Man, she was really grasping at a straw there, though I'd be curious to see her entire answer, seems to be cut off at the end

I really have no clue why this talking point has been deemed worthy of dispersal.

Is our GOP learning? It appears not.

Obdicut: I really have no clue why this talking point has been deemed worthy of dispersal.

I think its cause its a great example that the stimulus bill isn't really a stimulus bill, but instead a general spending bill that the Democrats are sticking in things unrelated to the stimulus goal that they are presenting the package as.

Obdicut: Is our GOP learning? It appears not.

It had no business in an emergency spending bill. That's all there is to it. I'm glad the Democrats took it out.

um, easy, it puts money in the pockets of designers, printers, photographers, videographers, producers, editors, actors etc....

lunchinlewis: I'm glad the Democrats took it out.

Is that confirmed that it was taken out? I know Obama asked them to but I hadn't heard if they did or not.

Obdicut: I really have no clue why this talking point has been deemed worthy of dispersal.

Is our GOP learning? It appears not.

It got Obama's attention, because he had it removed. Is our Pelosi learning? It appears not.

KaponoFor3: I think its cause its a great example that the stimulus bill isn't really a stimulus bill, but instead a general spending bill that the Democrats are sticking in things unrelated to the stimulus goal that they are presenting the package as.

I'm honestly asking, because I haven't:

Have you analyzed the bill and found that the majority of the items are not related to stimulus?

lunchinlewis: It had no business in an emergency spending bill. That's all there is to it. I'm glad the Democrats took it out.

I'll agree with that, but there seems to be an attempt to whip up outrage over this. It seems a very odd choice. And it is almost certainly going to backfire on them spectacularly.

KaponoFor3: lunchinlewis: I'm glad the Democrats took it out.

Is that confirmed that it was taken out? I know Obama asked them to but I hadn't heard if they did or not.

Unless I heard it wrong on the news this morning - and I was dealing with a fussy baby - yes, it was removed.

KaponoFor3: Is that confirmed that it was taken out? I know Obama asked them to but I hadn't heard if they did or not.

Maybe I was ahead of myself. But if Obama tells them, I expect they will step to it.

Obdicut: And it is almost certainly going to backfire on them spectacularly.

Not sure how, but I guess we will have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Congress did something smart, so let's look on the bright and non-partisan side.

Lord save us...that woman is not quick on her feet.

Diogenes: Lord save us...that woman is not quick on her feet.

I know. I think I recall reading in the Bible that a female legislator from the US who wasn't able to articulate her position quickly would be the triggering event for the Rapture. We're all farked.

lunchinlewis: Not sure how, but I guess we will have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Congress did something smart, so let's look on the bright and non-partisan side.

Strategically speaking, I think the bill should have been split. The first one should have been immediate stimulus, the second one for long term stability.

I get the feeling Obama wanted a somewhat loaded bill so he could take stuff out and appear he's being cooperative. But it's stalling the whole process.

Now, the question I have in my mind is: Had the bill been bare bones immediate stimulus with no fluff, no pork, nothing really questionable, would the GOP still be using this opportunity to flex their party muscles? I realize it's a theoretical, but I suspect there's alot more afoot here than the contents of the package.

lunchinlewis: Not sure how, but I guess we will have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Congress did something smart, so let's look on the bright and non-partisan side.

What I mean is:

Almost every spending bill of any sort has pork stuffed into it. The Republicans do this, the Democrats do this. This is a case of the Republicans pointing out pork.

It will backfire on them, if they continue talking loudly about it, because a bill introduced by a republican can be shown to include pork as well, similarly unrelated to the topic of the bill.

Now, if the Republicans made a pledge to include no spending in a bill not directly related to the bill, I just might become a Republican again; but I sincerely doubt they're going to do that.

Additionally, this makes them seem anti-birth control, which is unfair, but that'll be part of the public perception. That is also stupid.

WaltzingMathilda: Diogenes: Lord save us...that woman is not quick on her feet.

