It's amazing how willing the Conservatives are to let the country's, and the World's, economy go down the crapper just so they can keep their own dogma intact. Enjoy your depression, asshats.

PoopStain: tchamber: It's amazing how willing the Conservatives are to let the country's, and the World's, economy go down the crapper just so they can keep their own dogma intact.

It's an 800 billion dollar bet, not a guarantee. Caution isn't unreasonable.

And a livesaver isn't 100% reliable either. Do you still throw it out to the drowning man?

I'll b-b-b-Bush. Member when when Bush declared a "mandate"? Obama has more of a mandate. He won. He has the Senate and Congress. I say "FU, GOP." Talk to me in 2 years.

Articles By Rich Lowry

* Friday, February 06: Sorry, O: 'I Won' Won't Cover This
* Tuesday, January 27: When Maynard Met Nancy
* Friday, January 23: Barack Obama's Soaring Pragmatism
* Tuesday, January 20: The Roots of His Confidence
* Friday, January 16: Do We Really Want Another New Deal?
* Tuesday, January 13: Bush's Mistakes
* Friday, January 09: Why the Regulators Always Lose
* Tuesday, January 06: Fiscal Follies
* Monday, December 29: The New Culture War
* Friday, December 19: Cronyism in an Era of Change
* Tuesday, December 16: Paulson's Pliable Plan
* Friday, December 12: The Heart of Blago
* Tuesday, December 02: Barack the Realist
* Tuesday, November 25: Obama's New Clinton Administration
* Tuesday, November 18: Infrastructure Spending to Nowhere
* Friday, November 14: Youthfulness The Idiom Of American Politics
* Tuesday, November 11: Bailout Nation? Obama & The Big 3
* Friday, November 07: Center Holds
* Tuesday, November 04: End of the Reagan-Clinton Era?
* Friday, October 24: Barack Obama, False Moderate
* Tuesday, October 21: Powell's Lame Case For Obama
* Friday, October 10: Obama's Opportunism
* Tuesday, October 07: McCain Can't Dodge the Economy
* Saturday, October 04: Liberals Rethink Free Speech
* Friday, September 26: John McPerot
* Friday, September 19: The End of Illusion, Part II
* Tuesday, September 16: Media Miss the McCain That Was Going to Lose
* Monday, September 01: McCain Facing a Perfect Storm
* Friday, August 22: McCain's Missing Middle
* Tuesday, August 19: Obama Lying About His Abortion Record
* Friday, August 15: The Lieberman Option
* Tuesday, August 12: Following McCain's Lead on Russia, Iraq
* Friday, August 08: Watch the Ego, O
* Friday, August 01: Obama Lurches Off Course
* Tuesday, July 29: Our First Transnational President?
* Tuesday, July 15: Planning to Ignore the Facts
* Friday, July 11: The Unspeakable Peril for Latinos
* Tuesday, July 08: Obama Playing Voters for Dupes

Rightwing partisan blowhard blows. Hard.

PoopStain: Pelosi and Reid

They are what is wrong with seniority rules. Honestly, they both totally suck as leaders. Nancy comes across as a Stepford Wife on acid and Harry can't seem to find his ass with both hands. "I have enough votes." "Oops, no I don't."

I know they understand how the "system" works, but 90% of their job is conveying things to the public and they fail epically at that task.

I know I can't be alone in thinking this.

PoopStain: We're selling off the next generation with this bill. Is it so much to ask that they're careful with what they are spending? Or are you a big fan of the unaccountable money we threw at the banks to no effect?

I don't know about you...but the next generation got sold down the river a few years ago. The rest of my life doesn't look as good as it did a decade ago.

Now, that doesn't validate passing this stimulus blindly. However, I'm not really sure what the cost of doing nothing would be. Also, I've seen enough evidence in my own lifetime to show me that the ideas presented by the GOP do not work, therefore...I'm willing to take some new ideas.

That doesn't mean I want to see a trillion dollar spending bill for the hell of it (and I'm glad the Senate bill is slightly smaller), but Obama winning is enough for a majority of America.

Despite what the talking points say, Obama doesn't seem to be running hogwild through the treasury for the hell of it (even if Pelosi may be).

And, just because I voted for Obama...it doesn't mean I think Reid and Pelosi are remotely capable of doing their jobs. I'd be more than happy to see both of them removed from their posts.

PoopStain: But if the end result of doing nothing is going to be the same as spending 800 billion, I'd rather we suffer for free.

Everything I've seen is a deflationary spiral that we don't get out of until it hits the bottom.

