconcile these two very different assertions made by your ilk? Tell us how you envisioned these "term limits" while chanting "Single Party Rule", "Four More Years" and "Stay the Course"?

Rachel Maddow went to town on this story...

well the C street boys commit adultery on a weekly basis, so decrying while accepting pork is really the lesser sin.

or the RNC going to hawaii to meet and discuss applying fiscal restraint.

With that said, im not surprise sniper is all upset over the clash-for-clunkers deal --- he wasn't prepared to take advantage of an Opportunity, (commonly known today as Capitalism) so he berates those who were instead.

#20 | Posted by Redneckville

Taking tax money from me (at the point of a gun) and giving it away IS NOT capitalism. WTF are you saying? No wonder you slam capitalism so much, you don't even know what it is. You actualy think socalism is capitalism.

Does anyone know exactly how much of this stimulus money is not even benefitting Americans out of work, but going to China???? for jobs..!!!
such as the these great windmills for a Texas project that are employing 2,000 in China and hopefully 300 in Texas..!!!

Does anyone know exactly how much of this stimulus money is not even benefitting Americans out of work, but going to China???? for jobs..!!!
such as the these great windmills for a Texas project that are employing 2,000 in China and hopefully 300 in Texas..!!!

#30 | Posted by drsoul at 2010-02-10 02:01 PM

I agree with the term limits and also removing all perks that come with an elected office like full health care for the rest of their life and being able to lobby afterwards.

Remove all perks and start over from scratch. We need to get people elected to office that actually want to do what's right for the people who elected them.

On top of removing all the perks, I would be in for salary increases and a way for them to video conference from their state offices instead of the constant traveling back and forth to Washington. If you currently add health insurance to their currently salaries/benifits, they are actually getting paid quite well.

Also, for the 500 billion still left from the original stimulus, PAY IT BACK.

#31...there is a right to be concerned.. kind of a waste of time to defend Oboner, when your statement carries no credibility..
to #32 and others... we are long overdue for term limits.. I do not think that it was ever meant for members of Congress to make it a profession.. also, as we see, it reaches a point that their actions are not about who elected them, but power of their own.. they listen little to the public anymore and I really do not see any panel of experts sitting on the hill anywhere... I personally think lobbying should be outlawed completely..

#31...there is a right to be concerned.. kind of a waste of time to defend Oboner, when your statement carries no credibility..

#34 | Posted by drsoul at 2010-02-10 02:51 PM

Not to the extent of laying off people in the USA or denying comparable skill jobs to people without work.. China is not our concern in that respect; we have given them too much power and destroyed our own manufacturing base as it is.. we have aided them in becoming the world's largest exporter.. and, then comes the often and well-worn repeated rhetoric of your beloved Oboner in that he is 'cleaning up'... that is just pure bullshit..!!

If there were no perks, you wouldn't need term limits.

Not to the extent of laying off people in the USA or denying comparable skill jobs to people without work.. China is not our concern in that respect; we have given them too much power and destroyed our own manufacturing base as it is.. we have aided them in becoming the world's largest exporter.. and, then comes the often and well-worn repeated rhetoric of your beloved Oboner in that he is 'cleaning up'... that is just pure bullshit..!!

#36 | Posted by drsoul at 2010-02-10 03:08 PM

Photos of GOP Congressmen at one Obama Stimulus groundbreaking after another are hilarious. You'd think they'd skip them if they were so opposed.

Then there's the 'NOT IN MY DISTRICT!' when it comes to cutting spending.

"So..... You are saying that the stimlus should only go to democrats? The money will be spent but the republican states shouldn't get any.
#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-10 10:55 AM"

No one is saying that and your Strawman completely misses the point of the article.

Perhaps these quotes from the article will calrify the pertinent point:

"He and other lawmakers make no apologies for privately seeking stimulus money after they voted against it and continue to criticize the plan: "I strongly opposed the stimulus, but the only thing that could make it worse would be if none of it returned to the taxpayers of Missouri," said Mr. Bond, who is retiring.

