If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7451 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | » | Last
 
  2009-01-27 03:30:43 PM
Dottedmint, I have a question about about the Israel-Palestine thing, if I can go back there for a second...

Given that the Palestinians that are attacking Israel say that they are doing so out of retaliation just as Israel says when it attacks Palestine it seems that the only way to blame one while exonerating the other is to arbitrarily chose one's word over the other.

For every Israeli blow there is a Palestinian one to match it in the weeks before, and for every Palestinian blow there is an Israeli one to match it. And this tit for tat, back and forth stretches back decades.

I don't doubt that both of these parties thinks they are the victim in this. And the who started it thing is not only nearly impossible to determine objectively but also childish and nearly irrelevant to a solution moving forward.

I guess what I want to ask is why do you beleive the Israelis and not the Palestinians when they offer the exact same justifications for their actions in a situation which seems far older and more complex than a simple case of retribution for an isolated wrong?

And given the length of this conflict and the multitude of generations of people involved, does it make any sense to hold one side as exclusively to blame and wrong and the other side as entirely blameless?
 
  2009-01-27 11:15:33 PM
Whidbey "Better than spending all that money on a snipe hunt in Afghanistan and a turkey shoot in Iraq..."

I hate to break it to you Whidbey but we are going to be spending money on that as well. Sure Obama talks about pulling out of Iraq early but we have already agreed to pull out by the end of 2011. Even if he manages to pull us out early he plans on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

So any savings by reduction in troops in Iraq will be wiped out by increasing troops in Afghanistan.

"And yes, I'm aware of the ten trillion dollar debt this country owes. I'd rather see money spent here at home instead of tossed away in failed foreign policy."

So you think increasing our debt by almost a trillion dollars on a stimulus plan that will have minimal stimulation to the economy is actually a good thing?

Just spending money (especially money we don't have) just for the sake of spending money is NOT a good plan for this economy.

If there was reason to think that this spending would actually stimulate the economy and generate jobs I wouldn't object so much but when I see some of the details of this plan I don't see things that will hellp the average Joe.

How much will $650 million for digital TV coupons actually help the economy?

And $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting will create how many jobs?

And $6 billion for colleges/universities will do what to actually help the economy?


And again let's not forget that this is all money that we DO NOT HAVE.

So Thorndyke Barnhard is there nobody to blame?

And what exactly do you think they should do over there?
 
  2009-01-28 10:18:58 AM
dottedmint: So Thorndyke Barnhard is there nobody to blame?

I'm not sure why you think my post suggests this...
Re-reading it I'm fairly confident it suggests rather that the blame is shared and that any form of discourse that lays the blame disproportionately at one's feet while giving a complete pass to the other is entirely arbitrary and counterproductive.

dottedmint: And what exactly do you think they should do over there?

I honestly I don't know, and I'm not pretending to either, but I do think there are evident barriers to finding a solution that can be challenged such as the good guys vs bad guys oversimplification of the situation...which is happening on BOTH sides.

My own superficial feeling of the situation is that it is entirely immature, childish, irrational, and primitively indulgent. So I don't think either of them would look to someone like me for a solution but still... If we do the baby steps strategy of tackling the smaller more specific problems then maybe the grand goal of a resolution might come into view on its own as a result.
 
  2009-01-28 04:52:08 PM
dottedmint: And again let's not forget that this is all money that we DO NOT HAVE.

Funny how you didn't have anywhere near the same anxiety level when we were wasting a billion a week in that wonderful quagmire you support called Iraq. AND Afghanistan. But no, it's OK to waste money on unjustifiable military operations.

Sure Obama talks about pulling out of Iraq early but we have already agreed to pull out by the end of 2011. Even if he manages to pull us out early he plans on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

It's called "cleanup." And at this point we have no choice. We're in for the long haul thanks to the incompetence of the previous administration.
 
  2009-01-28 06:03:25 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard: Dottedmint, I have a question about about the Israel-Palestine thing, if I can go back there for a second...

Why call out Dottedmint and not Whedbey? He is looking at palestine with rose colored glasses just as much as dottement is with Israel.
 
  2009-01-28 06:10:06 PM
Saiga410: He is looking at palestine with rose colored glasses just as much as dottement is with Israel.

Not really. If anything, I agreed with your post.

It's just super cool and hip for Americans to go along with Israel because they're our "ally" and Palestine conjures up visions of Yassir Arafat.

There's never any condemnation of Israel's aggression, nay what aggression? says dottedmint...
 
  2009-01-28 06:14:59 PM
On the stimulus plan.

I have been seeing reports on how only 10-20% of the stimulus plan is actually stimulus. The percent changes depending upon who you actually believe but I do not think I have heard any number over 20 from either a conservative or liberal or whatever economist. Is it possible to cut the fat off of the stimulus plan? Cut that 80% that is not stimulus and have a vote separately. I do not want to see the bill as it is written. I feel it is being shoved down our throats like what has happened quite a few times over the past couple of years. Ohhhh noooos Iraq have WMDs, Ohhhh noooos the banks are going to all shut down at the same time, Ohhh noooos we are all going to be crushed by a depression. Ya well, I can agree (academically) that we need a stimulus plan. Most dems and most repubs agree. Can we cut it down to the bare bones right now and get the stimulus moving and then address the "investment for the future" stuff in the near future.