I know. I think I recall reading in the Bible that a female legislator from the US who wasn't able to articulate her position quickly would be the triggering event for the Rapture. We're all farked.

Oh, don't you go dinging me for using that word!

To be completely honest, though, Pelosi never impressed me. A while before she was Speaker she gave the Democratic rebuttal to one of Bush's bigger speeches (SOTU or something) and I remember thinking "she's a terrible speaker."

Obdicut: Have you analyzed the bill and found that the majority of the items are not related to stimulus?

I have not gone line by line, no. I doubt too many people have. That being said, even if the majority of the bill is stimulus related, that doesn't mean that it should be OK to stick non-stimulus items into the bill. It defeats the purpose of the bill, wouldn't you agree? STD prevention is a good thing no doubt, but it does not belong in a bill meant to stimulate the economy.

Nabb1: Unless I heard it wrong on the news this morning - and I was dealing with a fussy baby - yes, it was removed.

That'd be great news if so.

Diogenes: I get the feeling Obama wanted a somewhat loaded bill so he could take stuff out and appear he's being cooperative.

I thought about that as well. It would be very smart and politically calculating, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it.

KaponoFor3: I have not gone line by line, no. I doubt too many people have. That being said, even if the majority of the bill is stimulus related, that doesn't mean that it should be OK to stick non-stimulus items into the bill. It defeats the purpose of the bill, wouldn't you agree? STD prevention is a good thing no doubt, but it does not belong in a bill meant to stimulate the economy.

If the majority of the bill is stimulus related, then (to me) it is not a general spending bill, as you asserted. By the roughest of all metrics, that is.

If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you might want to let us know what percentage of spending on the bill would have to be stimulus for you to say it is a stimulus bill and not a general spending bill.

Obdicut: If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you might want to let us know what percentage of spending on the bill would have to be stimulus for you to say it is a stimulus bill and not a general spending bill.

I'd prefer 100% to be honest. Stick everything else in regular appropriations bills.

KaponoFor3: I thought about that as well. It would be very smart and politically calculating, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it.

He might have just let Pelosi et al. act like normal congresscritters, rather than actively encouraging the bill be loaded with things to take out. His strategy is often letting opponents (however so defined) hang themselves by their own rope.

KaponoFor3: I'd prefer 100% to be honest. Stick everything else in regular appropriations bills.

Me too. But unless the Republicans are going to actually stick to that on other bills as well-- and I doubt they will-- yelling about this is going to backfire.

Diogenes: WaltzingMathilda: Diogenes: Lord save us...that woman is not quick on her feet.

I know. I think I recall reading in the Bible that a female legislator from the US who wasn't able to articulate her position quickly would be the triggering event for the Rapture. We're all farked.

Oh, don't you go dinging me for using that word!

To be completely honest, though, Pelosi never impressed me. A while before she was Speaker she gave the Democratic rebuttal to one of Bush's bigger speeches (SOTU or something) and I remember thinking "she's a terrible speaker."

I'm usually a Dem voter on a national level, but I am no Pelosi fan. However, I truly don't think she deserves half the shiat she gets. She can be hyper-partisan, and I don't agree with that at all ... but she's far from the only one. At the end of the day, she's just one vote out of over 400.

Obdicut: If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you might want to let us know what percentage of spending on the bill would have to be stimulus for you to say it is a stimulus bill and not a general spending bill.

That's a moot point because stimulus is going to mean different things to different people.

And I don't buy the business about thing being put in the bill to be strategically sacrificed. It's wasting time and opens them up to too much criticism.

lunchinlewis: That's a moot point because stimulus is going to mean different things to different people.

Yeah, that was supposed to be dry and tongue-in-cheek. Internet may have washed out the dryness.

Obdicut: He might have just let Pelosi et al. act like normal congresscritters, rather than actively encouraging the bill be loaded with things to take out. His strategy is often letting opponents (however so defined) hang themselves by their own rope.

I think not having a single GOP crossover in the House was exactly that.