Now, ignoring the people that scream to let it burn without analyzing what exactly that means (re: fake-economists here on Fark), every explanation of our options seems to be quite similar.

There is a known questionable choice (the stimulus). If it is successful, it will help the economy over the short-term and it will not greatly negatively impact the economy over the longterm. If it fails or is only marginally successful, the infrastructure improvements will put us in a better position several years down the road and we won't be terribly disadvantaged in 3-5 years.

There is also an unknown bad choice (letting things burn while sitting on our thumbs). Things will continue to get worse and, at some point over the next 2-5 years, things will completely bottom out. The economy will be negatively impacted over the short-term, but in the long-term there will be marginal change. However, we will still be lagging behind in the alternative energy market and even further behind in other infrastructure improvements.

So, we're left with choosing something that could be good or could be bad, but there are extra positives that will come out of it that aren't directly related to the economy while the alternative is a known bad decision where we don't know how bad it is.

bulldg4life: So, we're left with choosing something that could be good or could be bad, but there are extra positives that will come out of it that aren't directly related to the economy while the alternative is a known bad decision where we don't know how bad it is.

To add on...

It seems as though even if the stimulus is unsuccessful, we know what the bad consequences will be. However, no one is really sure what the extent of the bad consequences would be should we not provide some sort of stimulus.

So, do you stick your hand in the door jam and slam the door or do you pick whatever might be behind curtain number two knowing that, at the very least, someone is going to take a sledgehammer to your hand?

BuckTurgidson: Articles By Rich Lowry

...

In case you forgot, he's the one who wrote about the starbursts dancing around his room that came from Palin after the VP debate.

SomeoneDumb: BuckTurgidson: Articles By Rich Lowry
...
In case you forgot, he's the one who wrote about the starbursts dancing around his room that came from Palin after the VP debate.

I had missed that gem, thanks:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

[PicardFacepalm.jpg]

I'd forgotten just how bad that passage was.

PoopStain: I never had a problem with the infrastructure improvements, but the majority of the bill isn't even going towards that. Education got almost twice as much before the Senate started trimming.

The article that was greenlit earlier about the new stimulus plan says that school construction was one of the main things axed from the $900b monstrosity.

PoopStain: Education is, loosely, an investment in infrastructure in that it provides for a better future, so I can almost see why it was included. But then I read about Milwaukee getting 100 million to build new schools even though their enrollment is dropping and they have 15 vacant schools already, and I get a little stabby (not sure if that was left in the bill the Senate put out).

And are we sure that the existing schools aren't a hundred years old and just barely within health code?

The thing is, all these little "pet projects" everyone is biatching about are still stimulus. A lot of them provide aid to projects that are already in the works or being put into place, so they would provide a quick boost before any of the later projects got going. A lot of them function as morale boosters. Hell, 75% of the stimulus' job is simply to boost public confidence. If people think we're heading for the edge, then no stimulus will work. If people feel like things are turning up, an imperfect stimulus would do wonders.

That's the thing people need to understand. Recessions are far more about mind than money.

Only problem is, the Senate's "stimulus" is now 42% tax cuts.

Those are sure going to help all the millions of new unemployed, having all those nonexistent taxes they're now paying reduced.

Oh yeah, unemployment bennies are taxed. The taxes on your unemployment benefits are going to go down $10 a week! Thank you, Republicans!

Guessing Rich Lowry didn't have a problem with Bush's "I have political capital, and I'm gonna spend it" post-Election 2004. Douchebag.

Yes it will.

Republicans?

STFU.

YOU lost.

Maybe he should have claimed he was the decider instead?

cameroncrazy1984: And a livesaver isn't 100% reliable either. Do you still throw it out to the drowning man?

And when you are caught kiting checks, the solution should not be to ask if you can write a check to cover it as Obama seems to be doing. The solution to being in debt is not to get into more debt to "restore your lifestyle" when the bounced checks come due. It should be obvious. Exactly what source of taxes does Obama plan on implementing to pay off the $850 billion debt he wants to incur?

PoopStain: bulldg4life: Now, that doesn't validate passing this stimulus blindly. However, I'm not really sure what the cost of doing nothing would be. Also, I've seen enough evidence in my own lifetime to show me that the ideas presented by the GOP do not work, therefore...I'm willing to take some new ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of tax cuts, either, since I don't think they'll work. But if the end result of doing nothing is going to be the same as spending 800 billion, I'd rather we suffer for free.