But watchdog groups say the lawmakers' public talk and private letters don't square, highlighting a side of government spending largely overshadowed by the "earmarking" process. While members of Congress must disclose their earmarks or pet projects they slip into broader spending bills the private funding requests they make in letters to agencies FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC'S VIEW (emphasis mine)."

and

"Ranked among the most conservative members of the House by the American Conservative Union (ACU), Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican, posted a blog item on his Web site on Oct. 21, stating that recent unemployment figures "only reinforce the fact that the $787 billion 'stimulus' signed into law eight months ago has done nothing for job growth in this country."

Two weeks earlier, Mr. Linder had sent a letter to Mr. Vilsack backing an application for stimulus money by the Elauwit Community Foundation, records show. With unemployment in Georgia topping 10 percent, "the employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized," Mr. Linder wrote. "

I am not faulting their 'priciples' and/or the performance of their 'duty to their constituents'. However, the manner (and timing!) of their requests and their continued claims afterwards that the stimulus has "done nothing" is disengenuous (AT BEST!).

So the rethugs who publically railed the loudest against the soshlizt stimulus are now quietly seeking it while simultaneously claiming it has done nothing?

That about it?

Wow, when it comes to hypocrisy rethugs are multitaskers.

Be Well.

November 2, 2010-a new hope&change. There're only 9-12 Congresmen worth reelecting. "Veritas vos liberabit"

GOPiggie Mantra:

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Intellectual dishonesty at its best!!!

Democrats are robbing and stealing, but the poor states who have Republican representation not only get no Federal money but in addition have to pay for the irresponsible states with Democrat representation.

Doc, you know this!

That's why it's called intellectual dishonesty!

Your problem, Doc, and the reason you get your ass handed to you daily is that you think that we are as stupid as you are!

Wow, when it comes to hypocrisy rethugs are multitaskers.

Be Well.

#41 | Posted by dethspud

So trying to get their constituents' fair share of the non-stimulus Federal money is hypocritical?

More intellectual dishonesty, Spud?

Be well... LOL!!!

No one shuts down a Democrat lying rant like EDDIE!

Doc,

There is a sucker born every minute.

I love the apologists that will come along and defend the eating from the trough after saying no thanks.

Amazing how quickly moral standards are lowered the moment one of them gigantic checks is put into view.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2010-02-09 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL!!!

Doc, you have a gaggle of morons supporting you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"No one shuts down a Democrat lying rant like EDDIE!
#45 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 11:55 AM"

What can I say. You're a legend in your own mind.

Meanwhile, your retort is only more laughable given what the link said (some of which has been quoted/referred to here).

However, as long as you're having fun...

-No one shuts down a Democrat lying rant like EDDIE!

We're laughing too hard to type, Slow Eddie.

Meanwhile, your retort is only more laughable given what the link said (some of which has been quoted/referred to here).

However, as long as you're having fun...

#47 | Posted by TrueBlue

What part of "Representatives getting their constituent's fair share" are you missing?

Laughable? Who's laughing?

You're just not getting it, are you?

Here's the ting True. I'm not as stupid as you!

I see it as a State's rep going to get their fair share since they are putting tax money into it!

Does this mean that the states whose representation opposed the original bill are off the hook for repaying it?

-No one shuts down a Democrat lying rant like EDDIE!

We're laughing too hard to type, Slow Eddie.

#48 | Posted by Corky

Thanks for confirming that I shut you down. Care to retort, smartass?

No one is saying that and your Strawman completely misses the point of the article.

#40 | Posted by TrueBlue

I guess you miss the point of the whole deal. If I don't take any of the stimlus, do I have to pay into it? What is the answer to that point misser?

No one is saying that and your Strawman completely misses the point of the article.

#40 | Posted by TrueBlue

I guess you miss the point of the whole deal. If I don't take any of the stimlus, do I have to pay into it? What is the answer to that point misser?

you think that we are as stupid as you are!
#43 | Posted by Eddie | Flag: Aspires To Be Reclassified From "Moron" To "Stoopid"

With that said, im not surprise sniper is all upset over the clash-for-clunkers deal --- he wasn't prepared to take advantage of an Opportunity, (commonly known today as Capitalism) so he berates those who were instead.