If you run the numbers that will drop the cost that we the taxpayer has to swallow to round about 150b and the bill will still be able to do what it has been sold to us as. I think this is a fair compromise. Any takers?
 
  2009-01-28 07:13:28 PM
Oh well never mind. It has passed the house and it is guaranteed to pass the senate. Well kiss your grandchildren's future earnings goodby.
 
  2009-01-28 11:11:06 PM
Widbey "Funny how you didn't have anywhere near the same anxiety level when we were wasting a billion a week in that wonderful quagmire you support called Iraq. AND Afghanistan. But no, it's OK to waste money on unjustifiable military operations."

Well see you and I disagree that it was a waste.

"It's called "cleanup." And at this point we have no choice. We're in for the long haul thanks to the incompetence of the previous administration."

LOL... It is called a "surge". Ya know... the same thing we did in Iraq that helped make Iraq more stable.

But again we are talking about almost $1trillion dollars that WE DO NOT HAVE and that will have minimal stimulus on the economy.

So putting us farther into debt would be a good thing???
 
  2009-01-29 01:53:47 PM
Saiga410: Why call out Dottedmint and not Whedbey? He is looking at palestine with rose colored glasses just as much as dottement is with Israel.

Well I might just be influenced by the dominant discourse right now that "Isreal either is or is not the agressor. period. No gray.". Given that Dottedmint was taking up the defense of Israel in that specific context, the question seemed most appropriately directed at him.

But maybe I should have directed it at both D and W.

whidbey, was I mistaken in assuming that you weren't acquiting Palestine but only criticizing the unrealistic acquital of Israel (which, I'll just point out explicitly, are not logically equivalent propositions).
 
  2009-01-30 07:09:31 AM
Again, I would like to know why spending $1trillion that we DO NOT HAVE is a good thing, especially when experts predict that it will have minimal impact on the recovery of this economy.

I'm sure there must be people in here who support that pork filled bill so I hope someone will explain why it is a good thing.....

BTW....

I find it funny that Obama said he would work to get bipartisan support for the bill...

but in reality there was bipartisan oposition against the bill....
 
  2009-01-31 12:21:43 AM
whidbey: Saiga410: He is looking at palestine with rose colored glasses just as much as dottement is with Israel.

Not really. If anything, I agreed with your post.

It's just super cool and hip for Americans to go along with Israel because they're our "ally" and Palestine conjures up visions of Yassir Arafat.

There's never any condemnation of Israel's aggression, nay what aggression? says dottedmint...


In the back and forth you were taking the complete contrarian stance of dottedmint, one of the palistinians are hapless victims of Israeli agression. Well that is only half the story, never once did you have a pragnatic "it is a snowball of violence" stance. Now I know you cannot have a debate without a contrarian stance (no you don't) but you were arguing from a stance just as narrow as dittedmint's.

This type of forum really forces the dialog to 11.
 
  2009-01-31 10:00:35 AM
So aprox 12 cents for every dollar in this stimulus package actually goes to stimulating the economy/creating jobs and this is supposed to be a good thing???

And when Obama comes before us and says he needs to spend another trillion (or more) to fix something else will that be a good thing?

And where exactly will we be getting the money from?

China?
 
  2009-02-02 03:51:28 PM
Saiga410: This type of forum really forces the dialog to 11.

I wish more people would stumble in.

In the back and forth you were taking the complete contrarian stance of dottedmint, one of the palistinians are hapless victims of Israeli agression. Well that is only half the story, never once did you have a pragnatic "it is a snowball of violence" stance.

Because at the very heart of it, Israel ultimately has more of a responsibility to rise above the violence. They are the legitimately-recognized nation.

Also of note is the history of the US's consistent vetoing of Security Council resolutions that pertain to grievances from other nations. Israel is a square peg repeatedly being rammed into a round hole until we get the political satisfaction we crave, no matter the consequence. There are deeper issues than just Israel merely defending itself or Palestinians behaving badly.

dottedmint: And where exactly will we be getting the money from?

China?


Again, questions that didn't seem to bother you when you supported Bush foreign policy.

But actually consider social spending at home instead of wasting it away in some long term imperialist venture?

Unthinkable. It's more fun to blow up stuff, I guess...

I find it funny that Obama said he would work to get bipartisan support for the bill...

but in reality there was bipartisan oposition against the bill....


So why did it pass so overwhelmingly?

And I'd like to believe that Obama really did reach out to the Republicans on this, and they offered nothing but their own trademark stubbornness. I wonder if this is the kind of trench warfare they're going to pull until the mid-term elections...they've already had practice in the Clinton administration.

But they would have passed the bailout portion of this bill if Bush were still in office. No question. Of course, "stimulus" would just be tax cuts that defeat the purpose.
 
  2009-02-02 04:10:34 PM
whidbey: Saiga410: This type of forum really forces the dialog to 11.

I wish more people would stumble in.

In the back and forth you were taking the complete contrarian stance of dottedmint, one of the palistinians are hapless victims of Israeli agression. Well that is only half the story, never once did you have a pragnatic "it is a snowball of violence" stance.

