How to Spend $1,000,000,000,000.00 in 7 Days
by Mark Noonan on January 2nd, 2009 at 01:02pm
We had a phrase in the Navy - “BOHICA”, Bend Over, Here It Comes Again. I just hope Obama and his Democrats are kind enough to kiss us after they’re done:
Sources said Obama and Pelosi will discuss the scope and timing of the economic recovery package, which Obama has said will be his first priority upon being sworn into office. Pelosi has said her goal is to have the legislation on the new president’s desk and ready to be signed on Jan. 20.
But that schedule appears increasingly likely to slip, as Republicans and conservative Democrats are raising concerns about the impact on the federal deficit of spending hundreds of billions on an array of projects with little vetting by Congress. Lawmakers now expect a spending package of between $675 billion and $775 billion.
And a top congressional aide said yesterday that Democratic leaders in the House are still waiting for a detailed proposal to be delivered by Obama’s economic advisers before lawmakers can begin the process of turning it into legislation.
Even so, congressional Democrats are anxious to get the process started so that a vote can take place in the House as early as the week of Jan. 12. Pelosi announced yesterday that the first hearing on the plan will take place Wednesday…
…Obama aides said the president-elect and his team will help make an all-out push to convince Americans that the government must spend almost $1 trillion to create jobs, provide cash for spending and shore up the finances of the state governments.
Yeeehaw!!!! Lets go spend some MONEY!!! We’ll pass the swag around to everyone who has their hand out! Mismanaged your corporation into bankruptcy? No problem, here’s some money! Spent your State into insolvency? Big deal, here’s some money! Need to reward corrupt union bosses who helped get out the vote? We’ve got you covered! Here at the Obamathon it doesn’t matter what the money is for, as long as it gets spent and helps Obama get re-elected in 2012!
Gonna be a long four years, boys and girls.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
It would be kind of nice to know what the details of the plan are before attacking it, don’t you think. All of the corporate bailouts so far have come through the Bush administration. Why aren’t you attacking him?
Of course the alternative to what Obama is proposing is to do nothing, which most of the experts agree will result in a major depression. That’s not saying that Obama will be able to stop or even slow down a depression, but at least he’s trying.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The $618,000,000,000 spent hunting for non-existent WMDs was certainly a sound investment.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Deleted - Obscenity, troll.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
YOU could be getting some of that money, Mark.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
mule,
Let’s see - you tax away a dollar from me, filter it through a bureaucracy for a while and then give me back 90 depreciated cents and I’m supposed to be happy about this? Our good friend Casper advises that we should learn the details before rendering judgment - but we won’t know the details. No one will - not the Senators and Representatives who will write, debate and vote on the bill, not the lobbyists who will go hog wild, not the press which will presume to tell us what the bill is all about, not the businessmen who will take it into consideration, not the President who will sign it into law and not you and me, who will foot the bill.
It will spend upwards of $1 trillion and Pelosi wants it on the President’s desk a week after the process starts. In that short a time, with that much going on, there is no one on God’s green Earth who will be able to know what it actually does - which means, in the end, that everyone who has any authority at all - including many whom Obama will have no idea even exist - will decide what it does. Thus the chances that any of it - even supposing government spending can ever be helpful - will do what it is intended will be pure, dumb luck.
This is a bit of stupidity which will amaze the perceptive and wow the gullible - just at the New Deal and Great Society programs amazed and wowed as appropriate. It is the appearance of doing something, but it will do nothing regarding our actual plight.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“Let’s see - you tax away a dollar from me, filter it through a bureaucracy for a while and then give me back 90 depreciated cents and I’m supposed to be happy about this?”
I think what Mule is talking about is the possibility that it might save your job. Which frankly, I would consider money well spent.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Mark,
Pretty amazing your transformation over the last couple of years. Just a couple of years ago you were defending Bush’s overspending as being trivial. Of course, he was spending much of the money on a war rather than his own country.
Now Obama wants to spend money to improve the country’s infrastructure and head off a depression and you would think it was the end of the world. Did Bush do such a bad job that now you’ve lost your faith in our government?
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
casper: I think what Mule is talking about is the possibility that it might save your job. Which frankly, I would consider money well spent.
Well, there’s that Mars shot. Lol!
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Mark: Our good friend Casper advises that we should learn the details before rendering judgment - but we won’t know the details. No one will - not the Senators and Representatives who will write, debate and vote on the bill, not the lobbyists who will go hog wild, not the press which will presume to tell us what the bill is all about, not the businessmen who will take it into consideration, not the President who will sign it into law and not you and me, who will foot the bill.
I remind all that this is from the guy who assured us just days ago that economic issues weren’t all that hard. Now, it appears, his only proscribed recourse is to take things on faith in one or another ideology. My advice, Mark, is to suspend your campaign until you figure out what to do.
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“Well, there’s that Mars shot. Lol!”
I could see how that would be something Mark and Matt might be interested in. I mean there are no liberals on Mars. They could start their own perfect society. And if Mark and Matt were the only ones there abortion would be a none issue.
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“non issue”
Sorry
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Casper,
I knew what I was getting for high military spending - victory in war. What am I getting for this trillion in spending? You don’t know and you can’t know - and neither will our alleged leaders.
I’m sure a road or two will be paved and we’ll get a new bridge here and there - but if you think this bonanza in new spending will head off a recession, then you’ve got rocks in your head. It just doesn’t work that way - and its all part of the non-rocket-science aspect of economics…if you take money from one part of the economy and shuffle it off to another part you’ve had a net gain of zero, and likely a net loss as some of it gets stuck to bureaucratic fingers. If you want growth you have to create new wealth. Government can’t do that - even if it calls into being a new industry, it still took wealth from someone else to do it, and thus the net is zero, or perhaps a loss…its never, ever going to be a gain.