#20 | Posted by Redneckville

I just want to give you a chance to correct this major brainfart, Redneck!

Are you saying that Cash-for-clunkers is Capitalism?

you think that we are as stupid as you are!
#43 | Posted by Eddie | Flag: Aspires To Be Reclassified From "Moron" To "Stoopid"

#53 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-02-11 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny how no one is actually arguing my point....

I guess you miss the point of the whole deal. If I don't take any of the stimlus, do I have to pay into it? What is the answer to that point misser?

#52 | Posted by Sniper

Sorry, Sniper. I missed your post. You got this idea in before I did.

GOD! The libs on this thread are too occupied with trying to defend an already failed Administration that they don't see how dumb they look!

The point of the article is some Republican senators are on record for being opposed to the stimulus (which is fine), but they claim their opposition is because the stimulus will not create jobs. Then, even BEFORE the stimulus is passed, the same senators are on record for requesting the funding BECAUSE (in their own words) it will create jobs in their district.

Compounding their disengenuous behavior, these same individuals continue (publicly) opposing the stimulus funding while (privately) requesting the funding (since it will then not be counted as an "earmark"). In addition, they then (publicly) take credit for providing the benefits of the stimulus funding. Is that inconsistent, hypocritical, or "something else"?

If your (new) point is: do you (personally?) have to pay into it? The answer is yes. I suspect every citizen "pays into" government funding of one sort or another that they do not (they believe) receive a benefit. This is the result of being part of a republic, rather than a lone individual. As such, the society (including you) receives a benefit even if it is not directly or immediately obvious.

they don't see how dumb they look!

#56 | Posted by Eddie

You are being way to polite with that statement. Dumb dosen't even scratch the surface.

#57

"The point of the article is some Republican senators are on record for being opposed to the stimulus (which is fine), but they claim their opposition is because the stimulus will not create jobs. "

This is a lie. Which senator said it will create no jobs?

Do you have a link?

The opposition to this bill said that the stimulus money would never create enough jobs to get the economy moving.

No one ever said that the stimulus money would create NO jobs.

This is the intellectual dishonesty that I am talking about.

Compounding their disengenuous behavior, these same individuals continue (publicly) opposing the stimulus funding while (privately) requesting the funding (since it will then not be counted as an "earmark"). In addition, they then (publicly) take credit for providing the benefits of the stimulus funding. Is that inconsistent, hypocritical, or "something else"?

#57 | Posted by TrueBlue

Well, if you are going to be stupid about it, then most of his constituency may be stupid about it too. Or they will be too lazy to understand the truth.

It's called politics. The simple explanation (the one you are clinging to) shows them as hypocrites, but the truth shows them as good servants of the people. The truth shows them more as being moral giants.

If they completely reject the stimulus money because they think it will make them look bad, then they are cheating the people.

Again, why can't they take credit for getting the money to their state? Didn't they request the money?

You're either leaving information out or you don't know how the system works.

"This is a lie. Which senator said it will create no jobs?

Do you have a link?

The opposition to this bill said that the stimulus money would never create enough jobs to get the economy moving.

No one ever said that the stimulus money would create NO jobs.

This is the intellectual dishonesty that I am talking about.
#59 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 02:15 PM"

No problem. I'll even use the same link that is posted for this thread (which I'm sure you've read all [five] pages of that link):

"Before his vote against the stimulus, Sen. Mike Johanns, who took office last year from Nebraska, predicted that 'THE MONEY WOULD NEVER REACH THE ECONOMY (emphasis mine)'
A secretary of agriculture under President George W. Bush, Mr. Johanns LATER (emphasis mine) told the Grand Island, Neb., Independent newspaper that 'it would be hard for me to imagine that we are going to be creating many jobs here.' Yet he saw the prospect of at least a few dozen jobs in a letter he LATER (emphasis mine) sent to Mr. Vilsack for a home-state project, records show.
'The proposed project would create 38 new jobs and bring broadband to eight hospitals, five colleges, 16 libraries and 161 K-12 schools,' Mr. Johanns wrote.
E-mails and calls to Mr. Johanns' office were not returned."

