Lets discuss the Obama Stimulus

[KD in CA]

The problem is that they are taking money from people who are productive and using it to create millions more government jobs. Since government jobs are permanent jobs, we're left with an ever increasing pool of people who (with few exceptions) do not add to the overall wealth of the country but who are being paid for by an ever shrinking pool of people that do. WNY is an excellent example of how this can destroy a region.

 

Some day -- maybe soon -- the bough will break.

[Acantha]

The sixteenth amendment allows for an income tax, taking from, as Beerball says, person a and reallocating it to some unknown person b (I'm getting to like beerball's definition) and that is the constitution, whether we like it or not. If the income tax makes us socialist (and there are people who think that.) thenwe are a socialist country...at least using beerball's (and maybe even my) definition.

Please quote in the 16th amendment where it says this (specifically the bolded part)

 

When you can't, please go read Article I and the quote where it says congress can give my money to another private citizen.

 

When you can't do that, maybe you quote some of they many places that put restrictions on what congress can do, just for fun.

[erynthered]

I had me a Firehouse sub. Yum yum!

 

Quit changing the subject you socialist bastard.

 

 

I thought this was about belly stimulus. mmmmmmmmmm, Pizza!

 

Firehouse subs are good too. What kind did you have? A ham and cheese with onion stimulus sub to make you cry sub?

 

Your grand children will be paying for that sub for a looooooong time.

 

 

GO USA!!

[Dan]

Doesn't take a genius. Borrowed money comes due at some point. And while the title of the thread and article may have started with Obama, the socialism question has nothing specifically to do with him, other than he is continuing what everyone else has done. So the whole, "they do it too" argument is worthless.

 

And if money is taken from me and given to another private citizen (or their business), it sure as hell IS socialism. There is no more clear definition.

 

Lets put it this way:

 

You are doing pretty well, have your houses rented and your gold piled up, and you and your family have 2 cars. Meanwhile, the family down the street got pulled into the credit expansion, is about to lose everything they have, and can't even afford 1 car. One night, an agent of the government comes and takes one of your cars and gives it to the neighbor, free of charge. It's only right, of course. Now this neighbor can use his car to get to a job, and everyone will benefit from that.

 

Sounds good, right? Can't be socialism, cause some how, some way you are going to benefit from him having a car (he'll be able to get a job, and the money he makes will be spent on good, etc...). Of course you probably aren't going to buy another car, cause it will just get taken away from you again, but you know, besides that...

 

Now, how is it different when the agent of the government takes your money instead of your car?

The primary problem with your analogy is that the Government isn't knocking on anyone's door and taking their money. Not yet, at least. The current "stimulus" and bail out bills aren't raising our taxes. In fact, quite a few people get some form of a tax break. So, the government isn't taking anything from me to give to someone else. All the current plans/bills do is take money that no one has and gives it to someone else. Now there's a whole separate argument - should the feds spend money they don't have? But, this bill is no more socialist than the existing and previous government spending of tax dollars; it just spend more of that money on more stuff at one time.

 

Will we raise taxes in the future to pay for this mess? Perhaps, but that's a later discussion.

 

Let me just add... I find it interesting that so many get so upset over giving the American people $787 billion, the majority of it coming in the form of jobs and tax cuts - so people will work for several hundred billion of it. Yet, we recently gave banks and other lending institutions several hundred billion and all they had to do was ask for it. We now have $350 billion given to the banks with no oversight and large amounts known to be wasted or literally just given to individuals to put in their private bank accounts and there's relatively little outrage in comparison - so much so, that we're about to give these same people another $300 billion or so. Now that's what I find most interesting about this whole "stimulus" bill debate.

[tennesseeboy]

Please quote in the 16th amendment where it says this (specifically the bolded part)

 

When you can't, please go read Article I and the quote where it says congress can give my money to another private citizen.

 

When you can't do that, maybe you quote some of they many places that put restrictions on what congress can do, just for fun.