I think this is the major issue. Making concessions to the Republicans essentially means either padding the bill with the same waste-of-money vestigal crap we'd put up with for over a decade, or cutting and modifying the bill overall to conform with such things. If anything, the stimulus is too small from the standpoint of investing in manufacturing and infrastructure. We need to get out from under the weight and morass of neo-liberal economics before we're in the clear, and the Republican party apparently has no interest whatsoever in doing that. Right now we're stuck with obstructionist, dogmatic, partisan asshats sparring with a bunch of feckless, bickering dolts. It's just about the worst combination. I think Obama's job right now is really to bring some discipline to Congress right now and get things done because they apparently lack the ability to do things competently themselves.

No, but it is appropriate to remind the GOP that they lost in large part because they farked up the economy. Really, they've got some balls thinking they can tell anyone they know how the economy works.

PoopStain: The Democrats insisted on a tax credit for people who don't pay taxes, so they will be getting money, too. At least $500 to people who don't pay taxes at all. All you have to do is file a return.

Unless you're an illegal. If you file a return to get the $500 stimulus, the Border Patrol will then know where you are and will come and load you into a trebuchet and fling you back over the border. So it's really an anti-immigrant provision.

Republicans only want the government to spend money if it's going to bomb brown people, not feed them.

I don't like the Faith based office idea.
Someone put it this way and it made a ton of sense using this secular scale.

Religion = -1
Secular = 0
Atheist = +1

We are suppose to have 0 because of the separation of church and state right?

So his FBO idea is to get religious and secular organizations together for community good (I know it's more complicated than that but just let me continue).

Secular organizations don't promote Atheist ideas. Infact they don't promote any ideals. Atheist =/= secular necessarily. Ex: The Red Cross. Religious organizations promote religious ideals (duh).

So lets say Obama allows 10 religious organizations and 10 secular organizations. Add up their numbers and we end up with -10 on our secular scale in the community


Obama needs to have Atheist organizations included in his poorly named Faith Based office thingy.

Superjoe: No, but it is appropriate to remind the GOP that they lost in large part because they farked up the economy.

Maybe so, but that isn't the reason I voted against them.

It was more the "war(s)," the wiretaps and well, the "W" himself...

When will we ever grow up to think past the Republican vs. Democrat paradigm? It's all complete lies and fraud.

meh, as if bush was elected on a $1b spending to offshore military operations. you'll get over it.

Ah, yes, Real Clear Politics, the site I'd never heard of until Bill Kristol mentioned it favorably.

Then I knew it was garbage.

Three Crooked Squirrels: I'll b-b-b-Bush. Member when when Bush declared a "mandate"? Obama has more of a mandate. He won. He has the Senate and Congress. I say "FU, GOP." Talk to me in 2 years.

yes, use their mistakes as an excuse to ignore warnings that you are repeating them. brilliant strategy.

When your party brings in Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher to motivate your group, you really don't have much of a right to declare intellectual collapse upon anything but yourself.

Britney Spear's Speculum: I don't like the Faith based office idea.
Someone put it this way and it made a ton of sense using this secular scale.

Religion = -1
Secular = 0
Atheist = +1

We are suppose to have 0 because of the separation of church and state right?

So his FBO idea is to get religious and secular organizations together for community good (I know it's more complicated than that but just let me continue).

Secular organizations don't promote Atheist ideas. Infact they don't promote any ideals. Atheist =/= secular necessarily. Ex: The Red Cross. Religious organizations promote religious ideals (duh).

So lets say Obama allows 10 religious organizations and 10 secular organizations. Add up their numbers and we end up with -10 on our secular scale in the community


Obama needs to have Atheist organizations included in his poorly named Faith Based office thingy.

So much THIS!

Britney Spear's Speculum: I don't like the Faith based office idea.
Someone put it this way and it made a ton of sense using this secular scale.

Religion = -1
Secular = 0
Atheist = +1

We are suppose to have 0 because of the separation of church and state right?

So his FBO idea is to get religious and secular organizations together for community good (I know it's more complicated than that but just let me continue).

Secular organizations don't promote Atheist ideas. Infact they don't promote any ideals. Atheist =/= secular necessarily. Ex: The Red Cross. Religious organizations promote religious ideals (duh).

So lets say Obama allows 10 religious organizations and 10 secular organizations. Add up their numbers and we end up with -10 on our secular scale in the community


Obama needs to have Atheist organizations included in his poorly named Faith Based office thingy.

there are no atheist organizations. athiesm is not a creed. I'm pretty sure that's the point.

NewportBarGuy: PoopStain: Pelosi and Reid

They are what is wrong with seniority rules. Honestly, they both totally suck as leaders. Nancy comes across as a Stepford Wife on acid and Harry can't seem to find his ass with both hands. "I have enough votes." "Oops, no I don't."

