Tell me more subby

Well, if you can get 51% of the population to pay no taxes, and spend the country into debt paying for government handouts to them - to the point where they actually PROFIT from the government, at the expense of the other 49% - then you'll win elections.

This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

It's almost as though they have political capital... and intend on spending it.

/still wishes they weren't trying to spend so much capital capital

The numbers are just staggering when you take a step back and look at them. Amazing.

KaponoFor3: The numbers are just staggering when you take a step back and look at them. Amazing.

Is it as much as we've been spending in Iraq?

/Didn't think so.

The Onanist: Is it as much as we've been spending in Iraq?

/Didn't think so.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Onanist: Is it as much as we've been spending in Iraq?

That somehow justifies it?

If we are hemorrhaging money in one area (Iraq), how does it make sense to go "well then its OK if we hemorrhage money here as well"?

lunchinlewis: The Onanist: Is it as much as we've been spending in Iraq?

/Didn't think so.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

True, but claiming that a government investing in its own country instead of pissing money onto a regional conflict halfway across the world is the wrong decision just smacks of... desperation.

Wow, the Fail is strong in this article. There's plenty to debunk here, but I like this one personally:

"No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

First, prior to the ridiculous "No Child Left Behind", private schools didn't get ANY Federal funds. Second, all public school teachers aren't union (not that the NEA does a whole hell of a lot for them).

/Former teacher

Bored Horde: True, but claiming that a government investing in its own country instead of pissing money onto a regional conflict halfway across the world is the wrong decision just smacks of... desperation.

You can be against both policies because they both are just spilling money everywhere. The best argument I ever heard against the war in Iraq is financial (at least, the one that resonates the best with me).

You know how America could get itself out of its current slump?

Break up wallymart. I can't think of a single company that has done more to ruin America's regional manufacturing firms and small businesses then those pirates.

KaponoFor3: The Onanist: Is it as much as we've been spending in Iraq?

That somehow justifies it?

If we are hemorrhaging money in one area (Iraq), how does it make sense to go "well then its OK if we hemorrhage money here as well"?

Because the point of the package is to stimulate the economy & create jobs instead of pouring money down a black hole. Iraq is where we're hemorrhaging cash. What was our ROI supposed to be over there? Iraq's running at a surplus economy now & we're circling the drain. This package is intended for long-term stability & job growth.

KaponoFor3: You can be against both policies because they both are just spilling money everywhere. The best argument I ever heard against the war in Iraq is financial (at least, the one that resonates the best with me).

Investment in social programs an infrastructure generates wealth by allowing small businesses to take off.

Isn't that what America is about? Opening up your own business, hiring a few people, maybe having your kids carry the torch in turn? When did the "small business" Republicans start cheering for measures that squash local competition against the big box stores?

brigid_fitch: This package is intended for long-term stability & job growth.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to increase long term stability and job growth, but I don't think this stimulus package will do it and worry that we are just wasting more money and are going to leave our grandchildren with an even worse economic situation.

lunchinlewis: Two wrongs don't make a right.

3 lefts do.

KaponoFor3: That somehow justifies it?

Not at all. I was against the "bailout" and first "stimulus", too.

I was just throwing that out there for people to ponder just what might have happened had Bush not had his little "Hobby War."

brigid_fitch: Second, all public school teachers aren't union

True or not (I don't know) you can't argue that the teacher's union isn't incredibly powerful. "TEH CHILLIN" is a tough thing to say no to.

The Dems (just like the Repubs before them) are missing the boat. There is so much they could do by cutting the federal budget allowing that extra money in people's pockets to be it's own stimulous package.

If you reduced government spending by like 25% and used a good portion of those cuts to start paying down the national debt I think we'd be pretty good.

But wtf do I know, I'm just some stupid libertarian who wants to see the federal government control less of his life.

Bored Horde: When did the "small business" Republicans start cheering for measures that squash local competition against the big box stores?

Not sure where you are getting that from?

Bored Horde: Investment in social programs an infrastructure generates wealth by allowing small businesses to take off.