The only things that Congress do..by definition..are the things it is allowed to do under the constitution. The income tax provides for the government to to take a disproportionate amount of money from me than from someone making less( in fairness it allows them to take more from the person (C, I guess) who make more than me. This is then reallocated throught various programs (bank bailouts, social security, spending for the military.) I hate to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, but the Constitution is what the Courts say it is (John Marshall kind of usurped that prerogative for the S. Ct.). We could go through a lot of Court cases involving income tax, sick chickens, the commerce clause and a whole passle of justices...but the fact is that under beerball's..and maybe my...definition we seem to be a socialist country by our own constitution. Which is "what the court says it is."

[tennesseeboy]

The problem is that they are taking money from people who are productive and using it to create millions more government jobs. Since government jobs are permanent jobs, we're left with an ever increasing pool of people who (with few exceptions) do not add to the overall wealth of the country but who are being paid for by an ever shrinking pool of people that do. WNY is an excellent example of how this can destroy a region.

 

Some day -- maybe soon -- the bough will break.

You are right that this creation of government jobs by the previous administration and building of a deficit and wasteful spending (how do you spell Iraq?) is bad. But the stimulus bill i've been looking at seems with the tax break not to be increasing govt jobs. With the state assistance it will barely keep essential functions running, with the infrastructure and energy portions it would necessary create bricks and mortar not government jobs. I understand your point and share your concern...but the stimulus bill just doesn't wash as a socialist program.

[Acantha]

The primary problem with your analogy is that the Government isn't knocking on anyone's door and taking their money. Not yet, at least. The current "stimulus" and bail out bills aren't raising our taxes. In fact, quite a few people get some form of a tax break. So, the government isn't taking anything from me to give to someone else. All the current plans/bills do is take money that no one has and gives it to someone else. Now there's a whole separate argument - should the feds spend money they don't have? But, this bill is no more socialist than the existing and previous government spending of tax dollars; it just spend more of that money on more stuff at one time.

 

Will we raise taxes in the future to pay for this mess? Perhaps, but that's a later discussion.

 

Let me just add... I find it interesting that so many get so upset over giving the American people $787 billion, the majority of it coming in the form of jobs and tax cuts - so people will work for several hundred billion of it. Yet, we recently gave banks and other lending institutions several hundred billion and all they had to do was ask for it. We now have $350 billion given to the banks with no oversight and large amounts known to be wasted or literally just given to individuals to put in their private bank accounts and there's relatively little outrage in comparison - so much so, that we're about to give these same people another $300 billion or so. Now that's what I find most interesting about this whole "stimulus" bill debate.

EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR that the government spends comes from us. When money is borrowed from other countries, we pay it back. Since it's so much, generally we only pay back the interest. As the interest goes up, more and more of our taxes (assuming there are no tax hikes) goes toward just interest on the our debt, and nothing else (military, government programs, etc...). That in itself is taking money from "us".

But what we are doing even more is "printing" the money from nothing. We DO pay this money back because of inflation. It's simple economics. I really wish people understood this more than they do. We ARE getting taxed through inflation. Our dollars will buy less than they did before the bailout because there are so many more of them in circulation. THAT IS A TAX.

 

If anyone can take anything away from this thread, it's hopefully that there is not one single dollar that the government spends that does not come from taxpayers. Period.

 

And for your other point, you get no interest from me. I haven't wanted any bailouts or intervention at all. I'm just as against this one as I was the last.

[Acantha]

The only things that Congress do..by definition..are the things it is allowed to do under the constitution. The income tax provides for the government to to take a disproportionate amount of money from me than from someone making less( in fairness it allows them to take more from the person (C, I guess) who make more than me. This is then reallocated throught various programs (bank bailouts, social security, spending for the military.) I hate to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, but the Constitution is what the Courts say it is (John Marshall kind of usurped that prerogative for the S. Ct.). We could go through a lot of Court cases involving income tax, sick chickens, the commerce clause and a whole passle of justices...but the fact is that under beerball's..and maybe my...definition we seem to be a socialist country by our own constitution. Which is "what the court says it is."

Ugh..nevermind. When your argument goes balls up, change to another one with just as many flaws. Great.

[tennesseeboy]

Fair enough. As the bard says..Let us do as adversaries do at law..strive mightily but eat and drink as friends!

[Dan]

EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR that the government spends comes from us. When money is borrowed from other countries, we pay it back. Since it's so much, generally we only pay back the interest. As the interest goes up, more and more of our taxes (assuming there are no tax hikes) goes toward just interest on the our debt, and nothing else (military, government programs, etc...). That in itself is taking money from "us".