Now, if we’re going to rob Peter to pay Paul, then lets at least do it right - not by sending money to incompetent State governments; not by sending it to incompetent corporations; not by sending it to incompetent unions…send it to Joe and Jane Average who are willing to also risk their own time and wealth in starting up new businesses or revitalizing old, failed businesses. All we’re going to get out of the Obama-Pelosi plan (and we GOPers, by the way, will do our best to see that a name like that is clearly attached to all that happens - we’ve got the mid-terms coming up, ya know?, and we’re already feeling bullish) is worthless, corrupt and corrupting spending.
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
How to Spent $1,000,000,000,000.00 in 7 Days
Where’s the spelling police, for crying out loud! Someone call 000,000,000,009.11. Lol!
(Ed. Note wonders just where you see such an error?)
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Yeah casper, you obviously have rocks in your head. Never mind that massive government spending to re-tool the automotive and ship-building industries prior to and during WWII. Never mind the government spending on hydroelectric projects circa 1930-1960 that helped to change the fabric of American society. Never mind the interstate highway projects from 1950 or so on that helped change the fabric even more. Never mind the money invested in (and given away on) the intercontinental railway system before that. Never mind the federal money invested in silicon wafers, or developing computers, or the internet, or developing vaccines, or computer aided tomography, or myriad other technologies. It’s all a commie conspiracy I tell ya, pure and simple.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Note wonders just where you see such an error?
Dear Note: you are mixing the perfect tense with the past tense in the phrase, “How to Spent…”
(Ed. Note notes that if you want to catch a blogger in an error, you have to save a screen shot…)
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Thank you for your correction.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
All we’re going to get out of the Obama-Pelosi plan (and we GOPers, by the way, will do our best to see that a name like that is clearly attached to all that happens - we’ve got the mid-terms coming up, ya know?
By all means let’s call it the Obama-Pelosi plan. people should get credit for what they do. I’m just hoping the Obama-Pelosi plan will get us out of the Bush recession.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
IMOthe bes tinvestment
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
In other countries, they have intricate transit systems with trains that travel more than 90 miles an hour through many towns. Here, we have a few train tracks every few towns, and they go 55 miles an hour. To build up our train system to one like Japan or Germany’s, but on a scale to fit our country, is no small endeavor. It could employ many, many people. Also, our power infrastructure. Most people think that we have a huge national grid of intricate and efficient lines that criss-cross throughout the country. Not at all! To be an electron going from NY to LA is like getting across the country without using a highway. Again, many people could be employed to fix this. And Mark, you underestimate the problems in our existing infrastructure. I don’t live far from the Tappan Zee bridge, a large span that crosses the wide Hudson river. It is meant to hold 40,000 cars a fay. Today, it holds 100,000! Many similar stories exist.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Please ignore the last post. My keyboard is going bonkers.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Mark,
Small businesses aren’t going to fix the roads, upgrade our power grid, improve mass transit, retool our factories, or retrain our workers. There are some some businesses that are doing some really cool things with solar and wind energy and they should be encouraged as much as possible. Like it or not, there are some projects that require big government.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Casper,
Not saying there isn’t - but such things don’t create wealth.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Mark,
Would you say that the people have used the internet to create wealth (think amazon, google, etc.)? It started out as a big government project. Think of the businesses that started up along the interstate. Would Las Vegas exist without Hoover Dam?
People take advantage of new infrastructure to create new businesses and new wealth.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Mark: Not saying there isn’t - but such things don’t create wealth.
With all due respect, that qualifies among the top ten of the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Mind you, I am not trying to imply you are a dumb person, just what you said is dumb. And further, I’m not saying that because of the level of ignorance implied per se. I’m saying it because of all the other things I’ve said and all the other links from myriad sources I’ve provided in previous posts over the last several months, essentially none of which have been contested — or probably even read — by you. That implies willful ignorance. Said another way, it implies you don’t want to learn.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
When I spoke about the train system, that is a great chance to improve wealth in the private sector. Companies would probably fiercely compete for contracts to build the system. The government must start the project, but it is the private sector that can finish it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 am
“knew what I was getting for high military spending - victory in war. What am I getting for this trillion in spending?”
How about the same lifestyle you have for all those fetuses you are always trying to save from the the abortionists?
Future generations Mark, hello? Someone has to keep this America thing going after you are dead.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
dejah,
What I’m saying is that I don’t know what it will do - neither do you. Nor does Obama. Its just a big, ol’ pile of money to be spent on Lord only knows what.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
Casper and Ricorun,
It still doesn’t create wealth because the government must take the wealth from those who already have it - either immediately via taxation, or over time via bond sales. No matter how you slice it, government spending is a net negative - its can’t be anything but. It is, at times, necessary, but it doesn’t in and of itself create wealth - and the way out of our economic morass is to create wealth.
More to the point of this thread - even supposing that it, government spending, did create wealth, there is no way you or anyone else is going to know, in total, what this trillion dollar spending spree is actually buying. If you have visions of government bureaucrats hope-n-changed into duplicates of Mother Theresa using this trillion only for the good of the people, then you’re so far past naive that “drooling idiot” is fast coming into view.
