-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA's First 100 Out of the Way
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I find it simply fascinating that republicans are suddenly, after eight years of Bush's record spending, extremely against government spending.
Anyway, regardless of whether this bill is good or bad (and the reality is that it has some stuff that's good and some stuff that will be ineffective,) it's a good political move to bring up the bill now. People want help from the government now, and the GOP won't look good simply being the party of "no."
Anyway, regardless of whether this bill is good or bad (and the reality is that it has some stuff that's good and some stuff that will be ineffective,) it's a good political move to bring up the bill now. People want help from the government now, and the GOP won't look good simply being the party of "no."
gutter_trash
Banned
Synth_floyd said:Republicans and democrats are both equally corrupt. You know how much crap they're putting into this spending bill? And the GOP is only opposed to it because it's not their crap, but the democrats crap. And if they all supported it, they would lose the power of the opposition. I'm not sure what the concept is called but it's like how the democrats can always consistently rely on African Americans' votes, so when election time comes around you rarely hear them talking about pro-black and urban issues cause they know they will get the votes no matter what (this election was different cause Obama is black but how much did Kerry or Gore talk about this stuff?). So they can't cave or they lose their leverage to get their own corrupt agenda in at some point in the future.
Anyway, the bill is just more spending, more debt, more corruption. Who wins? The lobbyists, the corporations, the special interests.
there is nothing more corrupt of having two OIL MEN in the 8 House House for the passed two years.
and I find completey ridiculous that not much noise was ever made about Chenney's conflict of intrest being former boss of Haliburton then giving them contracts while he is VP and charging the tax payer insane ammounts of money with no oversight
''buh buh buh every one is currupt buh buh''
Dick Chenney was not a Vice President.. he was a contractor in chief and they played you guys for the last 8 years and you fell for him taking advantage on the War On Terror for profit
gutter_trash said:there is nothing more corrupt of having two OIL MEN in the 8 House House for the passed two years.
and I find completey ridiculous that not much noise was ever made about Chenney's conflict of intrest being former boss of Haliburton then giving them contracts while he is VP and charging the tax payer insane ammounts of money with no oversight
''buh buh buh every one is currupt buh buh''
Dick Chenney was not a Vice President.. he was a contractor in chief and they played you guys for the last 8 years and you fell for him taking advantage on the War On Terror for profit
It is interesting that a couple days after Cheney's gone, that ~$500 MILLION fine was levied against KBR for bribing foreign government officials.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Tamanon said:Huh....did Obama set off a mini-war in the GOP right as the RNC was fighting for its chair with the Rush comment?
And then.....
http://gingrey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109616
:lol
Although it's a shame to equate Newt with Rush or Hannity. Newt at least accomplished some good things.
Holy shit, what a turn around. Hannity and Limbaugh are the "conservative movements conscience " in America? I feel sorry for this man, being forced to support those two after calling them out because the Republican party cannot afford to insult the men who inform a large chunk of their voting base.
Synth_floyd
Banned
It's really hard to read the actual bill. It's mostly 600 pages of "$X is appropriated for Y as authorized by section ZZZ of the Blah-Blah Act of 19xx."
Synth_floyd
Banned
gutter_trash said:there is nothing more corrupt of having two OIL MEN in the 8 House House for the passed two years.
and I find completey ridiculous that not much noise was ever made about Chenney's conflict of intrest being former boss of Haliburton then giving them contracts while he is VP and charging the tax payer insane ammounts of money with no oversight
''buh buh buh every one is currupt buh buh''
Dick Chenney was not a Vice President.. he was a contractor in chief and they played you guys for the last 8 years and you fell for him taking advantage on the War On Terror for profit
Cheney and Bush were two of the worst chief executives in American history. I don't like Obama's policies but I do like him as a person. I couldn't say the same for Bush and Cheney.
And Hannity and Rush are not the conservative movement's conscience, they are just partisan hacks who get power and fame by sucking the cocks of the Republican party.
ChoklitReign
Member
At least Obama took out the birth control pork in the package. I hope he takes out more.
Like what? What is left you want out of it?ChoklitReign said:At least Obama took out the birth control pork in the package. I hope he takes out more.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
The only thing that seems odd to me is the part about the railway system stimulus.
What specifically?BrandNew said:The only thing that seems odd to me is the part about the railway system stimulus.