I disagree that investment in social programs generates wealth. It really just generates continued dependence. Infrastructure investment would be nice, but you're kidding yourself if you think "small businesses" would be the ones to get a majority of the money.

Best way to really make it so that the everyday man improves his economic situation? Give him more money in his paycheck every two weeks by drastically lowering taxes. THAT will stimulate the economy.

Bored Horde: Break up wallymart. I can't think of a single company that has done more to ruin America's regional manufacturing firms and small businesses then those pirates.

and what next. you can't bring back the corner hardware store and the local factory. that's going backwards to a gauzy past that really wasn't as awesome as you may imagine

KaponoFor3: Best way to really make it so that the everyday man improves his economic situation? Give him more money in his paycheck every two weeks by drastically lowering taxes. THAT will stimulate the economy.

This will never happen though, because once the government did it, they would be fought tooth and nail when they try to take the money back.

benlonghair: The Dems (just like the Repubs before them) are missing the boat. There is so much they could do by cutting the federal budget allowing that extra money in people's pockets to be it's own stimulous package.

THIS

KaponoFor3: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Well, hopefully that road's potholes will be filled through this next stimulus plan.

Bored Horde: True, but claiming that a government investing in its own country instead of pissing money onto a regional conflict halfway across the world is the wrong decision just smacks of... desperation.

It's the scope and breadth of both that are debatable. Are you glad the contraceptive money was taken out of the stimulus? It is possible to be for improving the country and still be able to differentiate what is important and necessary "emergency" spending and what is not. In fact, it is not just possible, it is an obligation.

BooBoo23: This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

It's almost as though they have political capital... and intend on spending it.

/still wishes they weren't trying to spend so much capital capital

Vade Victis

KaponoFor3: brigid_fitch: This package is intended for long-term stability & job growth.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to increase long term stability and job growth, but I don't think this stimulus package will do it and worry that we are just wasting more money and are going to leave our grandchildren with an even worse economic situation.

A valid enough fear and there are "experts" aplenty who are both praising and criticizing this package. And it's just a first draft--Obama has asked for any and all ideas from both sides. We've tried the Republicans' way for a bit and look where that got us. Time to look into something new.

And this bill is not supposed to have 100% immediate help--it's meant to be long-term. I particularly like the creation of green-collar jobs: creating an entire industry that cannot be easily outsourced & opens up a new field for laborers and blue-collar workers. It'll take at least 2 years for that to get off the ground, but you have to lay the foundation sometime.

playblu: Well, if you can get 51% of the population to pay no taxes, and spend the country into debt paying for government handouts to them

Dude, don't talk about our military that way.

lunchinlewis: Two wrongs don't make a right.

So the Democrats can fix everything up and then the GOP can come in and knock everything down again?

Damn. I want the Republican's job.

brigid_fitch: A valid enough fear and there are "experts" aplenty who are both praising and criticizing this package. And it's just a first draft--Obama has asked for any and all ideas from both sides. We've tried the Republicans' way for a bit and look where that got us. Time to look into something new.

True, the GOP isn't the end-all be-all or we wouldn't be in this position. That being said, trying something new does not mean that the "something new" will be good or effective solely because it is something new. It should be scrutinized heavily and I'm glad it is.

The Onanist: Well, hopefully that road's potholes will be filled through this next stimulus plan.

it's even going to employ people to dig more holes and then other people to fill those holes back in

The Onanist: Well, hopefully that road's potholes will be filled through this next stimulus plan.

That's what worries me.

KaponoFor3: I disagree that investment in social programs generates wealth. It really just generates continued dependence.

The government NEVER creates wealth. Social programs are simply fancy wealth redistribution systems. The only way to create 'wealth' is by a) manufacturing goods and b) allowing small to medium businesses to flourish. Because forty people working under a company owner will be treated much better and make more money (on a whole) than a massive corporation that is way more interested in it's investor's well-being than their employees.

Small companies = workers, no investors; corporations = investors, screw employees.

As a side note, I'm glad this thread is here. Gives me something to do today.

benlonghair: The Dems (just like the Repubs before them) are missing the boat. There is so much they could do by cutting the federal budget allowing that extra money in people's pockets to be it's own stimulous package.

