Tamanon said:Also corn subsidies would die a beautiful glorious death as would corn ethanol.
To be replaced with whatever subsidies the true crazies (elected by California) would want to spend my money on.
Tamanon said:Also corn subsidies would die a beautiful glorious death as would corn ethanol.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
What specifically?BrandNew said:The only thing that seems odd to me is the part about the railway system stimulus.
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.
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.
scorcho said:What specifically?
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?
Cheebs said:Like what? What is left you want out of it?
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?
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?
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.
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."
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.
PhoenixDark said:
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.
Cheebs said:They are giving money to hire more people to do work. They aren't concerned with them making a profit.
Cheebs said:They are giving money to hire more people to do work. They aren't concerned with them making a profit.
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
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.
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.
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.
CharlieDigital said:The Libertarian point of view can basically be summed up as: "spending = bad; mah guns = gooder".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
eznark said:Someone certainly pissed in your cheerios this morning.
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.
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.