Skellig Gra
Member
I'd like to see the bill brought down to an amount they can actually dole out over the course of his time in office. You can't even dish out that kind of cash in 4 years.Cheebs said:Like what? What is left you want out of it?
ChoklitReign said:At least Obama took out the birth control pork in the package. I hope he takes out more.
The funny thing about this is, is that the republicans up in arms about this should have been extremely pleased.
The goal behind it, and they knew this, was that the programs they wanted to use this funding for was done in a large way because it reduces abortions and reduces teenage pregnancies.
Abortions which are expensive and costly and teenage pregnancies in poorer areas that have a higher rate of complications because of lack of education.
Things like fetal alcohol syndrome because many dont know not to drink while pregnant, spina bifida which is expensive long term treatment that is more common in teens and poor areas because of the lack of education on nutrition or the ability for early ultra sounds to detect it or needing pre-natal care in which teens are more likely unable to afford the bills or have the insurance which creates more costs to the state and the system as a whole burdening an already strained, inefficient and expensive system.
All cost reductions to the populace which have a long term benefit and a nice boost of education ideas that have a research based backing that it reduces abortions.
Gotta love conservatives though, they campaign on reducing and eradicating abortion rights but when it comes to it they rather play politics. Its why im convinced no republican will ever overturn roe v wade, its a campaign cash cow for them.
I think you need to learn the term defecit spending.Hollywood Duo said:I'd like to see the bill brought down to an amount they can actually dole out over the course of his time in office. You can't even dish out that kind of cash in 4 years.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
scorcho said:What specifically?
Eh, I don't know, just seems odd is all.
Skellig Gra
Member
Resisting the urge to correct your spelling. But seriously, why leave money on the table after his term is up. What is the point?Jonm1010 said:I think you need to learn the term defecit spending.
Hollywood Duo said:Resisting the urge to correct your spelling. But seriously, why leave money on the table after his term is up. What is the point?
to continue into his second term?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Cheebs said:Like what? What is left you want out of it?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
I'm curious I read the 79 page PDF the Administration put out, where are you hearing that the moey will not all be given out in 4 years. The new york times said that 64% of the funds will be used within the first year and 95% by the end of 2010.Hollywood Duo said:Resisting the urge to correct your spelling. But seriously, why leave money on the table after his term is up. What is the point?
Skellig Gra
Member
Its just how the monetary system works. You can physically only write checks for so much money in a calendar year.Jonm1010 said:I'm curious I read the 79 page PDF the Administration put out, where are you hearing that the moey will not all be given out in 4 years. The new york times said that 64% of the funds will be used within the first year and 95% by the end of 2010.
scorcho said:What specifically?
public television
arts funding
sex education
Amtrak
the global warming research stuff
the handout money to individuals
money to public schools
A key provision of the fiscal stimulus package is hiring more check-writers.Hollywood Duo said:Its just how the monetary system works. You can physically only write checks for some much money in a calendar year.
Evlar said:A key provision of the fiscal stimulus package is hiring more check-writers.
Ordering more of those super big novelty checks is going to add 46 jobs to the economy.
TDG said:I find it simply fascinating that republicans are suddenly, after eight years of Bush's record spending, extremely against government spending.
Anyway, regardless of whether this bill is good or bad (and the reality is that it has some stuff that's good and some stuff that will be ineffective,) it's a good political move to bring up the bill now. People want help from the government now, and the GOP won't look good simply being the party of "no."
It's a pretty simple concept. I buy video games because that's what I want to do with my spending money but god forbid my wife goes over our weekly household budget by grabbing a Starbucks coffee.
What's odd is that they left out what they should really do (massive mass-transit infrastructure stimulus) because the Obama camp thought that it was serious enough that it deserved a separate bill later in the year.BrandNew said:Eh, I don't know, just seems odd is all.
Considering some of the stuff in this bill I find that argument a bit weak.
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
PhoenixDark said:
Why does Amtrak need money? If they haven't turned a profit in 40 years how is spending 1 Bill on them going to change any of that?
And
Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
Gotta love it. The more money you throw to the Dept. of Ed. students end up doing worse.
They are giving money to hire more people to do work. They aren't concerned with them making a profit.
The conservatives complaining about spending make me lol.
The era of small government is DEAD. Conservatives will learn and adapt to this. They are still in denial though, they have yet to come to terms with the complete and utter death & failure of the Reagan Revolution. They will eventually after they begin to wonder why they keep losing elections.