Its a rushed-through boondoggle brought to us by tax and spend liberals who have long been denied, since 1981 with slight divergences in 1991 and 1993, the chance to really spend like drunken sailors. We’ve got a serious economic crisis going on here and its not going to be solved by providing funding for bloated, union contracts for highway construction.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 am
Mark,
You are still missing the point. Government built infrastructure doesn’t create wealth by itself. What it can do is make it easier for businesses to create new wealth. The internet is government built infrastructure. Think of the hundreds of businesses that have been created to use the internet. Think outside the box. We are not just talking new highways. In fact, lots of new highways would be a bad investment, because they would require repaving in another ten years. Investments in energy infrastructure would IMO, be a much better investment at this point. It could decrease our dependence on foreign oil while providing more jobs here in America.
My original point was that we need to know what the plan is before criticizing it. If it looks like it is all going to Obama’s supporters, much like a lot of money for Iraq went to Bush supporters like Haliburton and Blackwater, I will be joining you in criticizing the plan.
Frankly, You would have a lot more credibility in this area, if you hadn’t spent the last eight years defending all of Bush’s spending. It seems like you are fine with government spending as long as it’s the republicans that are doing the spending.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 am
It would be kind of nice to know what the details of the plan are before attacking it, don’t you think.
Was that a question? Use a question mark. You’re a teacher? The standards sure have dropped since my school years.
And aren’t you a hypocrite? Ever since you “converted,” and became a kook, all you’ve done is attack Bush. You’re not very honest, Casspurr…
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 am
Dear Ms. Piglosi and Mr. Reidtard,
What happened to “pay as you go?”
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
What happened to the worry projected by liberals about saddling our children and grandchildren with debt?
Oh, that’s right, the other party was in power.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Wait…..
To the libs, it’s not $1 TRILLION in spending.
IT’S $1 TRILLION in “investments”. They are investing in our future, our childre! How can we be against that?
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
33. tiredoflibbs | January 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Let’s say they don’t do this and the global economy, wrecklessly tied to the US economy for too many decades, slips into Depression. When does this become an economic issue for you and not a political one?
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Casper,
First off, it is pure nonsense for anyone to say I was a defender of all of Bush’s spending - I wish he had used his veto pen far more often…but, on the other hand, what he was trying to do by going along with a lot of the domestic spending was reaching out to Democrats who, naturally, spit in his hand (but, also, took the money). What you really need to do it get past the BDS you’ve exhibited and start to look at things as they are in reality.
Now, as to Obama’s plan - what I’m saying is that you DON’T KNOW WHAT IT WILL DO. For the sake of argument (and for the third time in this thread), I’ll concede that government spending can net beneficial to the economy - but in this $1 trillion dollar bonanza to be cobbled together in a week, you don’t have a clue what is really going to be happening. Its not a matter of “learn the details, then decide to support or oppose”, its “they’re going to pass this thing and over the NEXT TEN YEARS the details will emerge”. By the time you can martial the arguments for or against, it will already be done - and if its nothing but a boondoggle, it’ll already have happened so any putative opposition to it is moot.
As I’ve also said elsewhere, lets spend money stimulating and bailing out - we’ve got a liberal, Democratic President and Congress and this is in accord with the expressed will of the American people, however mistaken I believe it to be. But if we’re going to spend a trillion dollars, lets have a care about it - the economy is already on its way down and if we appropriate a trillion on January 20th or on March 20th, its not going to make a difference in FY 2009. So, lets go to March and carefully review what everyone wants and what we are capable of doing and what our desired effect is to be.
Unless, that is, you’re just a blind partisan who wants to YEHAAAW!!! spend money because Obama and Pelosi say its ok…
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
…and, also, you should be a bit more sensible to the politics of it all…allowing this much money to flow out of the Treasury with this little preparation and public debate means its almost existentially certain that a lot of it will be wasted…each dollar wasted becomes a GOP campaign theme in 2010 and 2012…
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The spending plan is much like an animal born into captivity. It must raised and taught by human hands (a.k.a, the government ), but a time comes when it must be released. The government must start the projects, but only the private sector can finish it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Mark, I do not doubt that the spending will be a GOP campaign theme in 2010 and 2012. But pepole will still remember the past eight years. You can degrade us, but what your party needs to be doing is raise itself up.
As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners. Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?
But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.
The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.
But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Mule,
Your theory falls flat on the fact that the rise of the GOP to power in the 1980’s wasn’t predicated upon playing a racial game - neither directly nor with code words, as the really absurd liberal theory goes about. No, we rose to power because liberalism was an abject and objective failure in every aspect of its policy prescriptions. It will be, again, because it is all based on false premises. You on your side just go on there thinking that you’ve won because Liberal Truth has routed Conservative Lies - we’ll whack you from pillar to post in 2010 and 2012, thank you very much.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Mark (#28): No matter how you slice it, government spending is a net negative - its can’t be anything but.
Mark (#35): I’ll concede that government spending can net beneficial to the economy…
Was the latter comment an admonition that the former comment was incorrect? It certainly reads like that. Assuming it is, glad to have you aboard, at least to the extent that you recognize that government spending can be net beneficial to the economy. Now that we’ve crossed that hurdle, prehaps we can actually talk details.
And I have to say that I, like you, are skeptical about Obama’s price tag. $1 trillion is an awful lot of money. What I would like to see him do is concentrate on energy efficiency first and foremost. That will cost some money — mostly in the form of training and deploying efficiency experts, and offering incentives. But that sector offers the biggest and most immediate bang for the buck. A lot of energy efficiency ideas are ready to go already, or could be fairly quickly.