and then there's:

"Ranked among the most conservative members of the House by the American Conservative Union (ACU), Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican, posted a blog item on his Web site on Oct. 21, stating that recent unemployment figures 'only reinforce the fact that the $787 billion 'stimulus' signed into law eight months ago HAS DONE NOTHING FOR JOB GROWTH IN THIS COUNTRY (emphasis mine)."

Two weeks EARLIER (emphasis mine), Mr. Linder had sent a letter to Mr. Vilsack backing an application for stimulus money by the Elauwit Community Foundation, records show. With unemployment in Georgia topping 10 percent, 'the employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized," Mr. Linder wrote."

"If they completely reject the stimulus money because they think it will make them look bad, then they are cheating the people.

Again, why can't they take credit for getting the money to their state? Didn't they request the money?

You're either leaving information out or you don't know how the system works.
#60 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 02:22 PM"

Your first paragraph: AGREED!

Did you not read the first paragraph in my post:
#57 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2010-02-11 01:22 PM?

That would be the one which said it was fine for them to be opposed to the stimulus. However, their actions spoke volumes, since they did believe that the stimulus would help their district. The point of the thread is NOT that they should be denied the funding. The point is IF they believed it would help, why did they OPPOSE it????

Funny how no one is actually arguing my point.....
#55 | Posted by Eddie

#63 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I enjoy kicking your ass every day, Doc!

But, your little consessions at the end of the day are icing on the cake!

#62 | Posted by TrueBlue

I see your point True, and I agree that appearances are EVERYTHING, but if you really drill down and get the truth as you've shown me in the last 2 posts, then you see that the Republicans are being fiscally smart and hard working for their constituency when the legislation goes against them.

YES! I think that being obtuse in order to defend your original premise is dishonest.

I will give you this. It's a really good "political" trick to say that the Republicans who railed against the stimulus are hypocrites, but once understood, they become quickly honest and hard working once the truth is understood that they got this money for their state.

Being dishonest is a double edged sword. You have to count on your audience to either be stupid or lazy.

Re: #65 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 04:07 PM

Well, looks like we'll have to (somewhat) agree on some things and disagree on others:

AGREE:
1. "If they completely reject the stimulus money because they think it will make them look bad, then they are cheating the people."

Yup. Here's a thought: Maybe if these senators didn't paint themselves into a corner, then they would have to be hypocrites to supply benefits to their constituents. I hardly feel sorry for them for this coming to light as it was a problem of their own making.

(SOMEWHAT AGREE):
1. "appearances are EVERYTHING".

While I agree that in the 'politcal world' appearances are important, it's a simplistic truism that appearances are EVERYTHING. Rarely (if ever) is anything EVERYTHING (even in the 'political world').

DISAGREE:
1. "I will give you this. It's a really good "political" trick to say that the Republicans who railed against the stimulus are hypocrites, but once understood, they become quickly honest and hard working once the truth is understood that they got this money for their state."

Oh, I see now. These Republican senators are really 'honest and hard working' but misunderstood. So much so that they now are the victims of a 'politcal trick'. NOW who is being intellectually dishonest! I find it MUCH more believable that you had already decided that these senators were 'honest and hard working' before you even read the link. It's been interesting to watch you spin the facts until they fit your pre-conceived notions. However, I don't buy your argument.

2. "Being dishonest is a double edged sword. You have to count on your audience to either be stupid or lazy."

Double-edged? Personally, being dishonest is just a sword. Your claim is just another 'end justifies the means' rationalization. You might believe what you said, but I don't.

Meanwhile, I don't know what you are talking about when you say "being obtuse".

Yup. Here's a thought: Maybe if these senators didn't paint themselves into a corner, then they would have to be hypocrites to supply benefits to their constituents. I hardly feel sorry for them for this coming to light as it was a problem of their own making.