The conservatives complaining about spending make me lol.
The era of small government is DEAD. Conservatives will learn and adapt to this. They are still in denial though, they have yet to come to terms with the complete and utter death & failure of the Reagan Revolution. They will eventually after they begin to wonder why they keep losing elections.
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
Cheebs said:They are giving money to hire more people to do work. They aren't concerned with them making a profit.
That makes no sense. At this rate they'll end up needing more money down the road with more people working for them for no reason. If anything in order to not drain resources they should cut jobs right?
CharlieDigital
Banned
Cheebs said:They are giving money to hire more people to do work. They aren't concerned with them making a profit.
I think the more interesting question is: "how much profit generation does Amtrak facilitate?"
Without Amtrak, what would be the viable alternatives for businesses and individuals?
Realistically, driving or flying, neither of which are cost efficient for businesses in terms of time and money given the distances involved (too far and too much fuel consumption for driving, too short and too expensive for a flight). By asking only whether Amtrak is directly profitable is a short sighted view on the importance of mass transportation in facilitating business, commerce, and economic growth along the corridor serviced by the rail line.
As a parent of kids going to under-funded schools, I'll be nice and just say that you are incorrect good sir.eznark said:public television
arts funding
sex education
Amtrak
the global warming research stuff
the handout money to individuals
money to public schools
BTW, I heard on NPR on the way in to work that the House just voted against delaying the digital TV switch over, which probably means that component of the spending in the bill ($400m IIRC) will be stripped. Thank goodness.
GhaleonEB said:As a parent of kids going to under-funded schools, I'll be nice and just say that you are incorrect good sir.
BTW, I heard on NPR on the way in to work that the House just voted against delaying the digital TV switch over, which probably means that component of the spending in the bill ($400m IIRC) will be stripped. Thank goodness.
Funding for public schools doesn't belong in bill that is supposedly meant to jump start the economy.
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
Cheebs said:Wait people are taking that WSJ opinion column seriously? :lol
It was written by a Republican for christs sake. Of course he will look for reasons to bash Obama's stimulus plan. Republicans need to come up with their own ideas instead of whining and throwing temper tantrums.
Seeing everything in Red and Blue isn't very healthy. You aren't encouraging criticism for something this massive? You would rather think, "Well the government knows best..." or "I am a democrat, Obama is a democrat, therefore it MUST be the right thing"? If so then i think you should look at your last sentence again minus the partisanship.
CharlieDigital
Banned
GhaleonEB said:As a parent of kids going to under-funded schools, I'll be nice and just say that you are incorrect good sir.
He's not just incorrect, he's plain dumb and so are his suggestions.
This Libertarian practice of putting everything into isolated, black and white buckets of good vs. bad is so simplistic it's ridiculous. It fails to understand or take into account the intricacies of reality and how each aspect of society and the economy are linked to each other. So what if Amtrak loses money? It is an enabler of business and commerce which generates tax revenue and wealth for the country. So what if schools need money to be upgraded? Schools build the foundation of our future economy: an educated populace.
The Libertarian point of view can basically be summed up as: "spending = bad; mah guns = gooder".
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
CharlieDigital said:The Libertarian point of view can basically be summed up as: "spending = bad; mah guns = gooder".
Because stereotyping doesn't make you look "plain dumb".
No, its just republicans who are complaining should have their own alternative to fixing the economy. If you don't have a plan then you shouldn't complain about it. Everyone agrees SOMETHING needs to be done. Republicans who don't like Obama's plan should show off their own plan and stop crying about it. Republicans are being a do-nothing party.zombieshavebrains said:Seeing everything in Red and Blue isn't very healthy. You aren't encouraging criticism for something this massive? You would rather think, "Well the government knows best..." or "I am a democrat, Obama is a democrat, therefore it MUST be the right thing"? If so then i think you should look at your last sentence again minus the partisanship.
CharlieDigital said:He's not just incorrect, he's plain dumb and so are his suggestions.
This Libertarian practice of putting everything into isolated, black and white buckets of good vs. bad is so simplistic it's ridiculous. It fails to understand or take into account the intricacies of reality and how each aspect of society and the economy are linked to each other. So what if Amtrak loses money? It is an enabler of business and commerce which generates tax revenue and wealth for the country. So what if schools need money to be upgraded? Schools build the foundation of our future economy: an educated populace.
The Libertarian point of view can basically be summed up as: "spending = bad; mah guns = gooder".
Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning. Debate funding for public schools all you want, that money does not belong in a "stimulus" package with the stated intent of jumps starting the economy.
Modernizing public schools is one form of construction/infrastructure, and it will create a LOT of jobs. They are targeting over 10,000 schools for physical and technical improvements, which will not only created a great deal of jobs and drive demand through that ecosystem, it will also pay major dividends in terms of reducing operating costs for the schools and improving the education environment for the kids.eznark said:Funding for public schools doesn't belong in bill that is supposedly meant to jump start the economy.
It's the definition of the kind of stimulus we need: it's in an area long-neglected, will have long term cost savings, will create a lot of jobs and will have a significant benefit to the school systems.
Schools with more money are more likely to hire more teachers.eznark said:Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning. Debate funding for public schools all you want, that money does not belong in a "stimulus" package with the stated intent of jumps starting the economy.
Oh and the people who fix the schools with the money? Guess what, those are jobs!
Oh and new more modern programs in schools? Leading kids to new careers = new jobs down the line!
Jobs Jobs Jobs.
eznark said:Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning. Debate funding for public schools all you want, that money does not belong in a "stimulus" package with the stated intent of jumps starting the economy.
is it a jump start, or a quick fix coupled with a prolonged increase of our economy? Higher quality education and science programs drive the economy
eznark said:Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning. Debate funding for public schools all you want, that money does not belong in a "stimulus" package with the stated intent of jumps starting the economy.
Doesn't that depend on a definitional understanding of "stimulus?" Many economists are now saying we will have increasing unemployment until possibly 2011. In that sense, it is unrealistic to think that all Federal money directed at jump-starting the economy literally has to be spent on immediately realized projects. There are only so many people you can manufacture jobs for in the next few months, and there is only so much good that tax cuts will do in the next six months. If we are entering a massive, multi-year recession, some of the money will inevitably need to be put into projects that take years to return via increased economic output over the next five to ten years, not just immediately.
But, based on what I have read, Obama is blurring the lines between his long-term goals for federal spending with his short term goals for economic stabilization. Time will tell if it works. IMO the Republicans just look silly by bitching about it now; considering they have zero credibility on fiscal responsibility, and were largely responsible for being the party in power while Wall St. got us into this mess.
eznark said:Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning. Debate funding for public schools all you want, that money does not belong in a "stimulus" package with the stated intent of jumps starting the economy.
Ah it prevents the layoff of teachers and in many cases encourages them to hire more to reduce class size if the funds are their to support it.
gutter_trash
Banned
not this Liberatraian crap again, I scoff at Ron Paul ever since he said the first thing he would cut would be public funding for schools
schools actually need more funding IMO. Cut the money wasted on mercenary contracts with Black Water and the money siphoning scheme with Haliburton-KBR and you got your money for Public Schools right there.
schools actually need more funding IMO. Cut the money wasted on mercenary contracts with Black Water and the money siphoning scheme with Haliburton-KBR and you got your money for Public Schools right there.
CharlieDigital
Banned
eznark said:Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning.
Nah, I'm just very good at spotting stupid.
Lateraleye
Member
Most schools have enough money. It's not a coincidence that the systems with the most funding also have the worst results. The problem is administration, not cost.
lawblob said:Doesn't that depend on a definitional understanding of "stimulus?" Many economists are now saying we will have increasing unemployment until possibly 2011. In that sense, it is unrealistic to think that all Federal money directed at jump-starting the economy literally has to be spent on immediately realized projects. There are only so many people you can manufacture jobs for in the next few months, and there is only so much good that tax cuts will do in the next six months. If we are entering a massive, multi-year recession, some of the money will inevitably need to be put into projects that take years to return via increased economic output over the next five to ten years, not just immediately.
Most economists will agree that if you upfront a stimulus plan with things that only take affect in the immediate future, you will have a bottoming out a year or so from now when the stimulus finishes so quickly and those jobs disappear putting us right back in the same predicament as before. Projects need to be spread out over several years, with the majority up front and they need to have long term benefits as well beyond the initial two and three years. that can improve the system as a whole, things like education funding to prevent program closures and layoffs which hurt an entire generation of public school students.
Lateraleye said:Most schools have enough money. It's not a coincidence that the systems with the most funding also have the worst results. The problem is administration, not cost.
This is also largely true. I have only heard horror stories about teacher's unions and the shitty job they do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.