Because at the very heart of it, Israel ultimately has more of a responsibility to rise above the violence. They are the legitimately-recognized nation.

Also of note is the history of the US's consistent vetoing of Security Council resolutions that pertain to grievances from other nations. Israel is a square peg repeatedly being rammed into a round hole until we get the political satisfaction we crave, no matter the consequence. There are deeper issues than just Israel merely defending itself or Palestinians behaving badly.


wat
 
  2009-02-02 04:19:33 PM
wyrlss: wat

Pretty simple, really. Palestine can't even take its case to the UN.

Israel has a responsibility to abide by international law as the recognized entity that has a vote in the General Assembly.
 
  2009-02-02 04:37:05 PM
dottedmint: And where exactly will we be getting the money from?
 
  2009-02-03 09:55:25 AM
whidbey: wyrlss: wat

Pretty simple, really. Palestine can't even take its case to the UN.

Israel has a responsibility to abide by international law as the recognized entity that has a vote in the General Assembly.


Lissen, you're not a legitimately-recognized person, because I and a select group of my friends hold veto rights over a larger group of my friends and we say you aren't. So there.
 
  2009-02-03 10:15:59 PM
wyrlss: whidbey: wyrlss: wat

Pretty simple, really. Palestine can't even take its case to the UN.

Israel has a responsibility to abide by international law as the recognized entity that has a vote in the General Assembly.

Lissen, you're not a legitimately-recognized person, because I and a select group of my friends hold veto rights over a larger group of my friends and we say you aren't. So there.


I believe that is the point he is arguing.
 
  2009-02-04 07:08:10 AM
Whidbey I find your comments somewhat funny.

I have complained about Bush spending money that we don't have for a long time. You keep pointing to Iraq and Afghanistan but there are all sorts of things that we have spent money on that have helped to put us in debt.

And again, there was bipartisan oposition AGAINST this bill not support for this bill.


The vote was 244-to-188 with 11 Dems voting against it.

And the reason it was such a big margin was because there were so many Dems. It really is not that complicated.

So tell me again why putting us almost $1trillion farther in debt is a good thing. Especially when the CBO says it will have minimal impact on the economy.
 
  2009-02-04 12:26:50 PM
I stand by my final solution:
Move Israel to Wyoming. Or Montana. I don't care too much about either of them, and it keeps the kids separated.
 
  2009-02-04 03:02:36 PM
dottedmint: The vote was 244-to-188 with 11 Dems voting against it.

And that somehow constitutes a significant figure to you? Let me guess: Blue Dog Democrats, who should be doing the honorable thing by calling themselves "Republicans."

And the reason it was such a big margin was because there were so many Dems. It really is not that complicated.

It's actually quite simple, but for some reason you don't want to admit that it was passed with an overwhelming majority. Why not proudly admit that your party rejected it?

So tell me again why putting us almost $1trillion farther in debt is a good thing.

Again, you don't seem to mind it when the invisible negative money is spent on failures in the Middle East. But consider investing here at home and it's sudddenly shockingly inappropriate.

wyrlss: Lissen, you're not a legitimately-recognized person, because I and a select group of my friends hold veto rights over a larger group of my friends and we say you aren't. So there.

Dude I think Lawrence is eroding your brain. You might want to get out into the Real World™

/KU graduate
 
  2009-02-04 04:27:16 PM
whidbey:
wyrlss: Lissen, you're not a legitimately-recognized person, because I and a select group of my friends hold veto rights over a larger group of my friends and we say you aren't. So there.

Dude I think Lawrence is eroding your brain. You might want to get out into the Real World™

/KU graduate


I did that for two years before college. I thought I'd test the water before I put on my trunks. Now I'm putting on my trunks.
I'm just not sure that you can say that's a good reason that Israel has to be the bigger man.
 
  2009-02-04 05:43:59 PM
wyrlss: I'm just not sure that you can say that's a good reason that Israel has to be the bigger man.

It's pretty much the only reason. Do the math:

Israel: country
Palestine: not a country

Israel holds the cards here. Israel has US-backing. Israel is the recognized international entity. Palestine is not.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing.
 
  2009-02-04 06:14:54 PM
I find this funny Whidbey.

I say to you,

"So tell me again why putting us almost $1trillion farther in debt is a good thing."

And instead of actually defending putting us almost a $1trillion farther in debt you respond by saying,

"Again, you don't seem to mind it when the invisible negative money is spent on failures in the Middle East. But consider investing here at home and it's sudddenly shockingly inappropriate."

The problem is Whidbey that I have complained about Bush spending money we didn't have for a long time. That is my biggest complaint about him. Always has been. And of course when Bush was putting us in debt Dems complained about it but when Obama is putting us MUCH, MUCH FARTHER into debt Dems don't seem to have a problem with it.

So I'll ask again,

Why is it good for Obama to put us almost $1trillion farther into debt when the CBO says it will have minimal impact on stimulating the economy?

One estimate that I saw said that aprox 12 cents for every dollar goes to actually stimulating the economy or creating jobs. If we were talking about at least 50 cents on the dollar I could see making an argument that it isn't that bad but only 12 cents???
 