But what we are doing even more is "printing" the money from nothing. We DO pay this money back because of inflation. It's simple economics. I really wish people understood this more than they do. We ARE getting taxed through inflation. Our dollars will buy less than they did before the bailout because there are so many more of them in circulation. THAT IS A TAX.

 

If anyone can take anything away from this thread, it's hopefully that there is not one single dollar that the government spends that does not come from taxpayers. Period.

 

And for your other point, you get no interest from me. I haven't wanted any bailouts or intervention at all. I'm just as against this one as I was the last.

I understand what you're saying, but the truth is we're not paying for it. That's why our national debt doubles every time a butterfly in China flaps its wings (ok I just threw that in there to get the China reference in). Our national debt has continued to soar for the last 8 years, yet our inflation has only slightly increased from 3.38% in 2000 to 3.85% in 2008 (in 2007 it was 2.85%). So how are we paying for it through inflation? (BTW I picked 8years, not as a smirk on Bush, but because the website went back 8 years)

 

Yes, you're right, fundamentally every dollar the government spends comes from us. However, they've gotten fairly adept at ignoring that concept and just spending ourselves right into China's back pocket. So, yes, we may and should eventually pay for this bail out/stimulus/war; but, to date we haven't and there's no plans for us to.

 

Interesting that you're not in favor of any of the bailout/stimulus. What would you suggest we do? I'm generally curious. Fundamentally, I completely agree. But, then I wonder would the price of doing nothing be more than we're ready to pay? It's kinda like the people that claim they want nothing from the government, but they forget they drive on roads, go to public school, are protected by the marines, drive cars, are typing on an internet message board, etc. It's easy to say you want none of it - but the reality is it's quite a different story to really live without it.

[Acantha]

I understand what you're saying, but the truth is we're not paying for it. That's why our national debt doubles every time a butterfly in China flaps its wings (ok I just threw that in there to get the China reference in). Our national debt has continued to soar for the last 8 years, yet our inflation has only slightly increased from 3.38% in 2000 to 3.85% in 2008 (in 2007 it was 2.85%). So how are we paying for it through inflation? (BTW I picked 8years, not as a smirk on Bush, but because the website went back 8 years)

We are certainly paying more than 3-4 percent inflation. The way inflation is officially calculated is absolutely insane (the CPI as taken from that link). They've even changed it over the years to get rid of specific factors that make it closer to reality. There are some very interesting books on the subject that break it all down, but it would be too hard to go through it all here.

Yes, you're right, fundamentally every dollar the government spends comes from us. However, they've gotten fairly adept at ignoring that concept and just spending ourselves right into China's back pocket. So, yes, we may and should eventually pay for this bail out/stimulus/war; but, to date we haven't and there's no plans for us to.

The reason we're able to keep putting things off is because the dollar is still the worlds trade currency. This will not always be the case. As our dollar weakens and it gets to expensive to buy American goods, the world will make a change. Whether it be the Euro, Yuan, or a yet to be named currency, the dollar is heading out. Once the rest of the world no longer wants to hold our dollar, we will have to pay the piper. It's a devastating prospect.

 

Interesting that you're not in favor of any of the bailout/stimulus. What would you suggest we do? I'm generally curious. Fundamentally, I completely agree. But, then I wonder would the price of doing nothing be more than we're ready to pay? It's kinda like the people that claim they want nothing from the government, but they forget they drive on roads, go to public school, are protected by the marines, drive cars, are typing on an internet message board, etc. It's easy to say you want none of it - but the reality is it's quite a different story to really live without it.

I don't have the time to get into this too much, but I will come back to it later. For now, all I can say is that continuing to do what got us here just doesn't make sense. If we hadn't had so much intervention in the first place, we wouldn't be looking up from such a deep hole right now. I won't change my beliefs just because things have gotten so bad.

 

And military and roads are part of the governments job (some federal, some state). The internet has nothing to do with it, and the more it's regulated, the more it will hurt. Department of Education...have you ever seen the statistics for general aptitude that span from before the government took control to after? IRS...how's that working?

There's no private functions that the federal government has taken over that they have not run into the ground with bureaucracy.

