stuckincincy Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 That's quite the paradox. Not totally true, though. There are good ones...
IDBillzFan Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 I'm already planning on that in Sacramento if I get an IOU for my tax refund. Typically I owe taxes but seeing your state taxes are a federal deduction I sent in a nice check to the state as a pre-payment. If I get an IOU to me that means I'll never get it so the in essence raised my taxes without a vote. Someone's gonna die. I think I owe them some money this year, so if anyone knows where I can download the official IOU document to send in, I'd appreciate it. Any chance I can just write it on a napkin?
Wacka Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Reagan got 50.7% of the vote in 1980, Obama got 52.9%. Reagan had 489 Electoral Votes and Obama 365. Obama won by 9.6 million votes and Reagan 8.4 million Obama got 25.5 million more total votes (which was about 50% more than Reagan. Reagan's margin of victory was 2.4% more than Obama's. Obama had an initial 68% approval rating and Reagan 51% I'm sure you would consider Reagan's victory a mandate. Obama had a majority of the vote. 1984 Reagan 525 electroal votes and Mondale 13 Reagan won by almost 17 million votes Reagan received 58.8% of the vote and Mondale 40.6 That is a mandate.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Obama had a majority of the vote. 1984 Reagan 525 electroal votes and Mondale 13 Reagan won by almost 17 million votes Reagan received 58.8% of the vote and Mondale 40.6 That is a mandate. There is no definition, as far as actual numbers go, as to what is a mandate and what isn't. As long as you don't believe that Reagan had a mandate at all in 1980, that's cool. You wouldn't think Obama had one now. There are a lot of people, however, that believe Reagan did enter the Presidency in January, 1981, with a mandate. I would have guessed that you were one of them. And now I see that no, you don't think Reagan had a mandate.
Johnny Coli Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 There is no definition, as far as actual numbers go, as to what is a mandate and what isn't. As long as you don't believe that Reagan had a mandate at all in 1980, that's cool. You wouldn't think Obama had one now. There are a lot of people, however, that believe Reagan did enter the Presidency in January, 1981, with a mandate. I would have guessed that you were one of them. And now I see that no, you don't think Reagan had a mandate. That was prior to November 5th, 2008, when they moved the mandate goalposts. In any event, First Read has some numbers that show the past election, and the political tracking of the country as a whole, suggest a mandate. The state of the GOP: Given last night's House Republican vote, as well as tomorrow's RNC chair contest and even the recent GOP fealty to Rush Limbaugh, it's worth pointing out that the Republican Party is about as unpopular now as the president who just left office. In addition to December's NBC/WSJ poll, which showed that only 27% of the country viewed the GOP favorably (versus 49% who said that about the Dem Party), a new Gallup analysis of the 350,000 interviews it conducted in 2008 finds the Democratic Party leading in every state in the nation except in Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. (That’s right, even in some states McCain carried like Texas and Georgia, voters identify more with the Dem Party than the GOP.) Gallup summed up it up this way: “The political landscape of the United States has clearly shifted in the Democratic direction… As recently as 2002, a majority of states were Republican in orientation. By 2005, movement in the Democratic direction was becoming apparent, and this continued in 2006. That dramatic turnaround is clearly an outgrowth of Americans' dissatisfaction with the way the Republicans (in particular, President George W. Bush) governed the country.” That's what a mandate looks like.