What did you do with your $300 last year? Almost everyone got a check that was supposed to get us out of a "slump" and look where that got us. Giving people cash won't stimulate the economy--Reagan tried it for 8 years & Bush tried it last year. Doesn't work. You need to invest money in long-term projects that will create a sustainable job market. But in the meantime, you have to help those who are struggling now, otherwise they'll be a drain on current resources.

christ almighty, if the republicans had their way, the great depression would've never ended!

KaponoFor3: brigid_fitch: A valid enough fear and there are "experts" aplenty who are both praising and criticizing this package. And it's just a first draft--Obama has asked for any and all ideas from both sides. We've tried the Republicans' way for a bit and look where that got us. Time to look into something new.

True, the GOP isn't the end-all be-all or we wouldn't be in this position. That being said, trying something new does not mean that the "something new" will be good or effective solely because it is something new. It should be scrutinized heavily and I'm glad it is.

Then we agree. Like I said, this is just a first draft. It bugs me the way some on the right are railing against it (and, lest anyone forget, WSJ is owned by Murdoch), but not offering anything substantial in the way of ideas. It's a first draft, you morons--quit wasting everyone's time by biatching and offer something constructive!

oh and i love how, now that they're in the minority, republicans have suddenly discovered fiscal conservatism. where were you for the last eight years, assholes!

brigid_fitch: And it's just a first draft--Obama has asked for any and all ideas from both sides.

What about from the people? Don't we know what we need better than some stuffed shirt in Washington who's never pulled the silver spoon out of his ass and gotten a real job? Their 'ideas' are more like 'how can we help our friends out with taxpayer dollars?'

brigid_fitch: We've tried the Republicans' way for a bit and look where that got us.

Explain to me how Dems throwing money at the problem is any different than Repubs throwing money at the problem, please. Because I don't see it. The majority of this bill will only help those people who don't need help.

brigid_fitch: And this bill is not supposed to have 100% immediate help--it's meant to be long-term.

You don't see a problem with the bolded part? What we need is short term fast solutions (ie stimulous in some form, I prefer tax cuts to workers and reallocation of currently available funds) and long term change (ie stop the war on terror in it's tracks, same with the war on drugs, and the massive graft within the federal government.)

FlashHarry: christ almighty, if the republicans had their way, the great depression would've never ended! ended seven years sooner

Link (new window)

KaponoFor3: Best way to really make it so that the everyday man improves his economic situation? Give him more money in his paycheck every two weeks by drastically lowering taxes. THAT will stimulate the economy.

If he's out of a job though it's not going to help him at all. And if he can afford to he's going to save that money in this climate because he's worried about possibly losing his job.

I think the whole point is that right now somebody has got to start demanding goods and services, and the government is in a prime position to be the one to get the ball rolling (if anyone can).

That's not to say that I'm convinced this is going to work, but there is certainly a chance. And at least with this stimulus plan there is some ROI in the form of infrastructure and other investments that I would have supported regardless of their impact on the economy (although in that case I would have insisted upon a balanced budget).

I'm confident that once things begin to turn around (whether as a result of this bill or, if it fails, later), if Obama is still in office, the budget will be balanced.

The Onanist: Is it as much as we've been spending in Iraq?

Well that makes it OK!

brigid_fitch: Because the point of the package is to stimulate the economy & create jobs instead of pouring money down a black hole.

I wish someone would come up with such a plan.

albo: FlashHarry: christ almighty, if the republicans had their way, the great depression would've never ended! ended seven years sooner

Link (new window)

your article, debunked isn't the internet wonderful?

benlonghair: Because forty people working under a company owner will be treated much better and make more money (on a whole) than a massive corporation that is way more interested in it's investor's well-being than their employees.

Small companies = workers, no investors; corporations = investors, screw employees.

Do you have any stats to back that up? What is the average pay of a small business worker compared to the average pay of a worker in a large corporation? Do the people at my local hardware store make more than the people at Home Depot?

I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't see why a business owner would pay a worker more than they are worth in the current market.

brigid_fitch: What did you do with your $300 last year?