 

Also, I'm personally on the side of giving the powers back to the state, as called for in the constitution. Not saying the states would do things perfectly, of course they would not. But it's far better to screw up on a small scale and be able to fix that than it is to have the whole country brought down the way it is now.

[Dan]

We are certainly paying more than 3-4 percent inflation. The way inflation is officially calculated is absolutely insane (the CPI as taken from that link). They've even changed it over the years to get rid of specific factors that make it closer to reality. There are some very interesting books on the subject that break it all down, but it would be too hard to go through it all here.

I'm not sure what's best or not best, but regardless of how inflation is calculated, I'm betting that we'll see that the rate of inflation has not increased in proportion to our increasing debt. So do we have 3.85% inflation or 5%, it really doesn't matter for this discussion. What matters is has the inflation rate risen to match our debt, thereby indicating that we're currently paying for our current debt with inflation.

 

The reason we're able to keep putting things off is because the dollar is still the worlds trade currency. This will not always be the case. As our dollar weakens and it gets to expensive to buy American goods, the world will make a change. Whether it be the Euro, Yuan, or a yet to be named currency, the dollar is heading out. Once the rest of the world no longer wants to hold our dollar, we will have to pay the piper. It's a devastating prospect.

Yes, it is devastating to contemplate and perhaps a greater threat to our national security and way of life than anything we've known.

 

I don't have the time to get into this too much, but I will come back to it later. For now, all I can say is that continuing to do what got us here just doesn't make sense. If we hadn't had so much intervention in the first place, we wouldn't be looking up from such a deep hole right now. I won't change my beliefs just because things have gotten so bad.

 

And military and roads are part of the governments job (some federal, some state). The internet has nothing to do with it, and the more it's regulated, the more it will hurt. Department of Education...have you ever seen the statistics for general aptitude that span from before the government took control to after? IRS...how's that working?

There's no private functions that the federal government has taken over that they have not run into the ground with bureaucracy.

 

Also, I'm personally on the side of giving the powers back to the state, as called for in the constitution. Not saying the states would do things perfectly, of course they would not. But it's far better to screw up on a small scale and be able to fix that than it is to have the whole country brought down the way it is now.

Yes, military and roads are part of the government's job. But, if you say you want nothing from the government, then you're saying you don't want those roads or military. That's exactly my point.

 

The internet has just as much to do with it as anything. The government paid for the creation of ARPANET (the direct precursor to the internet) through the DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency. So, government spending in the early 1960's directly led to the creation of the internet that we're all using today.

 

You or I may not like the education being taught from public schools, but the reality is that without them, the majority of our country (myself included) would not get educated at all.

[Acantha]

I'm not sure what's best or not best, but regardless of how inflation is calculated, I'm betting that we'll see that the rate of inflation has not increased in proportion to our increasing debt. So do we have 3.85% inflation or 5%, it really doesn't matter for this discussion. What matters is has the inflation rate risen to match our debt, thereby indicating that we're currently paying for our current debt with inflation.

 

Yes, it is devastating to contemplate and perhaps a greater threat to our national security and way of life than anything we've known.

It does matter, because both of the above work together. And just to put it out there, actual inflation is generally calculated to between 7-9%. It will be more with what we are doing now. But again, we are paying with that inflation, with a larger percentage of our tax pool, and with the fact that our spending will very soon cause the collapse of our economy due to the dollar being trashed. These are all ways we are "paying".

EDIT: To expand on what I mean by "both work together": If we were any other country in the world, we would have to be paying all of this as it happened (through taxes and inflation). The only reason what you're saying works is because other countries are willing to hold our dollars. So while we create 1 billion, 750million is sitting in overseas banks waiting to be spent on the world market. If that wasn't happening, you would see inflation match the debt. And with each and every move we make to weaken our dollar (everything we borrow and everything we create our of thin air), we come closer to that reality.

 

Yes, military and roads are part of the government's job. But, if you say you want nothing from the government, then you're saying you don't want those roads or military. That's exactly my point.

I never said I wanted nothing. I said I wanted them to live within the restraints of the constitition. It's not all or nothing.

