Obama certainly is bringing people together...

[Gene Frenkle]

I now understand why you are such a solid supporter and defender of Obama. You both will admit you have no idea about the details on a situation, yet will not let that simple fact stop you from forming an opinion and criticizing people any way. It's a marriage made in heaven.

 

You should meet the people of St. Louis one day. They're a pretty amazing group of people whom I've had the pleasure of spending a lot of time with in my past. You might learn something from them.

Whatever. I pick and choose my battles and it seems to me that you would need a degree or three in economics to get your head wrapped around much of this stuff. Then again, you don't see me jumping up and down for or against any of it. That doesn't make me apathetic, but I am willing to admit my limitations (unlike some). There is no requirement that a conscientious member of society have a strong opinion on each and every issue.

 

As for Obama's willingness to admit ignorance, it's a welcome change. A good leader surrounds himself with smart, competent people and leans on them for advice. This is the antithesis of the 'Dear Leader' moniker that some like to label him with.

[Gene Frenkle]

On a related note....there is a 3-6 month wait time on ammuntion of any consequence.

 

The Latte' sippers may not see how that is related.....

Did you buy it all up in anticipation of the Swine Flu Apocalypse?

[IDBillzFan]

Whatever. I pick and choose my battles and it seems to me that you would need a degree or three in economics to get your head wrapped around much of this stuff.

You don't need a degree or three in economics to know that saddling three generations of Americans with repaying wasteful earmark spending under the guise of "the only way to save the economy" while holding up a $10/week tax decrease as somehow being a side benefit is about as ridiculous a concept as you can come up with. Hell, you don't need ANY degree to realize the disgusting way a government gives BILLIONS in taxpayer funds to car manufacturers, who in turn take a bunch of that money and actually spend it to lobby the very government who gave them the money in the first place. If this were the mob, it would be called money laundering. But it's the government, so it's considered "hope and change."

[Gene Frenkle]

You don't need a degree or three in economics to know that saddling three generations of Americans with repaying wasteful earmark spending under the guise of "the only way to save the economy" while holding up a $10/week tax decrease as somehow being a side benefit is about as ridiculous a concept as you can come up with. Hell, you don't need ANY degree to realize the disgusting way a government gives BILLIONS in taxpayer funds to car manufacturers, who in turn take a bunch of that money and actually spend it to lobby the very government who gave them the money in the first place. If this were the mob, it would be called money laundering. But it's the government, so it's considered "hope and change."

Your opinion smacks of anger, frustration and emotion. I respectfully disagree.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You don't need a degree or three in economics to know that saddling three generations of Americans with repaying wasteful earmark spending under the guise of "the only way to save the economy" while holding up a $10/week tax decrease as somehow being a side benefit is about as ridiculous a concept as you can come up with. Hell, you don't need ANY degree to realize the disgusting way a government gives BILLIONS in taxpayer funds to car manufacturers, who in turn take a bunch of that money and actually spend it to lobby the very government who gave them the money in the first place. If this were the mob, it would be called money laundering. But it's the government, so it's considered "hope and change."

And that to paraphrase AD is what is wrong with our two party system, because over the last (x#@#@$) years both sides have been doing it, no matter who has been in power. Government isn't all bad, at times it is very good, but there is a lot of waste and I still can't figure our how these congress critters can get away with putting in as many pork barrel projects as they do. I think we do need the line-item veto and to repeat myself, I miss the Clinton - Tom Delay days of balanced budget and limited pork barrel projects.

[IDBillzFan]

Your opinion smacks of anger, frustration and emotion. I respectfully disagree.

Yes, I guess these days if you're angry and frustrated with your government, you're a teabagging idiot. Remember this: in due time you'll realize that you're not disagreeing with me because you're okay with the way things are going but rather because you still think that the ridiculousness that has been the last six months will somehow not get worse than it really is.

 

That's okay. Admitting there's a problem is half the problem. When you're ready, we'll be here for you.

[Gene Frenkle]

Yes, I guess these days if you're angry and frustrated with your government, you're a teabagging idiot. Remember this: in due time you'll realize that you're not disagreeing with me because you're okay with the way things are going but rather because you still think that the ridiculousness that has been the last six months will somehow not get worse than it really is.

 

That's okay. Admitting there's a problem is half the problem. When you're ready, we'll be here for you.

No, the point is: have an informed, factual, reasoned point or STFU. The best point is not often the loudest point.

[blzrul]

No, the point is: have an informed, factual, reasoned point or STFU. The best point is not often the loudest point.