But that’s not to say other concerns shouldn’t be addressed. One of the obvious ones is improving the national electricity grid. The current one is near collapse in a lot of places already. It’s ridiculous that a falling branch can render 50 million people without power for days, such as happened back in 2004 in the northeast (to cite one of many examples). The economic impact by way of lost productivity is enormous when things like that happen. Add to that the fact that the existing grid is susceptible to hackers, and you can appreciate how essential improvements are.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
1luv2h8lib5,
“Was that a question? Use a question mark. You’re a teacher? The standards sure have dropped since my school years.”
You are right. I made a mistake. But we aren’t in a classroom are we? I bet that teachers that you had also made mistakes. Some you probably missed and some they didn’t take credit for. I’m guessing this, because I think I’ve probably had a little more experience with teachers than you have. I grew up with them since my parents were teachers, and I got to see sides of them you don’t see in the classroom. If you really like catching mistakes, check out js02’s comments. He makes moire mistakes in a paragraph than I do in a month. Of course, to do that, you would have to read his comments. On second thought, never mind.
tiredoflibbs,
‘What happened to the worry projected by liberals about saddling our children and grandchildren with debt?”
I was wondering if anybody would catch that. Good job. I still have that worry, but I’m more worried about going into another great depression. If preventing my kids and grandkids from having to stand in breadlines means saddling them with debt later on, well starvation trumps debt, at least to me.
Mark,
“it is pure nonsense for anyone to say I was a defender of all of Bush’s spending - I wish he had used his veto pen far more often”
Odd you didn’t mention that at the time, but I will give you the benefit of doubt. You might have expressed those feelings and I just missed it.
“What you really need to do it get past the BDS you’ve exhibited and start to look at things as they are in reality.”
You’re right, anyone who points out Bush hasn’t been perfect must be crazy. Opps, you just said he should have used the veto pen more often. I guess that means you have BDS.
“what I’m saying is that you DON’T KNOW WHAT IT WILL DO.”
You are right. I don’t. And neither do you, which is the point I was trying to make in the first place. It’s kind of foolish to attack or defend a plan that hasn’t been presented yet.
“I’ll concede that government spending can net beneficial to the economy - but in this $1 trillion dollar bonanza to be cobbled together in a week,”
I think you are mixing up Obama’s plan with Paulson’s plan, you know the one that Bush and Paulson pushed through congress with all the bailouts. That was done in a pretty short time. In reality, Obama and his advisers have been working on their plan for a couple of months now and he’s listening to some pretty smart guys.
“Its not a matter of “learn the details, then decide to support or oppose”, its “they’re going to pass this thing and over the NEXT TEN YEARS the details will emerge”. By the time you can martial the arguments for or against, it will already be done - and if its nothing but a boondoggle, it’ll already have happened so any putative opposition to it is moot.”
Interesting, that just a couple of threads ago you were stating that economics is easy and you understand it better than all those guys with degrees. Now you are saying that no one can understand what the stimulus package will do and you are right. At least for the second part. It could turn out to be a major boondoggle. However, once we know the details, we can at least debate the plan based on what’s worked or hasn’t worked in the past.
“But if we’re going to spend a trillion dollars, lets have a care about it”
There you and I agree. I’m not in as much hurry to push this through as others are, although I do believe that if we don’t take some kind of action, and within the next few months, we are looking at a really bad depression. I think doing nothing will certainly bring that about.
“…and, also, you should be a bit more sensible to the politics of it all…allowing this much money to flow out of the Treasury with this little preparation and public debate means its almost existentially certain that a lot of it will be wasted…each dollar wasted becomes a GOP campaign theme in 2010 and 2012…”
The GOP is going to oppose anything and everything Obama does regardless of whether it’s good for the country or not. You’ve pretty much shown that on this blog. If you really want back in power, come up with better ideas. Then I’ll be more than happy to vote Republican, along with a lot of other people.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
If you really like catching mistakes, check out js02’s comments. He makes moire mistakes in a paragraph than I do in a month.
That says a lot, because you make a lot of mistakes in a month. As for catching js02’s mistakes, well, I treat js02’s as I would any made from those on my side. I don’t eat my own. Besides, we conservatives are supposed to be rubes, while you libbies are supposed to be the intellectual giants. Therefore, you are not allowed to make mistakes, CAsspurr. And no, none of my teachers wrote as poorly as you.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
No, we rose to power because
liberalismconservatism was an abject and objective failure in every aspect of its policy prescriptions.That sums up the 2006 and 2008 elections pretty nicely.
Also, you don’t honestly believe this, do you?
I knew what I was getting for high military spending - victory in war.
The literal pallets of cash lost? The Halliburton Overcharge Bonanza? The war that was gonna cost $50 billion and be self-funding that suddenly turned into a half-trillion dollar (and counting) hole? Obviously, it’s good enough for you to just say that’s all under the heading of “victory in war,” but that’s also the reason (well…one reason out of several) why you can’t really be taken seriously on this matter. It’s all well and fine to pour money into Iraq, but to think about spending money domestically while in an economic crisis is a terrible, terrible thing, right? Good luck with that.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“As for catching js02’s mistakes, well, I treat js02’s as I would any made from those on my side. I don’t eat my own. Besides, we conservatives are supposed to be rubes, while you libbies are supposed to be the intellectual giants. Therefore, you are not allowed to make mistakes, CAsspurr. And no, none of my teachers wrote as poorly as you.
Good, I’d hate for you to have to read js02’s stuff. Since I do make mistakes, I guess that means either I’m not a intellectual giant (something I readily admit) and a liberal (which again, I don’t claim to be), or you are mistaken in your beliefs.