  2009-02-04 06:38:15 PM
dottedmint: The problem is Whidbey that I have complained about Bush spending money we didn't have for a long time.

No you haven't. You have, on the other hand, argued in favor of the trillion+ we've all but wasted in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I've never heard you once criticize Bush fiscal policy up until the bailout was proposed.

but when Obama is putting us MUCH, MUCH FARTHER into debt Dems don't seem to have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with needed social spending, no.

So I'll ask again,

Why is it good for Obama to put us almost $1trillion farther into debt when the CBO says it will have minimal impact on stimulating the economy?


I really don't expect them to have a well-rounded opinion. As for what economists are saying, a simple Googling will show you that many more are in favor of it than opposed.

The universal condemnation you're expecting just isn't happening.

One estimate that I saw said that aprox 12 cents for every dollar goes to actually stimulating the economy or creating jobs. If we were talking about at least 50 cents on the dollar I could see making an argument that it isn't that bad but only 12 cents???

I agree. We got saddled with having to bail out the banking industry, that's the problem. But I don't disagree with what the money is being spent on aside from that.

I'm far more optimistic about it than wasting our money on failed foreign policy decisions.
 
  2009-02-04 09:22:10 PM
Whidbey "No you haven't. You have, on the other hand, argued in favor of the trillion+ we've all but wasted in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I've never heard you once criticize Bush fiscal policy up until the bailout was proposed."

Obviously you have not been paying attention then Whidbey because I (as well as many other Conservatives) complained about how Bush was spending money. You and I disagree on where that money should be spent but I have complained about Bush spending money we did not have.

"I don't have a problem with needed social spending, no."

"Needed"?????

You honestly think that everything in that bill is "needed"?

Are these all "needed"?

$650 million for digital TV coupons.

$6 billion for colleges/universities - many which have billion dollar endowments.

$166 billion in direct aid to states - many of which have failed to budget wisely.

$50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

$44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.

$200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting.

$400 million for "National Treasures."


Also the whole point of this bill is to "Stimulate" the economy. It is not to spend money on all sorts of Democrat issues. IF they wanted some huge spending bill then they should have just said they were going to spend a boatload of money on things they want. Don't BS us and try to tell us it is some sort of stimulus package.

The House Democrats' bill provides enough spending - $825 billion - to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.

$825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the U.S. $22,000.

"I really don't expect them to have a well-rounded opinion."

So you don't think the CBO knows what they are talking about???


"As for what economists are saying, a simple Googling will show you that many more are in favor of it than opposed.

The universal condemnation you're expecting just isn't happening."


Can you substantiate that claim? That more economists favor what Obama is pushing?

BTW...

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago 45% supported the plan.

The more people hear what is actually in this bill the more they think it is a mistake.

OH... I just did a Google search and found this....

Economists object to Obama stimulus plan (new window)

Jan. 30, 2009 -- In a full-page ad published in major newspapers Jan. 29, more than 200 economists - including two from Washington University in St. Louis - politely reject President Obama's stimulus package calling for increased government action to jumpstart the economy.


"I agree. We got saddled with having to bail out the banking industry, that's the problem."

I'm not even talking about the banking bailout.

I'm pointing out that ONLY 12 cents of each dollar in this so-called stimulus package actually stimulates the economy or creates jobs.

"I'm far more optimistic about it than wasting our money on failed foreign policy decisions."

Again.... we are talking about money that we do NOT have. We are talking about money that we have to borrow from somewhere. And when Obama says we need some other bailout or stimulus you will say (what?) "good"? With the stroke of his pen he will push us another $1trillion in debt. How many more trillions in debt will we be after 4 years of Obama in the WH?

How much in debt is too much in debt for you?
 
  2009-02-05 04:13:19 PM
dottedmint: Are these all "needed"?

I could see a few of those items removed but so what?

You're still not in much of a position to be criticizing, having stood by eight years of failed foreign policy that will end up costing more than Obama's plan.

So you don't think the CBO knows what they are talking about???

Uh, turns out there's a little bit of a problem with that CBO report:

It doesn't exist

OH... I just did a Google search and found this....
Economists object to Obama stimulus plan (new window)


A bunch of conservatives object to government spending and recommend low taxes?

Say it ain't so! I'm SHOCKED, absolutely shocked...

Nice bit of cherry-picking there. My point still stands: that the universal condemnation you're claiming exists DOESN'T. More economists are hopeful of the plan than their disgruntled counterparts.

And what's more, your article does not address any of the line items you mentioned. Their main criticism is directed towards the hundreds of billions that the financial industry is going to cash in on.

I'm pointing out that ONLY 12 cents of each dollar in this so-called stimulus package actually stimulates the economy or creates jobs.

Statistics. Do I wish it were a higher number? Yes.

If it were higher, you'd be complaining that it's a two TRILLION dollar stimulus package, undoubtedly packed with even more pork and you'd have a field day with it.

Again.... we are talking about money that we do NOT have.

Like we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are talking about money that we have to borrow from somewhere

I agree. It should come from the equity and capital of the rich and powerful in this country.

But if we did that, you'd complain about the high taxes and how we're beefing up the express train to send jobs to China.