Wrong! These senators will be reelected in the future.

The Democrats and the fiscally irresponsible Congressman (those not railing against the stimulus) will not be reelected come Nov 2010 and 2012.

Who cares about looking like a hypocrite when voters are becoming more educated?

When you get opponents in a debate and the incumbent has done what you are accusing and his Liberal opponent makes your claim, the Liberal opponent will lose the debate.

When it's explained (and the audience is intelligent), then the fiscally conservative (in today's political environment) will win, hands down.

Oh, I see now. These Republican senators are really 'honest and hard working' but misunderstood. So much so that they now are the victims of a 'politcal trick'. NOW who is being intellectually dishonest! I find it MUCH more believable that you had already decided that these senators were 'honest and hard working' before you even read the link. It's been interesting to watch you spin the facts until they fit your pre-conceived notions. However, I don't buy your argument.

Again, voters looking for fiscally responsible leaders are going to ignore the dishonesty coming out the opposition.

It really burns my butt when I see this kind of lying going on!

Bobby Jindal, Gov of Louisiana got a lot of flake from Louisiana's more left-leaning residents and since I grew up there and had to leave to pursue a high-tech career, I really have an axe to grind with lying Liberals!

I had to leave my home because of the inept leadership of 70 years of Democrats.

Jindal has brought more high tech jobs (jobs in general) to Louisiana than the last 20 years of Democrat govs combined!!!

True,

I've never asked you. Do you think that the stimulus package was a good idea?

I think that Obama's claim that he avoided a depression is lie. All he did was to push it off.

I think we're in for really bad inflation if we don't repeal this monstrosity.

Bush is not off the hook either. He should have let these organizations fail.

"Jindal has brought more high tech jobs (jobs in general) to Louisiana than the last 20 years of Democrat govs combined!!! "

So how did Jindu the Hindu do that? Bribe corporations with taxpayer money?

"then they would have to be hypocrites"

Big oops on my part:

That should have been:
"then they would NOT have to be hypocrites"

Altho' that might have been clear from the context, my apologies for any misunderstanding.

'Wrong! These senators will be reelected in the future.'

You're probably correct.

However, getting re-elected doesn't necessarily mean they were doing the correct thing.

It's much more likely to be indicative of doing what their constituents wanted.

"Who cares about looking like a hypocrite when voters are becoming more educated?"

You've shown no evidence that:
a. this is happening
b. that this is happening BECAUSE of what these senators have done.

"When you get opponents in a debate and the incumbent has done what you are accusing and his Liberal opponent makes your claim, the Liberal opponent will lose the debate."

Possibly. I was not claiming that this would win a debate. What I was claiming is that this is wrong. So far, you have not denied the validity of what has been presented.

"When it's explained (and the audience is intelligent), then the fiscally conservative (in today's political environment) will win, hands down.
#67 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 05:43 PM"

GENERALLY and personally, I do not disagree that one should be fiscally conservative. We can (should?) debate about what is "fiscally conservative", or maybe more to the point, what is fiscally PRUDENT.

Re: #68 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 05:53 PM

I understand that you believe the Democrats are the cause (or perceived cause) of your difficulties. I'd surmised as much, hence my statement that you had already determined who was 'honest and hard working'. This just adds more confirmation.

I'd caution against continued generalizations of 'lying Liberals'.

It does nothing to change the situation.

Is overly broad and useless.

It leaves you vulnerable to 'opposition lies' since they are not "Liberals".

Do what you will, of course.

"True,

I've never asked you. Do you think that the stimulus package was a good idea?

I think that Obama's claim that he avoided a depression is lie. All he did was to push it off.

I think we're in for really bad inflation if we don't repeal this monstrosity.

Bush is not off the hook either. He should have let these organizations fail.
#69 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-11 06:01 PM"

In reverse order:

1. I really don't care about GWB at this point. I'm more concerned about where our nation is going rather than where it's been. Of course, ignoring history is foolish and I believe some would like to do just that. However, it's possible (I believe), to be mindful of the past while formulating a future. Not in a "blaming sense" but more in a "let's not do that again" sense.