I know they understand how the "system" works, but 90% of their job is conveying things to the public and they fail epically at that task.

I know I can't be alone in thinking this.

Almost all my friends are Democrats/liberals. Almost none of my friends like Pelosi and Reid. You are far from alone.

PoopStain: Actually, the only point in TFA that I sort of agreed with was the very accurate point that Obama did not campaign on deficit spending. He has a mandate, yes, but I trust him to be reasonable about it.

And I agree with both those statements.

SomeoneDumb: BuckTurgidson: Articles By Rich Lowry

...

In case you forgot, he's the one who wrote about the starbursts dancing around his room that came from Palin after the VP debate.

And I completely forgot about that. Hilarious.

Ned Stark: there are no atheist organizations. athiesm is not a creed. I'm pretty sure that's the point.


[citation needed]

FTA The bill came out of the House with a price tag of $819 billion. It would spend more in 2011 alone than in this year, and more in 2012 and beyond than in this year. Why far-off spending priorities have to be set in a rush now is something no one can explain - except that congressional Democrats want to toss bulging sacks of cash out the door.

Obama writes that the bill "is more than a prescription for short-term spending - it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity." Fine. A long-term strategy deserves long-term deliberation, the hearings and other processes meant to exercise a check on legislating in a panic.

If congress and Obama wanted to spend a lot this year and next with a pushed through bill I really would not have minded it that much. The problem with the stimulus bill right now is that it contains a lot and I mean a lot of stuff that is long term. Give me an emergency bill that is full of stuff that will stimulate the economy in the near term and have some long term benies I would be OK. The arguement that we need to pass these investment measures that only come in late next year or the year after right now rings hallow. Have a GD debate later this year and get the long term investment strategy passed until then emergency bills should be for the near term.

/Yes I want america to fail but at least we will fail with less debt.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and once the whining simmered down a few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, I don't recall a heck of a lot of gnashing of teeth and tearing of cloaks from about February 'til about 2002.

You sound like a bunch of shrieking harpies complaining over every bowel movement Obama has. Obama will make the mistake you're looking for soon enough. All this does is make you look like idiots and it's going to reduce your credibility and impact when the time comes for legitimate outrage.

Britney Spear's Speculum: So lets say Obama allows 10 religious organizations and 10 secular organizations. Add up their numbers and we end up with -10 on our secular scale in the community


Obama needs to have Atheist organizations included in his poorly named Faith Based office thingy.

Ok, I'm an atheist and I don't agree with this statement. If I recall correctly, there are provisions that prohibit religious organizations from using federal money to promote religion, and must use all given money to simply help people. As long as all the organizations included in this Initiative are dedicated to help people, and can only use federal money to accomplish this goal, I couldn't care less if they're religious, secular, or atheist in nature.

tchamber: It's amazing how willing the Conservatives are to let the country's, and the World's, economy go down the crapper just so they can keep their own dogma intact. Enjoy your depression, asshats.

Sooo... speaking of campaign promises... what ever happened to PAYGO?

Britney Spear's Speculum: Ned Stark: there are no atheist organizations. athiesm is not a creed. I'm pretty sure that's the point.


[citation needed]

burden of proof is generally on the people claiming something does exist. so ill [citation needed] your [citation needed]

/that kinda sounds dirty.

I think the author has a point, to a point.

Obama should be selling this stimulus on its own merits. I think given the fact that he campaigned on a promise of limited spending, it's only fair to explain why the plan has changed. Circumstances have changed and we need to address that.

The thing is, the GOP is not allowing him to sell this plan on its merits. They're still griping on and on about tax cuts and playing obstructionists based on the 2% of the stimulus they object to. They continue to demand a seat at the table but when they get one, they don't cooperate.

I think the "I won" then, is more justified in the context of rejecting GOP criticisms of the stimulus and demands to return to GOP ideals, instead of the context of trying to sell the stimulus. I fully agree with him that GOP ideals have been repudiated in this last election, and if they continue to champion these ideals out of pure partisan dogma and obstructionism, then they need to be put in their place with a well-enunciated "I won".

/i suggest he follow it with a "suck it, GOP" and a double flip of the bird.

Ned Stark:
there are no atheist organizations. athiesm is not a creed. I'm pretty sure that's the point.

There aren't? (new window)

Britney Spear's Speculum: Ned Stark: there are no atheist organizations. athiesm is not a creed. I'm pretty sure that's the point.


[citation needed]

List of atheist organizations

Car_Ramrod: If I recall correctly, there are provisions that prohibit religious organizations from using federal money to promote religion, and must use all given money to simply help people. As long as all the organizations included in this Initiative are dedicated to help people, and can only use federal money to accomplish this goal, I couldn't care less if they're religious, secular, or atheist in
nature.