KaponoFor3: , but it does not belong in a bill meant to stimulate the economy.

why not? sure it's a partisan issue, but std education isn't just a black hole, there are people who will get paid to produce said education materials and to perform said educating.

Diogenes: I think not having a single GOP crossover in the House was exactly that.

Yeah, me too. Now if they don't filibuster in the senate they look like they don't really mean their opposition, and if they do, it's an incredibly risky move.

WaltzingMathilda: At the end of the day, she's just one vote out of over 400.

And second in line to be President.

doublesecretprobation: why not? sure it's a partisan issue, but std education isn't just a black hole, there are people who will get paid to produce said education materials and to perform said educating.

Meh, then any spending by the government is stimulus. Stimulus spending, in the loosest possible way, should be spending that leads to more spending. It should be in some way related to growing the economy. While I think encouraging condom use will save us money in the long run, I entirely agree with KaponoFor3 that it doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, but in a general spending bill.

I honestly think a lot of the packing of various things into unrelated bills is mainly laziness, more than corruption.

Obdicut: should be spending that leads to more spending.

on the part of the public, I mean. Sheesh, I can barely talk today.

Diogenes: I think not having a single GOP crossover in the House was exactly that.

I know our new Congressman, Cao, said that he voted "no," but was leaning towards voting in favor of the Senate version, which would probably be more restrained. I don't know how much of this initial vote was political theater. Honestly, people on both sides should vote their consciences on this one, regardless of party, considering the amounts of money at stake. I guess I may as well ask Santa Claus to save our economy, but one can hope.

lunchinlewis: WaltzingMathilda: At the end of the day, she's just one vote out of over 400.

And second in line to be President.

And how many times has that happened? Yeah, it really has nothing to do with anything - Obama and Biden would have to die or resign before another VP was selected. If that's all you got, so be it.

WaltzingMathilda: lunchinlewis: WaltzingMathilda: At the end of the day, she's just one vote out of over 400.

And second in line to be President.

And how many times has that happened? Yeah, it really has nothing to do with anything - Obama and Biden would have to die or resign before another VP was selected. If that's all you got, so be it.

She is just one vote, but she is also Speaker of the House and the most important legislator in the House majority, so her will does carry a good bit more heft than some rookie Congressperson.

Simple answer

Most STD prevention relies on condoms, condoms prevent pregnancy, no pregnancy no illegitimate crotchfruit requiring WIC or a ADC benefits = tax payer savings.

QED

Obdicut: Have you analyzed the bill and found that the majority of the items are not related to stimulus?

As of yesterday...With the STD money. So take that out and look at the other 645 pages and lets see how much of it is job creating stimulus.

I asked (more than once) for people to give me an example (using the items in the bill) of how things like this would create more jobs than a 6 month tax holiday would. I got varying generalizations but no real answers. Anyone want to take a shot at it now that you've had 24 hours to cypher something up? I'll give you an example that I could come up with (as posted in the other thread)...

Dancin_In_Anson: I did hear some good news today though...Abilene, Texas (pop 115,000) is going to possibly receive $14 million for school upgrades.

The down side to that is that the tax holiday idea (using my 50% employment, $1000 per person for 6 months and the 18% "polling point of fact*") would result in $62,1000,000 in cash going directly into the economy, but I guess that they should be happy to get anything eh?


*the idea of the "polling point" being that only 18% of tax holiday money would be actually turned back into the economy

Nabb1: She is just one vote, but she is also Speaker of the House and the most important legislator in the House majority, so her will does carry a good bit more heft than some rookie Congressperson.

for what it's worth, as speaker, by tradition she does not vote on the floor, rarely participates in debates, and belongs to no congressional committees.

Dancin_In_Anson: As of yesterday...With the STD money. So take that out and look at the other 645 pages and lets see how much of it is job creating stimulus.

Missing the point award goes to you-- quite a collection of those ya got.