BTW, since you enjoy making fun of my name, you might want to know where it came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Caspar
I use it not only because of my town, but because of the person it’s named after, Caspar Collins. I guess since the name of the city is a misspelling of Lt. Collin’s first name, I come by my mistakes honestly.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
BTW, since you enjoy making fun of my name, you might want to know where it came from.
No, you’re wrong; I don’t want to know. I prefer Casspurr…
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Besides, we conservatives are supposed to be rubes…
There are other reasons to be sure. But I’d say this kind of thinking definitely contributes to the plight the GOP finds themselves.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Mark #39
Care to make that prediction a wager?
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“What you really need to do it get past the BDS you’ve exhibited and start to look at things as they are in reality.”
You worship Palin.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Your theory falls flat on the fact that the rise of the GOP to power in the 1980’s wasn’t predicated upon playing a racial game - neither directly nor with code words, as the really absurd liberal theory goes about. No, we rose to power because liberalism was an abject and objective failure in every aspect of its policy prescriptions. It will be, again, because it is all based on false premises. You on your side just go on there thinking that you’ve won because Liberal Truth has routed Conservative Lies - we’ll whack you from pillar to post in 2010 and 2012, thank you very much.
39. Mark Noonan | January 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Really? That’s funny because freedom of speech is a product of Liberalism and that seems to be working just fine. It isn’t that Liberals have the truth it is that they have the minds of the moderates. There won’t be any whacking from any pillars in 2010 by the GOP unless you put down your Bibles and embrace centrism. I know that’s hard for you to admit because you are a deeply religious man. Fine. But there are more things at stake, far more important things that the culture war spats we have on the Internet. Serious matters call for serious non partisan solutions. If the GOP dropped its culture war support you’d run from them like a kid in agraveyard on hallowe’en! The GOP should remaion pro-life, but quietly. They should come up with a platform based on values that help families not the draconian talking point of family values. The Right should press the issue of balancing the bidget even in a time of war so they will scrutinize more closely the contracts that support those wars.
I can get the GOP back to parity in Congress and into the White House in 2012. Drop the Bible and pick up Paine’s Common Sense, choose a centrist governor to run against Obama like Charlie Crist, or even better, if he turns out to be a Republican, General David Petraeus. Then move back toward being fiscally conservative and libertarian socially so America can get back on track. A full 25% of your party adheres to strict religious dogma that’s not enough to win nationally anymore on culture war alone. You give me moderates that believe in a middle class contract again and I’ll hand you the White House on a silver platter. I’m sorry but Americans are sick of having religious values that the leaders won’t follow themselves shoved down their gullets.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Ricorun,
You know what “for the sake of argument” means, don’t you? “For the sake of argument”, I’ll concede that government spending is the most wonderful and beneficial spending imaginable - my contention is that this government spending, as proposed by Obama and Pelosi, is not going to do what it is advertised and, in fact, that no one will really know what its going to do if, indeed, it shows up on Obama’s desk on January 20th…there simply isn’t enough time to review, debate and decide. And so, its nothing but a boondoggle, and that is actually what Democrat leaders intend, even if Obama really thinks its for the good of the economy.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
dejah,
Crist is a fine man, but you’ll hate him upon command should he actually secure the GOP nomination in 2012. And, also, unless we’re sitting with 10% or so unemployment in 2012, Crist would be easily beaten by Obama - meaning, of course, that a damp squib like Crist hasn’t a chance unless the electorate in 2012 votes against Obama as there’s no way Crist will get a majority to vote for him.
We’ve been told since the 60’s that if we of the right want to win then we’re going to have to ditch the traditional morality and come up with a program the left thinks of as in tune with what the people want - usually more social spending. Some how or another, however, we managed to win in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004 without liberalism-lite being our program. And when we went with liberalism-lite in 1976, 1992, 1996, 2006 and 2008, we lost. Sorry, but we on the right aren’t going to buy the policy prescriptions of those who want to beat us at the polls.
The program we need to articulate is one of rock-ribbed conservatism - small government, balanced budgets, low taxes, strong defense, traditional morality…with the likes of me also trying to force into the mix a determination that whatever authority there is, it is devolved down to the lowest level possible. We do that and show ourselves committed to it, and we’ll win…if not by 2010/12, then in the by and by. We’re right, you’re wrong and eventually, the longer you stay in power, the more wrong you’ll be shown to be and the more easy it will become for us to present our alternative. We view the future with calmness and conviction that we’ve already won the debate, we just need to have the votes catch up to reality.
And as for free speech - that is a Catholic concept; to call it a liberal concept is to ignore how swift liberals have always been to suppress free speech whenever they’ve had the power to do so.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Casper,
But you are de-facto defending the plan you know nothing about - and this plan isn’t the Bush-Paulson plan (which plan’s abject failure these past two months should demonstrate the inefficiency of massive government intervention, but that is another debate for some other day), this is the Obama-Pelosi plan: a bright, shining lie designed to hope-n-change us into a better future.
And I’ll keep coming back to this, because you are manifestly failing to understand me - economics is easy. I’ve very easily figured out that this proposal, as is, won’t work and, indeed, will be counter-productive. This is because economics is so easy to figure out.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Govenment is like a body. Whenever it feels the need to intervene in the private sector, it grows. The way it grows makes the expanded government muscle or fat. Muscle is good government - it makes wealth, gets work done, and doesn’t destroy industry. Fat is bad government - It wastes money, is a bloated bureacracy, and gets in the way of business. Obama’s spending plan isn’t either one yet. Like a body, it is much easier to gain fat than to gain muscle. The only way for it to be muscle is if every citizen in the country can know exactly what the plan entails. The reason no one knows what the plan entails yet isn’t because they don’t want to show us - they simply don’t have all the details done yet. And believe me, this plan isn’t going to hastily be shoved through the system. It will be done over long enough time so that all the kinks can be worked out.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Mark,
“But you are de-facto defending the plan you know nothing about”
No I’m not. I haven’t seen it yet and neither have you. That’s my point. It’s a little early to attack something when you don’t know the details. Once I’ve seen it, I’ll be more than happy to defend or attack the plan based on it’s merits.