There's no winning with you.

And yes, we going to spend a lot of money the next four years, and we're going to spend it at home for once.

I support this. It's about damn time we took care of this country. Did you think it was going to come cheap?
 
  2009-02-05 11:00:49 PM
Whidbey "I could see a few of those items removed but so what?"

A "few"????

Of that list can you tell me what one / ones are needed.

"You're still not in much of a position to be criticizing, having stood by eight years of failed foreign policy that will end up costing more than Obama's plan."

1. Just because you said it was a failure does not make it a failure.

2. I'm not so sure Iraq/Afghanistan will end up costing us more...

"A bunch of conservatives object to government spending and recommend low taxes?

Say it ain't so! I'm SHOCKED, absolutely shocked...

Nice bit of cherry-picking there. My point still stands: that the universal condemnation you're claiming exists DOESN'T. More economists are hopeful of the plan than their disgruntled counterparts."


OH... So when LIBERAL economists support spending $1trillion that somehow proves your point???? Also, I'm not sure that all of those economists were conservative.

Also, I never claimed that there was "universal condemnation" of this so-called stimulus package.

Obviously big spending liberals support this package.

"If it were higher, you'd be complaining that it's a two TRILLION dollar stimulus package, undoubtedly packed with even more pork and you'd have a field day with it."

Funny....

I would much rather not spend $1trillion that we do not have, but IF every (or at least almost every) dollar went to actually stimulating the economy or creating jobs I would not be as opposed to this bill.

Ideally.... IF this package is such a good thing I would much rather see only those 12 cents per dollar be passed instead. The point of this is to stimulate the economy. Let's pass only things that will stimulate the economy.

"Like we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Sigh.....

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only thing that we have spent money on.

You don't think they were important. I do.

But in any case we spent money we did not have. (on more than just I. and A.)

IF spending money you do not have is wrong then it is wrong no matter what the case.

Or is it right if a Dem does it?

"I agree. It should come from the equity and capital of the rich and powerful in this country."

Right....

Take all the money from the rich and spend it on all sorts of liberal ideas. And once there is no longer "rich" to tax who is going to pay for everything?


"It's about damn time we took care of this country. Did you think it was going to come cheap?"

OK....

So when my house needs some work I shouldn't stop at just what I need for my house? Instead of simply putting on a new coat of paint I buy a bigscreen TV, new stereo, leather furniture, put on an addition in back, put in a hottub, build a rec-room in the basement, and of course a pool table for that rec-room.

Since I don't have enough money to actually pay for it I'll not only have to take out a huge loan but I'll also have to cash in the college funds of my kids.

If you want to fix up the house fine. But it is wise to not put yourself so far in debt that you can't get out.

And again

How much in debt is too much in debt for you???
 
  2009-02-06 12:57:14 AM
dottedmint: Whidbey "I could see a few of those items removed but so what?"

A "few"????

Of that list can you tell me what one / ones are needed.


The only one on the list that seemed questionable to me was half a billion dollars for digital TV coupons. I could see that one axed.

I don't have a problem with the rest of the list. I'm not going to say no to education, and the rest is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of billions that make up the bulk of the bill.

You can go ahead and call it "pork" I don't care. I agree to all of those things. It's unfortunate that 44 million has to go towards sprucing up a govt office, but they are also part of our infrastructure.

So far, I've only heard nothing but nit-picks from Republicans trying to trip Obama up any which way but loose. Par for the course in the next 8 years.

"You're still not in much of a position to be criticizing, having stood by eight years of failed foreign policy that will end up costing more than Obama's plan."

1. Just because you said it was a failure does not make it a failure.
2. I'm not so sure Iraq/Afghanistan will end up costing us more...


Iraq war cost estimates run into the trillions

TrillionS. With an "S" at the end.

Tell me you're still going to argue that Obama is spending too much money?


OH... So when LIBERAL economists support spending $1trillion that somehow proves your point???? Also, I'm not sure that all of those economists were conservative.

No, if the advertisement was paid for by the right-wing Cato Institute I think we can guess the political slant of the opposition you chose in your link.

Also, I never claimed that there was "universal condemnation" of this so-called stimulus package.

But you implied it.

Obviously big spending liberals support this package.


So do some of the biggest fatcats on the planet.

I would much rather not spend $1trillion that we do not have, but IF every (or at least almost every) dollar went to actually stimulating the economy or creating jobs I would not be as opposed to this bill.


And I've already told you I doubt that, because the bill would undoubtedly amount to more than just a trillion and you'd whine about it.

Ideally.... IF this package is such a good thing I would much rather see only those 12 cents per dollar be passed instead. The point of this is to stimulate the economy. Let's pass only things that will stimulate the economy.

I don't understand why you think this wouldn't do the job. Most of the bill is bail-out oriented and is supposed to do just that.

How effectively?

As the Senate debates the stimulus bill, some see pork where others see critical investments

Again, if you would like to show me some real damning criticism instead of WSJ Republican whining, I'd like to see that analysis.

Take all the money from the rich and spend it on all sorts of liberal ideas.


Heh. I didn't realize that caring about this country and its people for once constituted "liberal ideas" to be hated and shunned.