Don't take offense but...anyone who expects an "informed, factual, reasoned point" should NOT be expecting to find it HERE.

[Gene Frenkle]

Don't take offense but...anyone who expects an "informed, factual, reasoned point" should NOT be expecting to find it HERE.

So true!

[Kelly the Dog]

You don't need a degree or three in economics to know that saddling three generations of Americans with repaying wasteful earmark spending under the guise of "the only way to save the economy" while holding up a $10/week tax decrease as somehow being a side benefit is about as ridiculous a concept as you can come up with.

Ummm... there weren't any "earmarks" in the stimulus bill. It's argued by some that there were a couple dozen projects in there that could be called earmarks even though they didn't really fit the definition of earmarks, but even if you counted all of them, it would be a tiny fraction of the stimulus bill. Maybe one percent. In the 400+ billion omnibus spending bill, all 9000 or so earmarks totaled less than two percent of the bill. So maybe you should get your facts straight.

[Magox]

In my world making intelligent cuts in government spending is a good thing.

 

In my world I don't watch or pay attention to any of the people you mentioned.

 

 

In my world, correlation != causation. But I don't live in California, so I obviously have no perspective.

 

 

Well, we can agree on that part at least.

What I can agree with is that in your world it is ok to tax the rich even more so because you don't believe it will affect you, but in the real world, taxing the rich further, affects everyone.

[Simon]

And that to paraphrase AD is what is wrong with our two party system, because over the last (x#@#@$) years both sides have been doing it, no matter who has been in power.

No it's only the "left", whatever the hell that is.

Ask LA to explain it; he must be well versed as it's all he ever talks about (or at least was when I finally started scrolling past his posts instead of reading them).

[Magox]

Ummm... there weren't any "earmarks" in the stimulus bill. It's argued by some that there were a couple dozen projects in there that could be called earmarks even though they didn't really fit the definition of earmarks, but even if you counted all of them, it would be a tiny fraction of the stimulus bill. Maybe one percent. In the 400+ billion omnibus spending bill, all 9000 or so earmarks totaled less than two percent of the bill. So maybe you should get your facts straight.

He did mention the tax cut, not just the "earmark", didn't he?

 

But to call this a stimulus bill is laughable. Less than 10% of the bill is in infrastructure, and less than half of that is to be used this year. But hey, the stimulus bill is working it did save us from reaching 8% unemployment.

[Kelly the Dog]

He did mention the tax cut, not just the "earmark", didn't he?

 

But to call this a stimulus bill is laughable. Less than 10% of the bill is in infrastructure, and less than half of that is to be used this year. But hey, the stimulus bill is working it did save us from reaching 8% unemployment.

Um, it's not called the stimulus bill, it's called the American Recovery and Reinvestment bill, because it wasn't supposed to be just stimulus.

 

If you go back and read what I said about about the stimulus bill before, during and after it was passed, and if you go back and read what the President and White House said about the bill, it was never ever ever just supposed to be stimulus. It was always always always supposed to do numerous things, short, mid and long term. They even intentionally didnt name the damn thing a "stimulus" bill because it had a dozen facets to it that weren't stimulus.

 

And it did need to be done right away, regardless of when the infrastructure money was going to get out because hundreds of billions were in tax breaks, 40 billion or so went to the states to pay their budgets and workers, tens of billions went to extend unemployment benefits to citizens that had lost their jobs, etc, that weren't "stimulus".

[Dwight Drane]

Did you buy it all up in anticipation of the Swine Flu Apocalypse?

 

Me and 10,000,000 others.

[Magox]

Um, it's not called the stimulus bill, it's called the American Recovery and Reinvestment bill, because it wasn't supposed to be just stimulus.

 

If you go back and read what I said about about the stimulus bill before, during and after it was passed, and if you go back and read what the President and White House said about the bill, it was never ever ever just supposed to be stimulus. It was always always always supposed to do numerous things, short, mid and long term. They even intentionally didnt name the damn thing a "stimulus" bill because it had a dozen facets to it that weren't stimulus.

 

And it did need to be done right away, regardless of when the infrastructure money was going to get out because hundreds of billions were in tax breaks, 40 billion or so went to the states to pay their budgets and workers, tens of billions went to extend unemployment benefits to citizens that had lost their jobs, etc, that weren't "stimulus".

Oh come on!! Now you are just talking semantics, and you are taking to this to a whole new level of homerdum, if you were to ask 100 people in the U.S what the bill was called, the vast majority of people would say it was the "stimulus" bill. AND YES, it was suppose to give our economy a "jolt", it Was suppose to be a stimulus bill, yes it was, you can keep denying it, but anyone who is not biased will see it for what it is. I recall very clearly, that they were selling us their usual fear mongering, "if we don't pass _____, then unemployment will reach 8%". Admit it, the bill didn't work out the way they thought it would.

