livendive 8 #26 January 29, 2009 Quote Quote I'm opposed to this package ... ... I guess if you think the drunken spending that went on the last 8 years makes this bill ok to go ahead with, well, you and I will have to disagree Perhaps you missed the first five words of my post. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 January 29, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I'm opposed to this package ... ... I guess if you think the drunken spending that went on the last 8 years makes this bill ok to go ahead with, well, you and I will have to disagree Perhaps you missed the first five words of my post. Blues, Dave No, I did not miss it, but you took the time to qualify your response in the way you did. Why?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 January 29, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm opposed to this package ... ... I guess if you think the drunken spending that went on the last 8 years makes this bill ok to go ahead with, well, you and I will have to disagree Perhaps you missed the first five words of my post. Blues, Dave No, I did not miss it, but you took the time to qualify your response in the way you did. Why? I didn't qualify my opposition, I simply pointed out that I'm laughing at the hypocrisy of those who are now screaming about spending but who weren't when their guy was in the driver's seat. I was opposed to Bush's excessive spending and I'm opposed to Obama's excessive spending. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 January 29, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm opposed to this package ... ... I guess if you think the drunken spending that went on the last 8 years makes this bill ok to go ahead with, well, you and I will have to disagree Perhaps you missed the first five words of my post. Blues, Dave No, I did not miss it, but you took the time to qualify your response in the way you did. Why? I didn't qualify my opposition, I simply pointed out that I'm laughing at the hypocrisy of those who are now screaming about spending but who weren't when their guy was in the driver's seat. I was opposed to Bush's excessive spending and I'm opposed to Obama's excessive spending. Blues, Dave ok, I miss took your meaning. On all counts i agree with you here"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #30 January 29, 2009 >Nothing FDR did worked better than WW2. Because of . . . massive defense spending that stimulated the US economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #31 January 29, 2009 Quote Manufacturing did and guess what? they outsourced it. Producing goods and services is only viable when you can do so with competitive costs. We won't compete in manufacturing until our wages match the chinese, which currently means $150 a month for auto workers not $30 an hour. We won't compete in entry level engineering jobs until our wages match the Indians, which means $5000 a year not $50000. Get ready for the coming crash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #32 January 29, 2009 Quote I'm opposed to this package on the principle that I think the government should stay out of such things. However, I'm laughing my ass off at all the Republicans, especially talk show/fox news people, who are using this as a launching point about how this is typical Democrat socialist spending. They're throwing a complete fit to pin this on those nasty "liberals" and conveniently forgetting just how much their guy spent in the last 8 years, including these kind of bailout funds in recent months. Blues, Dave republicans don't have a monopoly on hypocracy. dems have been screaming for 8 years (and rightfully so) about massive spending, yet the first thing they with their new-found power is tryi to outspend bush. not good for any of us. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #33 January 29, 2009 Quote republicans don't have a monopoly on hypocracy. dems have been screaming for 8 years (and rightfully so) about massive spending, yet the first thing they with their new-found power is tryi to outspend bush. not good for any of us. The difference is where the money is being spent. I'm not crazy about this bill either, and I'm pretty pissed off about the handouts over the last few months (especially the part that involved $18 billion in BONUSES for Wall St). But the only bright side (if there is one) is that this money will be spent in the US, which essentially means that there's at least a slim chance that it will benefit us better than the policy of throwing cash out of the back of a truck in Mesopotamia. $0.02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #34 January 29, 2009 Quote I'm opposed to this package on the principle that I think the government should stay out of such things. However, I'm laughing my ass off at all the Republicans, especially talk show/fox news people, who are using this as a launching point about how this is typical Democrat socialist spending. They're throwing a complete fit to pin this on those nasty "liberals" and conveniently forgetting just how much their guy spent in the last 8 years, including these kind of bailout funds in recent months. Blues, Dave Conservatives bitched and moaned about the last stimulus package. It didn't work. The country elected a new guy on the promise of change. He's doing the same thing but roughly twice the size. Everyone is unhappy about the entire thing. Even the Dems on this board seem to be against it. The only ones who think it's a good idea are the Dems in Washington. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 January 30, 2009 The Stimulus Shopping List: $1.17 Trillion in Pork Goodies Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:00 PM By: David A. Patten The $1.17 trillion stimulus bill passed by House Democrats on Wednesday bears little resemblance to the bill originally proposed by President Obama, with less than 5 percent of the funds now going to repair America’s deteriorating infrastructure. GOP critics point out the bill is loaded with tens of billions for items ranging from Amtrak subsidies to sexually transmitted diseases to the National Endowment for the Arts -- much of which won’t actually flow into the economy until long after economists expect the current economic crisis to subside. In late November, Obama promised: “It will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America, and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges,” modernizing schools and stimulating development of alternative forms of energy. Even some Democrats are now objecting that the measure contains too few highway and mass transit projects. Moreover Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, says most of the infrastructure spending in the plan won’t occur until 2010 or later. Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning: $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades. $2 billion to help subsidize child care. $400 million for research into global warming. $2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere. $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion. $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments. $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking. $21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration. I love this one!! $2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. $335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle. $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department. $32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste. $87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states. $53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs. $13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes. $20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment. $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition. $20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program. Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. As Newsmax revealed yesterday, however, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #36 January 30, 2009 Do you have a link to the article? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #37 January 30, 2009 Quote Quote republicans don't have a monopoly on hypocracy. dems have been screaming for 8 years (and rightfully so) about massive spending, yet the first thing they with their new-found power is tryi to outspend bush. not good for any of us. The difference is where the money is being spent. I'm not crazy about this bill either, and I'm pretty pissed off about the handouts over the last few months (especially the part that involved $18 billion in BONUSES for Wall St). But the only bright side (if there is one) is that this money will be spent in the US, which essentially means that there's at least a slim chance that it will benefit us better than the policy of throwing cash out of the back of a truck in Mesopotamia. $0.02 i think the astronomical amount trumps any difference in where this money is spent. this is a lot of fucking money. this is our fault though. we voted back in the ass-clowns who voted for the first bailout. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #38 January 30, 2009 http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/stimulus_pork_spending/2009/01/29/176503.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 January 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote republicans don't have a monopoly on hypocracy. dems have been screaming for 8 years (and rightfully so) about massive spending, yet the first thing they with their new-found power is tryi to outspend bush. not good for any of us. The difference is where the money is being spent. I'm not crazy about this bill either, and I'm pretty pissed off about the handouts over the last few months (especially the part that involved $18 billion in BONUSES for Wall St). But the only bright side (if there is one) is that this money will be spent in the US, which essentially means that there's at least a slim chance that it will benefit us better than the policy of throwing cash out of the back of a truck in Mesopotamia. $0.02 i think the astronomical amount trumps any difference in where this money is spent. this is a lot of fucking money. this is our fault though. we voted back in the ass-clowns who voted for the first bailout. A state did an audit on the effect of companies NOT paying bonuses to their employees (I think it was New York but may have been IL) The results was that because bonuses were not being paid the state would loose huge amounts of income taxes as a result of the non paid moneies. I will see if I can find it again. It was almost funny reading it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #40 January 30, 2009 I find it troubling that only 3% of these monies will be released this year. Next year, 13%. Anyone think they're waiting until right before the mid-term elections?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #41 January 30, 2009 Quote I find it troubling that only 3% of these monies will be released this year. Next year, 13%. Anyone think they're waiting until right before the mid-term elections? Not just that, but also the next Presidential election too. I've been thinking about that since he started selling it...."investments over the next few years"....So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #42 January 30, 2009 A WTF figure I read was that the first 3 years of FDR's New Deal combined and adjusted for inflation is 1/5 the cost of this bullshit bill. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #43 January 30, 2009 QuoteA WTF figure I read was that the first 3 years of FDR's New Deal combined and adjusted for inflation is 1/5 the cost of this bullshit bill. and the new deal by FDR was mainly spent on infrastructure and did creat temoprary jobs. this bill is a partisan piece of shitfilled pork. If this bill passes, them dem party will probably sink their chances of having control of congress in 2-4 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #44 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteA WTF figure I read was that the first 3 years of FDR's New Deal combined and adjusted for inflation is 1/5 the cost of this bullshit bill. and the new deal by FDR was mainly spent on infrastructure and did creat temoprary jobs. this bill is a partisan piece of shitfilled pork. If this bill passes, them dem party will probably sink their chances of having control of congress in 2-4 years. Exactly. That Rachel chick on MSNBC was throwing an abslolute fit about the Republicans voting no. (She left out the part where 11 Dems agreed.) According to the her and many others on the left, the only reason the Republicans voted no was to be defiant to the President. She made no mention of the actual spending proposed or how many billions were to be flushed on pork. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #45 January 30, 2009 Quote According to the her and many others on the left, the only reason the Republicans voted no was to be defiant to the President. She made no mention of the actual spending proposed or how many billions were to be flushed on pork. I don't think that being "defiant" to the Pres was the aim. I think it had more to do with the R's trying to redefine their image. I mean, the package was going to pass the house regardless of the R's participation. The D's threw in a few last minute concessions so they get to look like they're trying to compromise but know that they have the votes to pass what they want. Both sides want a stimulus package and both sides know that the final bill will look different after it comes out of the Senate. Chest thumping on both sides if you ask me. But regarding the continued cries of "pork! pork!", IMO things like sodding the Mall are a way of putting people to work immediately and you end up with something to show for it. I'm not sure how they came up with such a high figure (of course I'm not in the sod business) but most of the money put into that project would go right back into the economy. In a normal legislative bill I would agree that it's pork. In an economic stimulus bill I'd say there's a good argument for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #46 January 31, 2009 If, I heard on the news correctly, those that caused the big loan fiasco, accepted the first of this hand-out money with one hand and passed-out huge bonuses with the other hand. If, that's true, I say, stop paying-out any more money to to them and make them accountable for it. I think too, Bush didn't stipulate that these 'crooks' had to account for it. The whole thing is screwed-up. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 January 31, 2009 Quote>Nothing FDR did worked better than WW2. Because of . . . massive defense spending that stimulated the US economy. and destroyed most of our competitors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 January 31, 2009 QuoteI find it troubling that only 3% of these monies will be released this year. Next year, 13%. Anyone think they're waiting until right before the mid-term elections? Well, it's pretty damn hard to spend a trillion dollars in a hurry...have you ever tried? I think there was a movie to that effect - someone had to spend 1M a day for a month, but have nothing to show for it at the end. This would be the 3B a day version of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #49 January 31, 2009 > If this bill passes, them dem party will probably sink their chances of >having control of congress in 2-4 years. OTOH, if it passes and the economy recovers within a relatively short time (say, 12 months) they will have the "we saved your home and your job" angle. And that looks mighty good compared to a politician whose slogan is "I voted against that." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 January 31, 2009 "I voted against that." ....before they voted for it!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