And once there is no longer "rich" to tax who is going to pay for everything?

This is a real argument?

If you want to fix up the house fine. But it is wise to not put yourself so far in debt that you can't get out.


I'm sure it is. But we've got the line of credit and we're fixing up the whole house. That's the decision being made, a decision that Bush would have had to go along as well, unless the Blue Dogs screwed up the veto override.

And again

How much in debt is too much in debt for you???


Again, I'm not real happy that we're not going after actual equity to pay for this, but as long as we keep the tax rate high and this administration puts forth a plan to trim the national debt in the next 20 years or so, this stimulus package will eventually pay for itself.

We are still a very wealthy country, and it's about time we took care of things here at home.
 
  2009-02-07 10:59:59 AM
So Much For Hope Over Fear (new window)

I saw this article and couldn't help but think of what you said Whidbey.

"I'm not going to say no to education,"

And in the article it says,

"It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction. "

I know... I know... 88.6 million is not much when you look at the total bill but it is still 88.6 million that is not needed.

So the Milwaukee school system has shrinking enrollment, 15 VACANT SCHOOLS and no plans for new construction and yet in this "stimulus package" there is 88.6 million dollars set aside for the Milwaukee schools.

"I agree to all of those things."


So this "$50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts" is needed???

"Tell me you're still going to argue that Obama is spending too much money?"

OK... Obama is spending too much money. Bush spent too much money and now Obama is spending too much money.

"No, if the advertisement was paid for by the right-wing Cato Institute I think we can guess the political slant of the opposition you chose in your link."

Yes. It was put out by Cato but that does not mean that all of the economists who signed onto it were Conservatives. Do you have a link to 200 liberal economists who say spending $1trillion that we do not have is good for the economy???

"Again, if you would like to show me some real damning criticism instead of WSJ Republican whining, I'd like to see that analysis."

Well....

First of all you have not provided any evidence that economists support this bill more than they oppose as you had claimed earlier. Heck... I haven't seen you provide any evidene that any economists support this bill..... I'm sure some do but I'm waiting for you support your claims.

Second....

Here are some statments that economists made to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus bill....

Stimulus Spending Skeptics: Economists Express Doubts About Trillion Dollar Spending Plan (new window)

And here is another article about why this is bad...

10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus (new window)


"Heh. I didn't realize that caring about this country and its people for once constituted "liberal ideas" to be hated and shunned."

I'm not sure putting us another $1trillion into debt is caring for this country....

"This is a real argument?"

Um... Yes...

You create a dis-incentive for people to become "rich" by taxing them heavily then fewer and fewer people will become "rich". When fewer and fewer people become "rich" there will be less tax money to pay for everything you want to pay for.

"But we've got the line of credit and we're fixing up the whole house."

And when your car breaks down and you have maxed out your line of credit what then????

This is how so many people got in trouble. They bought houses they could not afford, then maxed out their credit. At some point they could no longer afford to pay their bills....

"Again, I'm not real happy that we're not going after actual equity to pay for this, but as long as we keep the tax rate high and this administration puts forth a plan to trim the national debt in the next 20 years or so, this stimulus package will eventually pay for itself."

Do you actually expect Obama to trim the debt??? You think he is actually going to cut back on spending??? Or do you think that he will do this by taxing more???

And when has high taxes ever been good for the economy?

On a side note it is too bad we don't have more people joining the conversation....

Not that I don't enjoy our back and forth (even though you drive me nuts sometimes) it would be nice if more people would join the debates.....
 
  2009-02-11 03:29:24 PM
What do we have here? Re side note above, I've been messing around with fark forum for awhile and just now uncovered you guys. Forum is good for yuks but no place to really sound off. I am currently (maybe permanently) laid off, indolent and bored. Homies are oblivious to what is going on and too subjective and/or emotional (read-average citizens) to converse with re. my favorite topic...politics. If you don't mind, I'll horn in now and then.
 
  2009-02-11 05:41:44 PM
dottedmint: 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction. "

Yawn...How many times have I heard that lame talking point in threads here at Fark?

there is 88.6 million dollars set aside for the Milwaukee schools.

Funny how the "pork" in this bill is always some piddly amount under a hundred million dollars.

That's all you Repubs have. I never hear any criticism about the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars that make up the bulk of this package, no, let's complain about 50 million dollars spent on the arts...

88.6 million that is not needed.

Ever considered that the 15 schools might be sitting vacant because Milwaukee has no money to spend on fixing their problems?

Of course not.

Do you have a link to 200 liberal economists who say spending $1trillion that we do not have is good for the economy???

If you bothered to choose a source that wasn't so obviously biased, you'd find that there is actually support for the bill from economists on both sides of the aisle.

While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package -- even a flawed one -- is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy. (new window)

You create a dis-incentive for people to become "rich" by taxing them heavily then fewer and fewer people will become "rich". When fewer and fewer people become "rich" there will be less tax money to pay for everything you want to pay for.

Wow. That's about the best argument for a class war I've ever heard. Congratulations.

Let's keep a small percentage of people in control of this country, and the rest of us will work for them. Wow, that's freedom. And democracy.

it would be nice if more people would join the debates.....