2. Possibly on the inflation. What I've learned (and yes I've lived through and have been directly affected by high inflation) is inflation occurs when "value" is not created. While prices will go up when demand exceeds supply, unless the "value" of the product also increases the monetary system becomes devalued. IOW, one might have more $$$, but they aren't wealthier.

3. As for the stimulus package: generally, yes it was a good idea. One can (and many often do) quibble about HOW (and HOW MUCH and HOW FAST or WHEN) it should be implemented, but I believe the overall concept is sound. My perception of the stimulus is not unlike priming a well. It's always POSSIBLE it won't work. It's always POSSIBLE to be over- (or under-) done. BUT, rarely is it beneficial to be NOT done at all. You might believe differently, but I believe the historical record will support my general assertions.

As for pushing the depression off:
I don't know the future, but I'm willing to claim that there will be Booms and Depressions in the future. Many folks will try to assign blame (or take credit) for those in the future. You see what you want to see; you hear what you want to hear. Doesn't change the reality of the situation.

So how did Jindu the Hindu do that? Bribe corporations with taxpayer money?

#70 | Posted by nullifidian

LOL!!!

Why don't you read up on it and get back to me.

3. As for the stimulus package: generally, yes it was a good idea.

#75 | Posted by TrueBlue

I don't agree. This is the crap Bush did and was hoping Obama would not do.

Expanding the money to the extent that the Stimulus does is not a good idea. When this heart of the stimulus kicks in in the coming years, it will cause a shocking rate of inflation. That's what happens when you put so many more dollars into the system can handle. The value of the dollar falls.

The other way to do it is to raise taxes. Even if you double the tax rate, we'll still need to print more money. Doubling the tax rate will suck all the life out of the economy and cause a depression.

My prediction is that the stimulus will be repealed.

"I don't agree. This is the crap Bush did and was hoping Obama would not do.

Expanding the money to the extent that the Stimulus does is not a good idea. When this heart of the stimulus kicks in in the coming years, it will cause a shocking rate of inflation. That's what happens when you put so many more dollars into the system can handle. The value of the dollar falls.

The other way to do it is to raise taxes. Even if you double the tax rate, we'll still need to print more money. Doubling the tax rate will suck all the life out of the economy and cause a depression.

My prediction is that the stimulus will be repealed.
#77 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-12 01:36 PM"

So, we disagree. I'm surprised you thought President Obama would not do this since he said he would in his campaign.
I guess you were hoping this was 'just a campaign promise' that would be ignored.

I don't ENTIRELY disagree with your comment about the inflation, altho' I think you VASTLY overstate the degree that this will occur.

As for your comment about taxes: I'm not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying that raising taxes will cause inflation and/or cause the value of the dollar to fall (or something altogether different)?

I predict that the more the stimulus is directed towards basic infrastructure (roads, canals, transportation, utilities, etc.) and energy development (preferably those energy developments that wean us off of petroleum [especially imported petroleum]), the more likely the direct/immediate the benefits will be and the more enduring the benefits will be in the future. Even today, we continue to reap the benefits of the WPA and CC of 75 years ago. As such, the stimulus might even be expanded. I suspect it won't be too disappointing for you as you'll be reaping the benefits, too.

We might quibble about the specific manner in which the stimulus is implemented, but consider this:
1. who is receiving these $$$?

2. Are they not our citizens?

3. Is it not likely that they will in turn spend ("re-invest") those $$$ in their communities?

4. Will not those $$$ then continue to be re-introduced into those communities (not unlike the general concept that banks utilize when they approve loans: a dollar 'turns around' something like a dozen or more times)?

Personally, I'd much rather our government invested in its citizens rather than (literally) 'blowing up' the dollars while protecting our source(s) of petroleum. I'd much rather a policy that plans for the future rather than trying to cobble-up a way to continue the way we've been going.