 

The internet has just as much to do with it as anything. The government paid for the creation of ARPANET (the direct precursor to the internet) through the DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency. So, government spending in the early 1960's directly led to the creation of the internet that we're all using today.

You can use any sample you like. Obviously speaking of just my personaly opinion, if it means not heading down the slippery slope of socialism, I'm willing to do without some of these things until the private sector gets to them itself.

 

You or I may not like the education being taught from public schools, but the reality is that without them, the majority of our country (myself included) would not get educated at all.

And if it is necessary, it falls under state control. There are MANY things "government" can do to change our lives that doesn't have to have the word Federal in front of it. If NY wants to tax to support education great! If Idaho residents decide that they want it all privatized, wonderful! And then I either get to choose where to live, or I fight to get my point of view across and get my elected officials voted in. The choice is there for me. That's what the US was founded on.

[Dan]

It does matter, because both of the above work together. And just to put it out there, actual inflation is generally calculated to between 7-9%. It will be more with what we are doing now. But again, we are paying with that inflation, with a larger percentage of our tax pool, and with the fact that our spending will very soon cause the collapse of our economy due to the dollar being trashed. These are all ways we are "paying".

EDIT: To expand on what I mean by "both work together": If we were any other country in the world, we would have to be paying all of this as it happened (through taxes and inflation). The only reason what you're saying works is because other countries are willing to hold our dollars. So while we create 1 billion, 750million is sitting in overseas banks waiting to be spent on the world market. If that wasn't happening, you would see inflation match the debt. And with each and every move we make to weaken our dollar (everything we borrow and everything we create our of thin air), we come closer to that reality.

I don't think we're completely disagreeing here. I agree we'll have to pay for this all someday and inflation will most likely be one mechanism of paying for it. However, the current federal debt has more than doubled in recent years. Has inflation more than doubled to pay for that? I don't see that as being the case. So, yes, it may increase in the future, but currently it has not. Hence, we're not yet paying for our federal spending of the last few years.

 

I never said I wanted nothing. I said I wanted them to live within the restraints of the constitition. It's not all or nothing.

 

You can use any sample you like. Obviously speaking of just my personaly opinion, if it means not heading down the slippery slope of socialism, I'm willing to do without some of these things until the private sector gets to them itself.

 

And if it is necessary, it falls under state control. There are MANY things "government" can do to change our lives that doesn't have to have the word Federal in front of it. If NY wants to tax to support education great! If Idaho residents decide that they want it all privatized, wonderful! And then I either get to choose where to live, or I fight to get my point of view across and get my elected officials voted in. The choice is there for me. That's what the US was founded on.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing for the decline of state's rights. Even the portions of the "stimulus" bill that provide for education funding are going to just give the states the money to spend on their schools. I don't think the feds are planning to circumvent the state's right to spend money on schools. In fact, several state's are considering not accepting portions of the fed cash because they don't want it.

 

The problem now, though, is that the states are as bankrupt as anyone. So, they can't spend. If they can't spend they lay people off, nix projects, etc. The feds are the only ones that can spend money they don't have.... hence they're saying they should. Not sure I agree with it, but I believe that's the logic.

 

How any of this is socialism is beyond me. The country has become well-footed in the idea that tax money should be given to private businesses whether it be to defense contractors or car manufacturers. How does the current bill take us any closer to socialism? It's merely continuing what most everyone is so fond of. Sure, Republicans don't like giving money to factory workers; they'd rather give it all to defense contractors or Exxon. While the Dems want to give it to everyone they can think of. But, what's the difference? We're still taking tax dollars and giving it to someone.

[Beerball]

I thought this was about belly stimulus. mmmmmmmmmm, Pizza!

 

Firehouse subs are good too. What kind did you have? A ham and cheese with onion stimulus sub to make you cry sub?

 

Your grand children will be paying for that sub for a looooooong time.

 

 

GO USA!!

I had me a NY Steamer, no mayo, with onions. It was yummy!

 

I was in your area code earlier this week. I shoulda let you know ! Anyway, I had a hoagie at La Spada's. One of the best I've had in a long time!

[Acantha]

I don't think we're completely disagreeing here. I agree we'll have to pay for this all someday and inflation will most likely be one mechanism of paying for it. However, the current federal debt has more than doubled in recent years. Has inflation more than doubled to pay for that? I don't see that as being the case. So, yes, it may increase in the future, but currently it has not. Hence, we're not yet paying for our federal spending of the last few years.