John Adams Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Until I read that WSJ article this morning, I had assumed that the majority of this bill was infrastructure and bank support. I knew there would be plenty of junk (like the wooden arrow mfg industry in the TARP bill). And I could almost deal with that. Infrastructure is a nice win (creates job and related training) win (people with jobs spend) win (we get some good infrastructure to use). But a third of the bill is straight handouts: medicare, earned income credit (never a more absurd name!), and food stamps. That's not creating a single job. Buying cars for Congress doesn't sound like economic stimulus (I don't doubt it's necessary but why in this bill). Same with NEA funding. And on and on. I am stunned that this is getting pushed as a job creation/stimulus package. It's a load of warm turd and Obama should be ashamed for cramming it down people's throats.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Until I read that WSJ article this morning, I had assumed that the majority of this bill was infrastructure and bank support. I knew there would be plenty of junk (like the wooden arrow mfg industry in the TARP bill). And I could almost deal with that. Infrastructure is a nice win (creates job and related training) win (people with jobs spend) win (we get some good infrastructure to use). But a third of the bill is straight handouts: medicare, earned income credit (never a more absurd name!), and food stamps. That's not creating a single job. Buying cars for Congress doesn't sound like economic stimulus (I don't doubt it's necessary but why in this bill). Same with NEA funding. And on and on. I am stunned that this is getting pushed as a job creation/stimulus package. It's a load of warm turd and Obama should be ashamed for cramming it down people's throats. First, I think there are a LOT of things in that package that I personally don't think should be in there, and I think that the Democratic House/Pelosi, etc, are responsible for a lot of it. There are also a lot of things in there that I don't know and I bet virtually no one knows whether they will help the economy in the short or mid or long term or not. Most of it in fact. So I won't even say it's a good plan. But, if you total up all the garbage things that are in there that shouldn't be, it's probably only 1% of the 818 billion. Almost everyone I have heard on both sides thinks the food stamps and the expanded unemployment benefits stuff should be in there and immediately helps stimulate the economy. It makes me laugh that they consider tens of billions of roads and bridges projects to be jobs and essential but they don't count the tens of billions in rebuilding schools to be jobs and essential even though they are exactly the same jobs, done just as quickly, and just as essential to the future. Not to mention that $7 billion to modernize federal buildings are the same kinds of jobs. The billions and billions in renewable energy also creates jobs, and will be the exact kinds of jobs that 4-8-12-20 years from now will (hopefully) power America to be the biggest economy in the world again. That's money very well spent right now (granted, the right kinds of programs is what is going to matter, not the fact that the billions are being spent). The government may not need $600 million in new cars but it sure seems to me that it's still $600 million put right back into the economy right smack through the American car industry that desperately needs the sales. Again, I don't think this is a perfect plan by any stretch. But a lot of those complaints in that article and what I have been hearing from the naysayers are more foolish than some of the foolish elements of the plan. It was always, always, always supposed to do several things at once, which were 1] stop the bleeding first, 2] get the public some money so they can start spending, 3] get some ready to go projects of infrastructure going, 4] cut taxes on the short term, 5] plan for some jobs in the mid and long term (the green type jobs and the broadband access) that will eventually get us off oil, and 6] fix a lot of the education problems so that the new job force could keep up with the new world economy. There were other stated reasons too that weren't just instant stimulus or jobs. It was always supposed to be multi-faceted like that and was never supposed to be just an instant stimulus construction job creator. If you thought that, you just weren't ever listening. And a lot of the bank support stuff and housing stuff and credit relief stuff will be in other bills and are going on simultaneously, just never part of this bill.
Chump Change Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 It was always, always, always supposed to do several things at once, which were 1] stop the bleeding first, 2] get the public some money so they can start spending, 3] get some ready to go projects of infrastructure going, 4] cut taxes on the short term, 5] plan for some jobs in the mid and long term (the green type jobs and the broadband access) that will eventually get us off oil, and 6] fix a lot of the education problems so that the new job force could keep up with the new world economy. There were other stated reasons too that weren't just instant stimulus or jobs. It was always supposed to be multi-faceted like that and was never supposed to be just an instant stimulus construction job creator. If you thought that, you just weren't ever listening. And a lot of the bank support stuff and housing stuff and credit relief stuff will be in other bills and are going on simultaneously, just never part of this bill. Why not just automatically give all kids two A's? That'll fix the education problem real fast and be much cheaper. Kelly, please take the blinders off and admit it that this bill is chock full of Democratic pork that does nothing but satisfy and reward their consitiuency. This bill is NOT good for our nation.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Why not just automatically give all kids two A's? That'll fix the education problem real fast and be much cheaper. Kelly, please take the blinders off and admit it that this bill is chock full of Democratic pork that does nothing but satisfy and reward their consitiuency. This bill is NOT good for our nation. I just read about 200 pages of it. There are all kinds of projects in there, dozens and dozens and dozens, and jobs everywhere in almost all of them. For all kinds of workers and all kinds of industries, across the board. There is stuff for farmers, the military, students, scientists, it's really all over. And a lot of the projects that seem like pork (and are pork depending on how you look at it, is all about keeping or creating jobs in that arena. Or making loans available to entrepreneurs. Even the most dumb ones. Granted, there is ALL kinds of room for abuse and waste of money. And that will happen everywhere. But there is also all kinds of transparency and oversight. I will believe it when I see it, whether it comes close to lessening the waste. There is even some funny stuff in there, like no special projects money goes to the state of Illinois if Blagojevich is still there.
Fingon Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I just read about 200 pages of it. There are all kinds of projects in there, dozens and dozens and dozens, and jobs everywhere in almost all of them. For all kinds of workers and all kinds of industries, across the board. There is stuff for farmers, the military, students, scientists, it's really all over. And a lot of the projects that seem like pork (and are pork depending on how you look at it, is all about keeping or creating jobs in that arena. Or making loans available to entrepreneurs. Even the most dumb ones. Granted, there is ALL kinds of room for abuse and waste of money. And that will happen everywhere. But there is also all kinds of transparency and oversight. I will believe it when I see it, whether it comes close to lessening the waste. There is even some funny stuff in there, like no special projects money goes to the state of Illinois if Blagojevich is still there. Will some of the pork create jobs? Sure, but it will have no where near the rate of return of actual stimulative spending.
manateefan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 This is ridiculous. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1233104665...emEditorialPage The Bill. PDF file: http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf As confusing as this is, what I think is worse is giving banks money, they didn't account for it (where it was going), still won't lend money, and then some asked for more.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Will some of the pork create jobs? Sure, but it will have no where near the rate of return of actual stimulative spending. What exactly are you calling "actual stimulative spending"?