Dancin_In_Anson: I asked (more than once) for people to give me an example (using the items in the bill) of how things like this would create more jobs than a 6 month tax holiday would.

Nobody but really, really crazy people think a tax holiday is a good idea. There isn't even a firm definition of which taxes would be on holiday.

Can you put, in simple terms, which taxes you would want to be nullified for six months?

WaltzingMathilda: And how many times has that happened?

Once. In a Tom clancy novel.

Flab: WaltzingMathilda: And how many times has that happened?

Once. In a Tom clancy novel.

Ha. Well, we had better beware, then. President Pelosi's comin'!

NuttierThanEver: Simple answer

Most STD prevention relies on condoms, condoms prevent pregnancy, no pregnancy no illegitimate crotchfruit requiring WIC or a ADC benefits = tax payer savings.

QED

Yeah, condoms are cheap and reliable. Too bad their compliance rate sucks :P

Obdicut: There isn't even a firm definition of which taxes would be on holiday.

Can you put, in simple terms, which taxes you would want to be nullified for six months?

I have...more than once, but let's try again....

6 month no Federal income, SS and Medicare.

Would ou like for me to repost (for the 3rd 4th or 5th time) how I arrived at the figures I'm using?

Dancin_In_Anson: 6 month no Federal income, SS and Medicare.

Thank you.

Why six months? Doesn't it seem at all problematic for you? For example, I am absolutely sure that if your idea came to pass, my employer would immediately offer to pay all of our salaries during that six month period.

Shouldn't you make it twelve months?

Dancin_In_Anson: Would ou like for me to repost (for the 3rd 4th or 5th time) how I arrived at the figures I'm using?

Only if you format it like Timecube guy.

Dancin_In_Anson: SS and Medicare.

Then we can all be certain these programs will run out of money and The Prophecy will have been fulfilled.

Obdicut: Why six months? Doesn't it seem at all problematic for you? For example, I am absolutely sure that if your idea came to pass, my employer would immediately offer to pay all of our salaries during that six month period.

Well, your taxable income is based on a year. So your AGI would likely just be split in half to accomplish his proposal, no matter when you got paid. There'd be nothing to gain out of getting paid during a special 6 month period.

Obdicut: I am absolutely sure that if your idea came to pass, my employer would immediately offer to pay all of our salaries during that six month period.

I don't know who you work for, but they must have an awful lot of cash laying around.

WaltzingMathilda: Well, your taxable income is based on a year. So your AGI would likely just be split in half to accomplish his proposal, no matter when you got paid. There'd be nothing to gain out of getting paid during a special 6 month period.

Sorry, my knowledge of tax law isn't that great, but I think that DIA is advocating something rather novel here-- since you really only pay income taxes once per year, I figured his "six months" literally meant "for a specific six months of income, pay 0". If he really meant, "Divide your totaly income tax bill in half", then what you're saying makes sense.

Obdicut: Dancin_In_Anson: 6 month no Federal income, SS and Medicare.

Thank you.

Why six months? Doesn't it seem at all problematic for you? For example, I am absolutely sure that if your idea came to pass, my employer would immediately offer to pay all of our salaries during that six month period.

And when you file your tax return with your earnings for the entire taxable year, you'll still have to account for your taxes on a pro rata basis.

lunchinlewis: I don't know who you work for, but they must have an awful lot of cash laying around.

They do. It's one of our best assets. Our stock is still tanked, though. The awesome thing is our stock is too low for the whole company to be sold-- it would be selling at the lowest point.

We're actually in a pretty okay position, for a small retail-dependent company. And my CEO-- this is the liveliest I've ever, ever seen him. It's like he lives for disaster.

Nabb1: And when you file your tax return with your earnings for the entire taxable year, you'll still have to account for your taxes on a pro rata basis.

So what you actually mean is that your income tax for the year would be cut in half?

Flab: Then we can all be certain these programs will run out of money and The Prophecy will have been fulfilled.

Nothing can stop that from happening. Might as well just sit back an let it happen.