Why yes, religious organizations are so noble and trust worthy that they won't misappropriate the funds at all. Nothing to see here people. Move along.

Ned Stark: Britney Spear's Speculum: Ned Stark: there are no atheist organizations. athiesm is not a creed. I'm pretty sure that's the point.


[citation needed]

burden of proof is generally on the people claiming something does exist. so ill [citation needed] your [citation needed]

/that kinda sounds dirty.

Debunked
Any more brain busters?

vygramul: You sound like a bunch of shrieking harpies complaining over every Obowel movement Obama has. Obama will make the mistake you're looking for soon enough. All this does is make you look like idiots and it's going to reduce your credibility and impact when the time comes for legitimate outrage.

t,ftfy

Car_Ramrod: Ok, I'm an atheist and I don't agree with this statement. If I recall correctly, there are provisions that prohibit religious organizations from using federal money to promote religion, and must use all given money to simply help people. As long as all the organizations included in this Initiative are dedicated to help people, and can only use federal money to accomplish this goal, I couldn't care less if they're religious, secular, or atheist in nature.

You obviously failed to see my point too.

Britney Spear's Speculum: You obviously failed to see my point too.

Atheism isn't really something that should be "promoted." That idea reeks of "spreading religion." It's a realization and/or an epiphany. Forcing that on someone undermines the value of rational thought.

sarcastrophe: Forcing that on someone undermines the value of rational thought.

Forcing rational thought on someone undermines the value of rational thought?

Wow, that's a dizzying one. The room's still spinning.

Alien Robot [TotalFark] 2009-02-07 02:51:59 AM
cameroncrazy1984: And a livesaver isn't 100% reliable either. Do you still throw it out to the drowning man?

And when you are caught kiting checks, the solution should not be to ask if you can write a check to cover it as Obama seems to be doing. The solution to being in debt is not to get into more debt to "restore your lifestyle" when the bounced checks come due. It should be obvious. Exactly what source of taxes does Obama plan on implementing to pay off the $850 billion debt he wants to incur?

This was never the point. It's absurd and the height of hypocrisy for anyone in Congress, especially the Republicans, to complain about budget deficits now when it was the Bush administration and last few congresses that brought debt levels to such extraordinary highs as to cause problems even if this hadn't happened. The whole economy is betting on future money, everyone knows that. We're guaranteed to have less future money if we keep going down the path we're going down.

Now I think this particular stimulus bill is a confusing, unscientific mess, but as someone else said, confidence is the most important factor. I'm not saying that the Republicans have no right to attack the bill, but relatively petty attacks just to score political points is truly irresponsible, because it raises questions in the public mind about the effectiveness of the bill which is probably the most damaging thing that could happen. If they're acting to prevent wasting money, that's great. If they're whining about this becoming an omnibus spending bill, that's pathetic. Congress passes such bills (which I oppose) all the time. If the money is actually making jobs and improving infrastructure and other things we actually need anyway, it's great even if the money isn't targeted in the best possible way.

Instead, what has happened is a bill that shores up states and cities (which really should be forced to fend for themselves more than they do) and goes to feel good garbage like "education" when that's not going to create any more jobs (there are already a zillion teachers, if anything we need to fire administrators).

This is all, of course, aside from the fact that we have steadfastly ignored the problem of corrupt banks spontaneously combusting due to their own malfeasance, and really, at this point it looks to me like all the bailouts thus far were a waste if only because having the banks go bust and put their employees out of jobs would be a fraction of the total unemployment now anyway.

I see (and I claim no expertise on anything) three things happening:

1. Wall Street is going to lose a lot of its power as competing cities and countries establish their own institutions (after this is all over)

2. The systemic weaknesses in our economy will fall through because no stimulus bill could be comprehensive enough to save them all (e.g. Steel industry) and this will be good because it will allow new, better companies without histories of subsidies to establish themselves competitively

3. If the bill is wasteful and misdirected this country will suffer a blow on par with the entire Iraq war.

whidbey: Forcing rational thought on someone undermines the value of rational thought?

Wow, that's a dizzying one. The room's still spinning.

Rational thought is something that must be learned.

sarcastrophe: Britney Spear's Speculum: You obviously failed to see my point too.

Atheism isn't really something that should be "promoted." That idea reeks of "spreading religion." It's a realization and/or an epiphany. Forcing that on someone undermines the value of rational thought.

That's good. Sit out while others take charge.
If I had a nickle for every religious person that told me this, I be farking rich. You're playing into their game with your attitude.