“and this plan isn’t the Bush-Paulson plan (which plan’s abject failure these past two months should demonstrate the inefficiency of massive government intervention”
Wow, giving up on it so soon. While there are parts of I it I really don’t like, I’m not ready to call the whole thing a bust after only a couple of months. After all, it took years and a lot of things happening to cause this crisis. I think it will probably take a couple of years to see if the steps we are taking actually work.
“And I’ll keep coming back to this, because you are manifestly failing to understand me - economics is easy. I’ve very easily figured out that this proposal, as is, won’t work and, indeed, will be counter-productive. This is because economics is so easy to figure out.”
If economics is so easy, why weren’t you predicting this crisis a year or two years ago, instead of talking about how good things were going? Seriously, where is your track record on predicting the economy?
Personally, I think you expect the Obama-Pelosi plan to fail, because it’s coming from democrats and you just don’t want to believe democrats can get anything right. Heck, if the economy turns around in the next two years and your house is worth double what it was worth two years ago, you will probably declare the plan a failure because you house isn’t worth triple.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
dejah,
Mark and the rest of the far right don’t want to move to the center. They are convinced that the only reason they lost the election was because they moved too far from their principles. Maybe they are right, but I doubt it. One of two things in is going to happen in the next few years. Either Mark is right and the voters will come back to them, or he’s wrong, in which case the Republican party will continue shrinking. It should be very interesting either way.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Thanks, deja for proving my point.
The other party is in power and liberal concerns of the past do not matter. The current economic situation is the perfect excuse for $1 TRILLION in new spending and increased government in power and size.
Those concerns of “saddling our grandchildren with debt” talking point no longer exist.
The “solution” to the liberals is a political one more than the “rescuing the economy” one they pitifully try to portray.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
tiredoflibbs,
So do you think the economy doesn’t need rescuing? What would you suggest we do?
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Republicans have always taken a strong position against govt. spending and taxation. In the past, this has worked. Even in recessions. But not this time. No, this is too big for a simple tax break or spending cut to fix. We must get realistic. We are going to have to make sacrafices NOW. And even then, this problem migh get worse before it gets better. In fact, we may only just be coming out of it by the time the midterms come. Do not expect this problem to get drastically better by the end of this year. I’m certainly not.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Yeah, what happened to that saddling our grandchildren with debt crap?
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
1luv, then we must raise taxes.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
atheistmule,
I agree. I think the Republican strategy to get back in power is the following;
Step 1- Leave Obama with a big stinking mess of crap as far as the economy is concerned ( I don’t think this was intentional).
Step 2- Do everything you can to make sure he can’t fix it.
Step 3- Blame him for not fixing the mess.
It’s going to be very tough for Obama to fix our economy and it will be twice as hard with the Republicans attacking his policies before he even comes out with them. Even if he is allowed to do what he thinks needs to be done there are no guarantees his solutions will work. The next couple of years are going to be very interesting.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
1luv2h8lib5,
“Yeah, what happened to that saddling our grandchildren with debt crap?”
What would you suggest we do? Seriously, I would really like to know. I’ll even make some spelling mistakes for you if you give me a straight answer.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Mark: my contention is that this government spending, as proposed by Obama and Pelosi, is not going to do what it is advertised and, in fact, that no one will really know what its going to do if, indeed, it shows up on Obama’s desk on January 20th…there simply isn’t enough time to review, debate and decide. And so, its nothing but a boondoggle, and that is actually what Democrat leaders intend, even if Obama really thinks its for the good of the economy.
I guess the problem people are having in understanding what you mean is that you repeatedly state two conflicting ideas:
1. No one knows the details of the economic recovery package, and:
2. It is not going to do what it is advertised to do.
Obviously, you can’t conclude 2 if 1 is true. Further, in the process of examining statement 2 your first rationale was that government spending can never create wealth. Then later you conceded that it can. I argue further that another thing government spending can do is prevent further destruction of wealth. Whatever else could be said about it, the “Bush-Paulson plan” was primarily designed to do that. And while it is certainly a debate for another day, I think it’s safe to say that however abject a failure it is, no plan at all would almost certainly have been much worse.
So back to statement 1. You’re right — no one knows the details of the economic recovery package. And I’m with you as well in hoping that congress would spend some time considering them seriously and in good faith. If indeed it is Pelosi’s objective to have a $700 billion bill all wrapped up with a tight little bow and sitting on Obama’s desk on Jan 20, I hope she fails. I for one want to hear what’s in it. I want to hear the criticisms and defenses from both sides, because this, obviously, is a Very Big Deal.
But concluding ahead of time that it will be an abject failure before knowing the details is not an argument made in good faith. It doesn’t even make sense.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Okay, to start please tell me which Liberals were anti-free speech? Were these liberals in America? You mean Catholics like Father Coughlin? Or can I go back that far to find a Catholic fascist? You make the rules and I’ll bring the facts.
Let’s look at the years you say the GOP went “Liberal-lite.”
1976, 1992, 1996, 2006 and 2008.
‘76 you ran against the ghost of Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford was a great old school conservative he just had the misfortune of running with the corpse of 20+ indicted members of the Nixon White House on his back.