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 What exactly are you calling "actual stimulative spending"? I think to the draft equity you spend on the defensive line...
Fingon Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 What exactly are you calling "actual stimulative spending"? Tax cuts and spending on projects that can begin immediately, not 5 years down the road like the kind in the bill.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Tax cuts and spending on projects that can begin immediately, not 5 years down the road like the kind in the bill. 1] Most of the alleged pork projects are the ones that can be started right away. That is why they are there, because they can be started right away. 2] Again, the bill was always designed to both spend right away for jobs, as well as create/help industries that would not be temporary jobs (like construction) but long term jobs as well as job training and educating the work force which will help the economy long term and make the country back into an entity that makes and manufactures things.
finknottle Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 1] Most of the alleged pork projects are the ones that can be started right away. That is why they are there, because they can be started right away.2] Again, the bill was always designed to both spend right away for jobs, as well as create/help industries that would not be temporary jobs (like construction) but long term jobs as well as job training and educating the work force which will help the economy long term and make the country back into an entity that makes and manufactures things. Like $100 billion to increase the federal governments contribution to medicaid? Or $6 billion to weatherize modest income houses? How about $2 billion for childcare subsidies? What exactly are the long term jobs that these will lead too, and just how quickly will such spending make itself felt?
PastaJoe Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Like $100 billion to increase the federal governments contribution to medicaid? Or $6 billion to weatherize modest income houses? How about $2 billion for childcare subsidies? What exactly are the long term jobs that these will lead too, and just how quickly will such spending make itself felt? How about the medical personnel needed to provide services paid for by medicaid, or the workers who will do the weatherizing and the companies that produce the weatherizing materials, and the workers who provide childcare which allows parents to go to work at such jobs as rebuilding the infrastructure.
finknottle Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 How about the medical personnel needed to provide services paid for by medicaid, or the workers who will do the weatherizing and the companies that produce the weatherizing materials, and the workers who provide childcare which allows parents to go to work at such jobs as rebuilding the infrastructure. Yes, but how does that help the long-term economic competatitiveness of the US? Are we going to export nurses, insulation, and nannys? Who will pay their salaries in 10 years? Not the government - it will be hard pressed to tread water maintaining the debt. You cannot grow the economy by paying everybody to paint each others houses. This is not a stimulation bill, it is a handout.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Like $100 billion to increase the federal governments contribution to medicaid? Or $6 billion to weatherize modest income houses? How about $2 billion for childcare subsidies? What exactly are the long term jobs that these will lead too, and just how quickly will such spending make itself felt? 6/800 = 0.0075 (0.7%) 2/800 = 0.0025 (0.25%) Are these the portions of the bill you really want to beef over?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Like $100 billion to increase the federal governments contribution to medicaid? Or $6 billion to weatherize modest income houses? How about $2 billion for childcare subsidies? What exactly are the long term jobs that these will lead too, and just how quickly will such spending make itself felt? 1] I am not supporting all elements of this bill. 2] Not all elements of the bill, the point of my posts, are designed to create immediate jobs. 3] 6 billion to weatherize modest income homes is IMO a great way to get people to work immediately, help out the middle class with their bills and save energy in the future. There is little not to like in those type projects. 4] The Medicaid is to stop states from cutting out care because they can't pay for it, or to stop them from raising taxes TO pay for it. I don't personally want to argue whether or not that is a good idea because I frankly have no idea. The reasoning makes sense, but it may be a bad or at least unnecessary idea. I don't know. 5] It's my personal opinion that child care helps in a dozen ways, helps working women and men and families, both short and long term. David Brooks had an excellent column today in the NYT blasting the stimulus package for a dozen reasons. There isn't a lot he likes about it. And he brought up something from a former Clinton economic adviser that I also think would be a very good idea for the Democrats and Obama to do, although they won't. Which is, to just break this up into two bills, even if they are being worked on and voted on and implemented at the same time. The stimulus bill would be one thing and just be immediate, targeted, and temporary. The other bill would be all the other stuff for long term and growth and stuff like Medicaid to help the states. Again, I think that would be an excellent idea. Wise heads are now trying to restore structure and safeguards to the enterprise. In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/opinion/30brooks.html
Recommended Posts