 

 

I'm not sure anyone is arguing for the decline of state's rights. Even the portions of the "stimulus" bill that provide for education funding are going to just give the states the money to spend on their schools. I don't think the feds are planning to circumvent the state's right to spend money on schools. In fact, several state's are considering not accepting portions of the fed cash because they don't want it.

 

The problem now, though, is that the states are as bankrupt as anyone. So, they can't spend. If they can't spend they lay people off, nix projects, etc. The feds are the only ones that can spend money they don't have.... hence they're saying they should. Not sure I agree with it, but I believe that's the logic.

 

How any of this is socialism is beyond me. The country has become well-footed in the idea that tax money should be given to private businesses whether it be to defense contractors or car manufacturers. How does the current bill take us any closer to socialism? It's merely continuing what most everyone is so fond of. Sure, Republicans don't like giving money to factory workers; they'd rather give it all to defense contractors or Exxon. While the Dems want to give it to everyone they can think of. But, what's the difference? We're still taking tax dollars and giving it to someone.

And as I've said repeatedly in this thread, I don't care about this administration or the last one. They're all the same. Though at this point (in the last two administrations), it has gotten to the point where they don't even pretend to use the money for constitutional means. They are simply saying, "give us your money so we can give it other citizens." And also as I've said before, that is the definition of socialism (in addition to government owning financial institutions and private industry, which is also happening with these bailouts).

While I don't really consider it so much worse than what they've been doing for around a century when you really break it all down (I think it's all really bad), I do think there is a danger in the fact that they are able to be so brazen about it without anyone caring. At least when they were trying to hide it I could use the excuse that the average citizen didn't know any better. Now it's just, eh...whatever. In other words, the fact that country is well-footed in the idea..., sucks.

 

And as for state's rights, they might as well be non-existent. Does anyone actually know anymore what Article I and the 10th Amendment say? The federal governments powers are supposed to be almost nothing but protecting rights (to include military). Almost everything else goes to the states. Yet today, the Federal Government controls everything. By they way, how is the federal government taking money from the whole country and giving it to states in line with the example I gave? It's exactly the opposite. The citizens of each state and their reps have no rights in the matter. Well, outside of giving up money but not taking any of their own money back. What?

[/dev/null]

An email somebody at work forwarded to me...

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:37

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: FW: Ice Cream & The Election

 

 

Subject: FW: Ice Cream & The Election

 

 

Who worries about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream?

 

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade

this year.

 

The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an

interest.

 

I decided we would have an election for a class president.

 

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the

class would vote.

 

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

 

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

 

We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run

for the top spot.

 

The class had done a great job in their selections.

 

Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage

because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

 

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first.

 

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended

by promising to do his very best.

 

Everyone applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech

was concise.

 

She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat

down.

 

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely could say

more. She did not have to.

 

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't

sure.

 

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn't know.

 

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.

 

Jamie was forgotten.

 

Olivia won by a landslide.

 

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and fifty-two

percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.

 

The other forty-eight percent of us know we're going to have to feed the cow

and clean up the mess.

[drnykterstein]

"The Stimulus will lead America in the direction of Western New York"

 

Because people are going to leave the US and move south?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Isn't the stimulus package socialism at it's finest?

Socialism for you clowns is a nice label for anything you don't agree with.... good name calling.

 

That being said, government involvement in banks is socialistic in its nature... The stimulus part is less defined. Furthermore, with the economy in the dumper for the short-term, some stringing out of the pain while we go through the inevitable business cycle exacerbated by the trickle dicks and spree marketers in the extreme is more Keynsian IMO is necessary. But whatever, nice ad-hominid attack piece.

[erynthered]

I had me a NY Steamer, no mayo, with onions. It was yummy!

 

I was in your area code earlier this week. I shoulda let you know ! Anyway, I had a hoagie at La Spada's. One of the best I've had in a long time!

 

 

Definitely one of the better places around here to get a great Steak Hoagie. They also have one at Progress Energy Field where the Phillies have spring training. How ironic, no?

 

Next time look me up.