So would I. Then you'd see that my objections to your cut-and-dried way of looking at things isn't just an anomaly.
 
  2009-02-12 06:59:45 AM
"Yawn...How many times have I heard that lame talking point in threads here at Fark?"

That is not a talking point Whidbey. It is a fact....

"Funny how the "pork" in this bill is always some piddly amount under a hundred million dollars."

88 million here....

88 million there....

88 million somewhere else...

It adds up to more than just "some piddly amount".

"I never hear any criticism about the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars that make up the bulk of this package, no, let's complain about 50 million dollars spent on the arts..."

I'm complaining about all the pork.
I'm complaining about the unneeded spending.
I'm complaining about the spending that should be in a spending bill instead of a "stimulus package".

I'm not just complaining about 50 mil for the arts....

It is alot more than just that.

"Ever considered that the 15 schools might be sitting vacant because Milwaukee has no money to spend on fixing their problems?

Of course not."


Did you actually read the article that I linked to?

Of course not.

IF you had you would have seen this,

"$88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "have shrinking enrollment"

Those schools are empty because they don't have enough students to fill them.

"If you bothered to choose a source that wasn't so obviously biased, you'd find that there is actually support for the bill from economists on both sides of the aisle."

I also posted statments that economists made to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus bill....

How many economists testified in favor of this bill at the US House of Representatives?

"While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package -- even a flawed one -- is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy."

Just because you think that a stimulus package is needed does NOT mean that you think this is a good package.

I think we need a stimulus package but I do not support this package....

So again....

I'm trying to get you to post links that show economists who support this plan....

"Let's keep a small percentage of people in control of this country, and the rest of us will work for them. Wow, that's freedom. And democracy."

No....

I support trying to allow more and more people to become "rich" as a result of their hard work.

You support punishing people who work hard to become "rich". This would mean fewer and fewer people would be "rich" and fewer people for you to tax. Eventually you simply would not be able to tax enough to run your government. After all you seem to think that the government should provide just about everything for everyone. You would need money to pay for everything and that would be hard to come by if your people make less and less money.

Oh and here is yet another article of a economist (this one from Harvard) who thinks the stimulus package is bad.

Link (new window)
 
  2009-02-12 05:55:02 PM
The same Dick Cheney, a believer, tersely summed up Barro's message: "Deficits don't matter".
 
  2009-02-14 11:58:49 PM
dottedmint: I'm not just complaining about 50 mil for the arts....

It is alot more than just that.


Well excuse me if I continue to accuse you of nitpicking of what amounts in the real world as "nickel and dime" amounts, some of which aren't even near enough what we should be spending, as in atmospheric research.

Just because you think that a stimulus package is needed does NOT mean that you think this is a good package.

Honestly? None of your arguments to the contrary have convinced me it's the disaster you really hope it's going to be.

I support trying to allow more and more people to become "rich" as a result of their hard work.

It's possible, certainly for many Americans to become comfortable financially. That certainly doesn't bring the argument to the conclusion you were trying to drive home: that taxing the rich means there eventually won't be anyone left to tax.

I'm really not sure what you're on about.

You support punishing people who work hard to become "rich".

Taxation is not punishment.

Eventually you simply would not be able to tax enough to run your government.

Utter nonsense. So, once hundreds of billions of dollars is out of the hands of a few individuals, it just *POOF* disappears? Wow...

Oh and here is yet another article of a economist (this one from Harvard) who thinks the stimulus package is bad.

Yes, another conservative economist who believes in tax cuts for his rich buddies over stimulating the economy... SHOCKING.
 
  2009-02-15 11:45:59 PM
I kind of wish that they divided the Stimulus money between the States according to Representatives per State plus a base amount. At least this way each State is given a fair representation in the Bill and would be allowed to allocate the founds how they wish, in their territory, to combat whatever problems they may have or have not.

My main beef with the Stimulus Bill is that they are going from the Top down, which never made sense to me. They will be making additional programs and child agencies just to account for certain aspects of the money. Seems like a major cluster fark will cause funds to slow down or be manipulated very easily.

At least when you give the money to each State, it would be the State's problem when things go astray and not pinned to the Federal Government. At least the Citizens of the respecting State can solve their problems within the next election more easily than a national one.

Of course there would also be Fed programs in my fantasy, but they would be small in comparison to what is given to the States.
 
  2009-02-16 03:01:29 PM
AR55: Seems like a major cluster fark will cause funds to slow down or be manipulated very easily.

I have high hopes for more accountability with this money given the creation of Recovery.gov and the oversight board being formed.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant about giving the money to the states. Many Governors are anxious to start spending this money.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100731571&ft=1&f=1 003
 
  2009-02-21 10:28:47 PM
Soup4Bonnie: AR55: Seems like a major cluster fark will cause funds to slow down or be manipulated very easily.

I have high hopes for more accountability with this money given the creation of Recovery.gov and the oversight board being formed.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant about giving the money to the states. Many Governors are anxious to start spending this money.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100731571&ft=1&f=1 003


I mean instead of allocating the funds through Federal programs or Federal oversight. Give it all directly to the States and let them solve their own problems, which would solve the problems of a collective nation.
 