‘92 Bush the Elder ignored the rule that the GOP dare not raise the taxes of the rich and he dodged Clinton in the longest debate stiff arm in American political history. Bush 41 was hardly a liberal, lite or otherwise. When he dies you’ll be calling him the “elder statesman of conservatism.”
‘96 Bob Dole a liberal lite? Is he pro choice? No. Is he pro gay marriage? No again. There are your two hot buttons. He’s gun deck on all the right wing major issues from 2d amendment to fiscal responsibility. What cost you in ‘96 was the Clinton economy. Shift that election to ‘98 and Dole beats him by a scandal.
‘06 was a direct result of the number of American troops being blown to bits by IEDs, the Foley scandal and Ted Haggard looking into a camera as the head of evangelical Christians and lying about gay sex and drug use and getting caught. Had the economy been worse it would have been worse like . . .
‘08. It was the economy stupid and partially maybe 15% a rejection of scary Palin. What a dumb thing to do. Had she been a polished evangelical with a perceived deep faith rather than that nutty thing she has with the witch doctor and all that it might have been doable. The way it was it was like a fire in trailer park at the first of the month: loud, hot and caused lots of damage to things of little value.
So here we are 17 days from Obama being inaugurated and you still think that the majority of Americans hold the same worldview that you do. I mean that from a political standpoint. If that were the case we’d be getting ready for John McCain’s inauguration. If McCain was a liberal-lite and the bulk of the GOP with your worldview wanted another candidate you would have gotten Huckabee or Romney or even Giuliani were the people who hold your values who should lead the GOP to wave their mighty tail for it.
There’s just one problem. You aren’t the bulk of American voters or even a majority among the GOP. At best we know now religious values voters as I like to call them, some call them culture warriors, account for only a roughly a third [32%] of the GOP. The other two thirds are moderates [50%], gun rights advocates [10%], illegal immigration hawks [5%]and pure libertarians [3%].
Many of your moderates in Florida and Ohio voted Obama; more in Minnesota voted for Al Franken even more voted against Ted Stevens. The advice I give is the best I can offer because I agree that to allow the Democrats to gain more seats in 2010 might be a disaster. Can you say Rostenkowski? Traficant? Those are the kinds of scandals and corruption that grow out of decades of being in power. The Abramoff thing just proves that the GOP was a little quick on the trigger to dunk their heads in the bribe trough. That or maybe they knew that Bush was scorched earth for them and they better line their pockets while they could.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
“1. You’re right — no one knows the details of the economic recovery package. And I’m with you as well in hoping that congress would spend some time considering them seriously and in good faith. If indeed it is Pelosi’s objective to have a $700 billion bill all wrapped up with a tight little bow and sitting on Obama’s desk on Jan 20, I hope she fails. I for one want to hear what’s in it. I want to hear the criticisms and defenses from both sides, because this, obviously, is a Very Big Deal.”
This is something that I think you, I, and Mark can all agree on. I am not willing to support or reject this bill until I know what the heck it contains. If it’s just throwing money into road construction, I’ll be the first to email our new president with my disgust.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I got an e-mail today from a person I respect who is actually an economist and this is what he says:
“Take a bet from anyone for any mount of money that the US economy will be in growth by the start of the 2d quarter 2010. The June unemployment figure will be 3.9% or less. The Consumer confidence number will be over 100 and the price of oil will be between 75 and 90 USD.” If that prediction holds, anyone reading this over the age of 45 will not live long enough to see another Republican president who has a GOP Congress with the same or greater majority that the Democrats have now.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
And I’ll keep coming back to this, because you are manifestly failing to understand me - economics is easy. I’ve very easily figured out that this proposal, as is, won’t work and, indeed, will be counter-productive. This is because economics is so easy to figure out.
Now that is good comedy. An ardent supply-sider who’s been clueless about the economy for at least the past 8 years declaring that economics is easy and that he already knows a proposal (that, as was pointed out, he actually doesn’t know the details of) will fail.
Actually, Mark, you already know that you’re going to declare it a failure, but you were going to do that for every Democratic program–in fact, all you need to know is that a Democrat backed it for you to declare it a failure. Results? No need to wait for those. You’ve already made your mind up in accordance with your blinkered worldview. Again, this is why you can’t really be taken seriously on these matters.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Damn, I’m 44!
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
And as for free speech - that is a Catholic concept; to call it a liberal concept is to ignore how swift liberals have always been to suppress free speech whenever they’ve had the power to do so.
51. Mark Noonan | January 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
In this you are wrong. We, Ourselves point you to Caliph Umar of the Sunni line of caliphs after Muhammad [qcpn], who championed free speech during his reign. After him came al-Hashimi whose letters attempting conversion of a scholar of philosophy to Islam by reason and his pleas for open discussion led to the Madrasah systems which have become the very model for every Christian University of Europe.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
dejahthoris,
“If that prediction holds, anyone reading this over the age of 45 will not live long enough to see another Republican president who has a GOP Congress with the same or greater majority that the Democrats have now.”
There are two things you aren’t taking into consideration. 1- Republicans are very good campaigners. 2- Democrats can screw up anything.
The only way your prediction will come true is if Democrats do an exceptional job of governing and they don’t allow the power to go to their heads.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
atheistmule,
“Damn, I’m 44!”
You are only 24 in Martian years. Believe me it’s a much way to keep track.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
atheistmule,
Happy birthday!
January 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
“The only way your prediction will come true is if Democrats do an exceptional job of governing and they don’t allow the power to go to their heads.”
Don’t hold your breath.
