DanG

I'm never used a stupid name for a public figure. What is your point? Or are you not sure what irony means? - Dan G

Totally agree. It works both ways. I'm no longer responding to anyone who uses childish mispellings. I guess I'm not going to be responding much at all. Obamer, Barak, Shrub, Lush Rimjob, Blowjobavich, rePUBICans, rescum, demoncrats, Obamessiah, whatever. Grow up, people. - Dan G

Why would you think thoughtful people would even bother responding? - Dan G

I haven't really been on the offensive. I did, however, just fart while sitting at my computer. Believe me, it was rather offensive. I think billvon is doing a fairly good job of defining what liberalism is. By the way, there is no Liberal Party in the United States that I am aware of. The Democratic Party likes to define itself in terms of liberalism, but a lot of people who tend to lean that way don't buy into their whole platform. My personal political views tend toward libertarianism (note small l), but I recognize the need for some government social programs aimed at alleviating poverty. I believe that the United States' founding document is the Constitution, not the Bible. I believe, as you said, in individual freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government. As someone else pointed out, the Constitution charges the government with "promoting the general welfare." I believe that means that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping people from starving, freezing, or turning to crime when they have no other choice. Well directed "welfare" programs should be aimed at that goal. I do not, however, support all types of welfare, but I don't believe (as many right-wingers do) that everyone on welfare is there because they are lazy cheats. I used to be a very staunch Republican when I thought that meant a small Federal government, strong support for the Bill of Rights, and strong military protection of our Nation. Since I've grown older I've realized that modern Republicanism stands for Christianity, support for the 2nd Amendment over all the others, and the use of the military for purposes outside of protecting the country. The current Republican Party was very little to do with what I believe. The current Democratic Party goes too far in the other direction for me as well, but I voted for Obama because all I saw on the McCain-Palin ticket were the things about the Republican Party I most hate. Oh, as requested a direct response to your characterization: Peace: Sounds good to me. War sucks. Love: I like that, too. Dope: I don't partake, but think people should be allowed to (you know, individual responsibility and all) How things "should" be: isn't that what we should be striving for? Making things how they should be sounds great to me. I suppose you're more into, "war, hate, dope is evil, and resigning ourselves to live in the past?" - Dan G

OK, so what you're saying is that you don't like the liberal philosophy as explained by Limbaugh and friends, not necessarily the liberal philosophy espoused by actual liberals. Got it. - Dan G

Nope. They played the clip on Marketplace (NPR) on Friday. Hannity makes me want to punch my TV. - Dan G

Or maybe its because he realizes that one of the factors that made the Great Depression so great was the economic isolationism of the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act. This topic was discussed extensvely by Ben Stein himself in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Pay attention. - Dan G

Would you mind letting us all in on what you think those views are? I have a feeling that your idea of "liberal" views are not meaningfully related to what actual "liberals" think. - Dan G

Please see above. The poor person is much more likely to actually spend their money than the rich person. - Dan G

Who cares? If economic stimulus is the goal, as long as they are spending the money, it is circulating. I agree, morally, that people should spend their "welfare" money on things that will eventually lead them out of poverty. Please don't reply in that vein. The OP is questioning the wisdom of the current stimulus bill because he saw a woman buy Doritos. The Doritos company presumably employs lots of people who will become jobless if everyone stops buying their product. As economic stimulus (which I don't necesarily think is how welfare should be viewed, but that should be another thread) that woman's use of the money was just as effective as if she had bought wheat bread. This whole thread is actually rather stupid and patronizing anyway, but if you're going to bitch, at least decide on what you're bitching about. - Dan G

Right back at cha! 1. It is considered poor form to personally attack someone. 2. It is considered downright stupid to do it to a mod. and (pay attention here) 3. SCHIP was expanded to cover LEGAL immigrants. Not illegals. You realize that there is a difference, right? - Dan G

I only use the word fail when coaching students regarding deployment altitude. As in, "I don't care if you do all the TLO's for Cat G, Cat H, and the A license check dive, if you miss your deployment altitude you will fail the jump and none of it will count." Otherwise it all just stuff that we need to work on a little more. - Dan G

I think you just made Andrew's point for him. The above should have been the speech that the OP gave to the student (with some changes to the relavent nouns), not the one about bowling. - Dan G