  2009-02-23 01:32:55 PM
AR55: Give it all directly to the States and let them solve their own problems, which would solve the problems of a collective nation.

Heh. Sure they would.

Screw that. I'm happy to see these "strings" attached. Accountabililty for our money being spent all the way down the line. This is a stimulus package. I don't want it getting lost or diverted to some state's pet project.
 
  2009-02-23 01:42:41 PM
Oh, and I forgot to say that the President is meeting and listening to the Governors. Here's an article you might find interesting.
 
  2009-02-23 01:45:31 PM
Christ. Here's the right link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/22/AR2009022202071 . html

Three posts to say what I want to say. It must be Monday.
 
  2009-02-23 02:25:11 PM
Soup4Bonnie: AR55: Give it all directly to the States and let them solve their own problems, which would solve the problems of a collective nation.

Heh. Sure they would.

Screw that. I'm happy to see these "strings" attached. Accountabililty for our money being spent all the way down the line. This is a stimulus package. I don't want it getting lost or diverted to some state's pet project.


heh, I think of the exact opposite when it comes to the Feds. Hopefully everything works out smoothly.
 
  2009-02-24 06:44:05 AM
Anyone care to talk about Acorn breaking the law and breaking into houses that have been foreclosed on?

And to think this group is going to be getting tax dollars....
 
  2009-02-24 03:54:11 PM
dottedmint: And to think this group is going to be getting tax dollars....

The $4.19 billion would be distributed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization Program, an existing program authorized under Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. HUD's website states that the purpose of the program is to provide assistance "to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight within their communities."

So let's be clear. ACORN isn't getting any of this money. Since it is set aside for non-profit housing developers to
help purchase, rehab, and resell foreclosed properties, we aren't eligible for it in the first place.


---Bertha Lewis, CEO and Chief Organizer of ACORN 1/29/09


Make my day!
 
  2009-02-24 07:02:11 PM
Bonnie...

First... I find it funny how you ignore the main issue of my comment. Acorn breaking into forclosed homes.

Second... Are you actually saying that Acorn does not get tax dollars?

Even if it is not in this so-called "stimulus bill" and just regular government programs Acorn gets tax dollars. And with these tax dollars they break the law by breaking into homes.


Link (new window)

According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes:


$1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully.


$10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN's.


$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations.
 
  2009-02-24 09:03:56 PM
"We're accustomed to seeing logical fallacies in political arguments. But working two of them into a single argument is unusually bad logic." says some guy who is not Matthew Vadum and not the cog in the Republican noise machine charged with manufacturing false outrage and bashing ACORN.
 
  2009-02-24 09:41:20 PM
dottedmint: Anyone care to talk about Acorn breaking the law and breaking into houses that have been foreclosed on?

And to think this group is going to be getting tax dollars....


I really have not read up on this one, were they breaking in to get the objects back for the previous owners? If they were reclaiming items of little value, family pictures and such, no biggy. If they were breaking in to extract items of value, throw the book at em. Also was this sanctioned by ACORN or just done by an overzelous staffer?
 
  2009-02-24 10:31:52 PM
Saiga410: Also was this sanctioned by ACORN or just done by an overzelous staffer?

I highly doubt they would issue this decree by the top brass, more than likely it's a few tards who decided to take advantage of a situation. Only some talking head saw that they were ACORN members and attributes it to the organization allowing it to occur.
 
  2009-02-25 12:18:58 AM
AR55: Saiga410: Also was this sanctioned by ACORN or just done by an overzelous staffer?

I highly doubt they would issue this decree by the top brass, more than likely it's a few tards who decided to take advantage of a situation. Only some talking head saw that they were ACORN members and attributes it to the organization allowing it to occur.


I agree it is dumb/silly/stupid to attribute the actions of one/a few members of an organization upon the organization as a whole. I really wish that a few talking heads were not turning the national dialog into wharblebarble.

/new line of conversation

My biggest complaint politically right now is Obama's call for reducing the deficit in half by 2012. I have no problems with this action, heck I applaud wanting to reduce the deficit but as of right now the baseline is hugely inflated. With the recession governmental receipts are down by a large margin and this is inflating the deficit vs what we saw last year, which by itself may have been the largest single year deficit until this year. If Obama cuts the deficit in half, we are still going to have an amazingly large deficit. Now lets assume that the economy recovers to the point where the receipts are the same (adjusted for inflation) as what we saw with the early recession depressed inflow that we had last year (I sure hope this is the case, if otherwise we are in for a missing decade situation). Well shucks we just halved the deficit while doing nothing. If this is the case, then why do we need to raise the taxes on the top 2% in order to halve the deficit? This is just a way to raise taxes in order to pay for his pet projects. I do not see this as fiscal restraint. No new long term projects until we balance the budget (short term in order to keep the economy afloat is mehhh alright with me but I will grumble) to me that is fiscal restraint. Go ahead and raise taxes to balance the budget but do not sell it as that just to cover your pet projects.

Complaints/objections to my observations? I know I have one assumption that this whole point is based upon but I also assume that the administration is banking on this being true otherwise there is no way we can reduce the deficit from this year's books in the timeframe.
 
Displayed 50 of 2656 comments

First | « | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report