 

That is why people laugh at this bill, because it was not stimulative.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh come on!! Now you are just talking semantics, and you are taking to this to a whole new level of homerdum, if you were to ask 100 people in the U.S what the bill was called, the vast majority of people would say it was the "stimulus" bill. AND YES, it was suppose to give our economy a "jolt", it Was suppose to be a stimulus bill, yes it was, you can keep denying it, but anyone who is not biased will see it for what it is. I recall very clearly, that they were selling us their usual fear mongering, "if we don't pass _____, then unemployment will reach 8%". Admit it, the bill didn't work out the way they thought it would.

 

That is why people laugh at this bill, because it was not stimulative.

Yes, it was supposed to have a bunch of "stimulus" in it. Which it does. I can't help if people don't actually follow things and read about them and listen to what people say and know what they are talking about.

 

The "stimulus" elements of the bill that you're talking about, which were perhaps a third of it, have not worked quickly, that is for sure, you will see a lot more of them in the next 7 quarters, because that is when they are supposed to roll out.

 

In fact, it's downright laughable that a huge portion of the complaints the conservatives were making when the bill came out was that so little of it was "stimulus" -- such a small percentage of it would be put into the system quickly -- and so much of the "stimulus" wasn't expected to come into effect until the end of 2009 and through 2010! Oh, the horrors!

 

NOW, five months later, the same people are saying WHERE is the stimulus?! How come only a small percentage like 10% has come out already?! How come this stuff won't come out for another half year or year?!

 

You know, all the stuff they knew before, and all the stuff the White House knew before because they put it in there.

[Chef Jim]

I've read that the end is in sight, but again, I couldn't tell you exactly why.

 

You know why? Recessions end. They always do.

[IDBillzFan]

No it's only the "left", whatever the hell that is.

Ask LA to explain it; he must be well versed as it's all he ever talks about (or at least was when I finally started scrolling past his posts instead of reading them).

I've been critical of the right. I was critical of Bush in his last term. I was particularly critical of McCain and his moronic ideas. And there are a crapload of other Republicans currently in office who are an embarrassment to conservative ideals, and by no means are the problems we face right now strictly a left thing. But in case you haven't noticed, or maybe you just don't care and wanted to randomly take a shot, the Democrats own everything right now. I disagree with cap-n-trade. I disagree with the way they're trying to address health care reform, and being a conservative, I'm not really big on the idea that the way to "reform" things like health care is to just tap into the pockets of the rich simply because they need to be made to be more neighborly.

 

If you believe all of this is good for the country, then say so and tell me why. Otherwise, scroll on.

 

Ummm... there weren't any "earmarks" in the stimulus bill. It's argued by some that there were a couple dozen projects in there that could be called earmarks even though they didn't really fit the definition of earmarks, but even if you counted all of them, it would be a tiny fraction of the stimulus bill. Maybe one percent. In the 400+ billion omnibus spending bill, all 9000 or so earmarks totaled less than two percent of the bill. So maybe you should get your facts straight.

Semantics again. Fine. They're not earmarks. And we'll forever be thankful that grape genetics and the marsh mouse will put people back to work with their shovel ready jobs. But there's a reason Americans are turning against the administration and its plans. It's because America wasn't paying as close attention to the sales pitch as you did. Clearly when there was all that press about shovel ready work and stopping unemployment at 8%, people just didn't read the little asterisk that said "Please note: this plan is not really a stimulus plan and the 8% comment wasn't said by Obama himself and while we cried over and over that we need this bill to save the world, we really mean we're going to save it in two or three years, not right now. So it's an emergency, but not really. Thank you for your time."

[Kelly the Dog]

Semantics again. Fine. They're not earmarks. And we'll forever be thankful that grape genetics and the marsh mouse will put people back to work with their shovel ready jobs. But there's a reason Americans are turning against the administration and its plans. It's because America wasn't paying as close attention to the sales pitch as you did. Clearly when there was all that press about shovel ready work and stopping unemployment at 8%, people just didn't read the little asterisk that said "Please note: this plan is not really a stimulus plan and the 8% comment wasn't said by Obama himself and while we cried over and over that we need this bill to save the world, we really mean we're going to save it in two or three years, not right now. So it's an emergency, but not really. Thank you for your time."

Please read this article. Read it twice. And then think about what it is saying.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328