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf On the relationship between the CRA and the current financial crisis. In all fairness, I could have also pulled articles that reach the opposite conclusion, but I think that this report from the Federal Reserve should be given more weight than media analyses. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17597739 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/06/local/me-immighome6 On the performance of loans to illegal aliens. I know, it's NPR and the LA Times, so it must be liberally biased. Feel free to discount the information on that basis, or just because it doesn't fit into your worldview. - Dan G

How about both of the above? And I agree that it's not part of this discussion, but you brought it up. - Dan G

Data sources please, yourself. I'll look mine up and post it if you look yours up and post it.. - Dan G

I thought Larry Hill got voted back in. How is that an indication that the electorate doesn't care? - Dan G

Have you decided to ignore that fact that CRA loans performed as well or better (on average) as loans not made under that program? I do suppose that fact gets in the way of a good theory. Interestingly, some of the best performing loans (on average) were made to recent immigrants, both legal and illegal. That fact, however, also gets in the way of the theory about illegals only coming here to suck on the government teat, so people like to ignore it as well. - Dan G

You say that I'm thinking too short term, but I'd argue that you are thinking too micro. This is a macro problem. The things you mention relate to the success or failure of a single company. We're talking about the success or failure of an entire economy. One business failing while another succeeds is great for the successful business, but the health of the economy is improved if both businesses can survive and compete. In order for both businesses to be able to compete there must be enough customers to go around. I agree that business needs to be stimulated. Maybe one way to do that is by lowering the corporate tax rate. That stimulus, however, needs to be combined with stimulus for the consumer as well. One can't work without the other. - Dan G

Investment - in what? Infrastructure, tooling, training, research? I think most small business would rather save. Aquisition & mergers - Sure, that's great and usually leads to job loss, not creation. Opening new markets - I guess, but in this economy all that really means is opening overseas markets, which small business will not be able to do with a 2% tax rate cut. Product adaptation - I'll give you that one. Target demo shift - I have no idea what this means. I'm assuming you mean demography, as in marketing your product to a different segment of consumers. That sounds great, but all segments of consumers are hurting right now. Supply and demand, not just one or the other. - Dan G

Businesses won't spend money to grow if they don't think there is a market for their goods. Imagine yourself as the small businessman who makes widgets. Because the economy is tight, no one is buying your widgets. Then the government reduces your tax rate. Are you going to expand your business and start making even more widgets that no one wants? Or are you going to start building that nest egg for the next time things slow down? Stimulus has to address both sides of the equation. Tax breaks should benefit both the producers and consumers. Supply and demand. - Dan G

This is all I could find with a quick Google, but it looks like the money will indeed go to state screening programs. http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/29/national-republican-congressional-committee/std-spending-economic-stimulus-plan/ - Dan G

The converter box program may be necessary, but I don't see how it can be related to economic stimulation without a lot of other dependancies. I also think smoking cessation is a great goal, but again can't see it related to economic stimulation. The money going to create new computer centers at community colleges will both create jobs for computer techs and instructors, as well as jobs at Intel and Dell, for example. I agree that DHS needs to go, but spending $448 million on a new building will create lots of construction jobs both locally and with material suppliers. Finally, I agree that if the FutureGen plant is shitty it shouldn't be funded, but looking at it solely through the lens of job creation, you'll have to admit that this program will create jobs, many of them well paying. Thanks for the input. - Dan G

Don't you have to file a NOTAM, or is that just a suggestion/courtesy? - Dan G

Below is an article from CNN purporting to quote the GOP's list of wasteful provisions in the proposed stimulus package. After each item, I've inserted by own categorization in bold. Keeping in mind that the purpose of the package is to stimulate the economy and create jobs, I've divided everything into two categories: jobs and bullshit. I'm not saying that the programs listed under jobs are necessarily great ideas, but I believe they will actually create jobs, mostly in the construction sector. I'm also not saying that the programs listed as bullshit are necessarily bad programs, just that they appear to have little to do with economic stimulus. Adding everything up, I come to the following tabulation: Jobs: $15.8345 billion (82.9%) Bullshit: $2.406 billion (12.6%) Unknown: $0.85 billion (0.44%) I'm curious as to how others here would characterize these specific programs, and why. - Dan G