$300 isn't crap. I pay, between state and federal taxes and fees, about 25% of my gross income. I don't make a whole lot of money, under 40k per year, which amounts to almost $10k in taxes. Cut taxes to 10%. That's a $6000 'stimulus' package for every single worker earning $40k per year.

pfft, $300.

Oh, lord, though, how could the government cut it's income by 60%?! easy. By cutting it's costs by 60%, like a person who loses their job.

FlashHarry: your article, debunked isn't the internet wonderful?

yeah, sure. a column written by a progressive journalist with his argument basically consisting of appeal to authority does not "debunk" a peer-reviewed study by two college economists.

except in bizarro world

The infrastructure investment is a good thing. It will provide jobs because it takes manpower to do the work and it will also provide long term benefits.

The renewable energy investment was a major plank in Obama's platform and the $8 billion mentioned would just be the first part of what he promised to spend. It will create jobs and provide long term benefits.

The stimulus checks being sent out to everyone... meh. I thought it was a bad idea when Bush did it and it hasn't gotten any better. I'm really not convinced that will help the economy significantly and it's hugely expensive.

It looks like there's a lot of pork in the proposed bill too. That needs to be seriously cut back.

albo: yeah, sure. a column written by a progressive journalist with his argument basically consisting of appeal to authority does not "debunk" a peer-reviewed study by two college economists.

Peer review only counts in global warming discussions.

Ryan2065: I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't see why a business owner would pay a worker more than they are worth in the current market.

Because sometimes people do things simply because it's the right thing to do. My company lost about $75k last year. LOST. I just got a $1.25 an hour raise. Not because it will help the boss profit more, but because he knew that everyone's cost of living went up. He's a good man.

I don't think you'll ever see a corporation do that. If you can refute this, fine, i've never heard it.

albo: FlashHarry: your article, debunked isn't the internet wonderful?

yeah, sure. a column written by a progressive journalist with his argument basically consisting of appeal to authority does not "debunk" a peer-reviewed study by two college economists.

except in bizarro world

Heh...

patrick767: The infrastructure investment is a good thing.

How much of the bill is dedicated to "infrastructure investment"?

albo: FlashHarry: christ almighty, if the republicans had their way, the great depression would've never ended! ended seven years sooner

Link (new window)

a deeper debunking of the "FDR prolonged the great depression" myth. (new window)

benlonghair: Ryan2065: I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't see why a business owner would pay a worker more than they are worth in the current market.

Because sometimes people do things simply because it's the right thing to do. My company lost about $75k last year. LOST. I just got a $1.25 an hour raise. Not because it will help the boss profit more, but because he knew that everyone's cost of living went up. He's a good man.

I don't think you'll ever see a corporation do that. If you can refute this, fine, i've never heard it.

I was asking for something to back up your claim that people working for small businesses make more than people working for large corporations in comparable jobs. Your response is your boss gave you a raise this year even though he lost a ton of money. That doesn't even come close to addressing my point.

Plus, what company increases their spending when they aren't even able to make a profit?

benlonghair:

Let me guess, you're a Libertarian? NTTAWWT--you have your views, Dems & Repubs have theirs. I tend to be a little left of center. Anyway, you have a lot of generalizations in your post, which is why I redacted it. I personally don't believe that they're all "stuffed shirts" with "silver spoons". Some definitely are, but not all.

As for letting us decide, I'm going to get slammed for this, but I don't believe that a lot of us can be trusted to know what's best. Like I said before, we all got $300--where did all that money go? It was supposed to help but all it did was make things worse. Were we supposed to pay down credit bills? Buy stuff? Pay our mortgage? Go on vacation? We did all that & it didn't work.

The package is a MIX of immediate & long-term, which is EXACTLY what we need. I agree that we need to stop throwing money away in Iraq (and never should have gone there in the first place).

patrick767: It looks like there's a lot of pork in the proposed bill too. That needs to be seriously cut back.

Why? Pork spending doesn't even account for 0.5% of expenditures. It's bullshiat. It's a distraction used by certain people to get you to focus on something very small while the big-ticket items are pushed out the back door.