I say let the “weak” financial institutions and corporations fail. But this liberal notion of always supporting failure cannot possibly work. These companies will take the bailout and the process will repeat itself. This will be the second time Chrysler has been bailed out…..and possibly will not be the last.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
This just in: some details about Obama’s economic recovery package.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Casper,
As to why I didn’t predict this crisis two or three years ago, that was because I was unaware of what Fannie and Freddie were up to - in this, I blame myself for not taking the time to look further into it and the larger conservative movement for not being more loud in the warnings which were given; though, in our overall defense, we have been busy trying to keep you liberals from forcing us to lose a war…what’s your excuse? Too busy trying to get us to lose a war to pay attention to the mortgage market? I’ll take my distraction over yours any day of the week.
Had I been aware that Fannie and Freddie were essentially buying every bit of paper sent to them by the mortgage companies and that the mortgage companies were writing their paper with purchase by Freddie and Fannie in mind, then I would have modified my prediction of a 10-15% drop in home prices resultant upon the bubble bursting (something I did see coming by the middle of 2004) in a more negative manner.
As I’ve said - economics is very, very easy to figure out…but you do need the proper data inputs.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Dejah,
I also expect growth to resume by mid-2010, perhaps earlier, if we conservatives are successful at injecting doses of conservative economics into the Obama plan. But to predict that unemployment will be less than four percent is, to put it mildly, bold - it’d be good if your friend could give us some details about his predictions…’cause if he’s just an Obamaniac liberal who BELIEVES, then its worthless…but if he’s got something to back it up, then that would be worthwhile to see.
As it is, I’d suspect 2010’s unemployment rate won’t drop below 7-8%, given that its a lagging indicator.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
just an Obamaniac liberal who BELIEVES, then its worthless
As opposed to a supply-side-loving conservative who BELIEVES, right?
January 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Ricorun,
There’s some good stuff in there:
These are great, Reaganite proposals which, in total, would go very far towards fixing our current economic crisis. Unfortunately, they are counter-balanced by the follow Statist, liberal crap which will destroy far more than the Reaganite bits will create:
Now, if you’re lucky the Obama-Pelosi plan will cause us to really crash and burn and that will result in a GOP Congressional majority which can then pull Obama’s fat out of the fire and get the economy moving to the point where Obama has a good shot at winning in 2012. Its the Clinton model, ya know?
January 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Orlando,
Supply-side economics has been used a total of three times: by JFK, by Reagan and by GW Bush. Each time it was tried, it worked exactly as advertised.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Each time it was tried, it worked exactly as advertised.
That would be a lie. You can’t even plead ignorance on this one because we know you know better. It’s just a lie.
Unless you can point to the part where supply-side economics advertised massive deficits, increased income inequality, and tax cuts that don’t pay for themselves. Can you?
I understand the predicament you’re in–it’s easier to ignore facts than it is to change your worldview when it is proven wrong–but that doesn’t mean I won’t point out your ridiculousness anyway.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
It sounds like you’re on the right track, Mark. Myself, I wouldn’t necessarily put all of the stuff you refer to as “Statist, liberal crap” in the same category. But hey, it’s a start.
For example, there are many bridges and roads in serious need of repair. If you wait until bridges fail the cost goes up, not down. And it’s not just the cost of replacing them, but the costs associated with the impact on productivity, additional fuel consumption, etc., and of course lives. The Minneapolis I35W bridge disaster is a case in point, though hardly the only one. Likewise, retrofitting schools (and other public buildings, for that matter) to be more energy efficient is worth every penny invested, and then some. To me, this is a no-brainer.
Likewise, if it’s true that the proposed National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank will directly and indirectly create up to two million new jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity from an infusion of $60 billion over 10 years, that doesn’t sound too bad to me, either. Spend $60 billion to create $350 billion? Not too shabby — assuming the numbers can be believed, and assuming it’s done right. That’s the question mark for me. I need more convincing.
Likewise, I need more convincing with regard to the $25 Billion in state fiscal relief. I’m not categorically against it, but I would like to know more details. In the mean time, allow me to ask… what is preventing the powers that be there in Nevada from cranking up your property taxes? Assuming they could, wouldn’t that put you in an even more untenable situation than you already are? Here in CA they’re prevented from doing that by virtue of Prop 13. And I personally don’t have to worry about Mello-Roos, either. I am thus fairly safe, because those and other reasons (the weather is very moderate, it’s close to job centers, etc.) make my home relatively more valuable. It’s already happening — both sales volume and prices are starting to rise in my immediate area. So it would be easy for me to say too bad for you and people like you. But I can’t bring myself to say that, especially to those that thought they were playing by rules generally accepted as prudent. Not categorically at least.
As for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), that never made any sense to me. Maybe I’m missing something, but where’s the “free choice” in making votes to unionize public rather than secret?
January 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
speaking of defecits oralndo, Obama is eyeing 310B in tax cuts. With the defecit reaching close to $1 TRILLION and Obama and the Democrats want to spend $1 TRILLION, isn’t that (in the words of liberal Democrats) “FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE”???
Why is it, when Bush issues tax cuts with increased spending it is irresponsible, but when the Chosen One does it, it is accepted with open arms???
the only liar here is you, pal.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
tiredoflibs: Why is it, when Bush issues tax cuts with increased spending it is irresponsible, but when the Chosen One does it, it is accepted with open arms???
I guess that comment begs the question… did you think Bush cutting taxes the way he did while increasing spending the way he did irresponsible? And can you document your answer?
January 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
If the Bush-Paulson bailouts are any indication of things to come, then we can kiss that money goodbye.