Quote :

"That doesn't involve turning this country socialist, which, from the outside, looks like what he wants to do now."

got some specific examples of this? Please?

Quote :

"Anti-big business, pro-government spending, pro-welfare, make everyone earn the same amount of money no matter how much one person worked to get theirs over another. "

again, some examples from the past 40 days to support this?

3/9/2009 4:52:02 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, that number has dropped. I don't know the exact figure but I've heard anywhere between 150,000 and 190,000 is the new cutoff for top tax bracket, which is absurd."

i'm having a hard time finding the hard numbers for this.

also, one thing we need to remember is all that's going to happen is obama is just going to let bush's tax cuts expire. the taxes on the top tax brackets will be less than they were under reagan. it's just that bush cut taxes on the top bracket substantially and now we have to walk that back.

3/9/2009 5:00:38 PM

^^I'm not looking them up, because I didn't find them in one place.

But we're taking about a trillion dollar stimulus package.
We're talking about 60 billion of that going to welfare.
We're talking about extending unemployment.
We're talking about raising taxes on rich people, and making half the country not pay taxes.
we're talking about increasing the capital gains tax during a recession, where people are getting all their money out of the stock market in the first place.

And then, another multi-trillion dollar budget, which we can't pay for.

Instead of saying "well we're just putting in all the money the republicans were hiding", why don't you do something about it, and say something like "some of these programs will have to wait until next year b/c we just don't have enough money right now"

So basically thats what i was refering to. Whats not socialist about that? If I'm wrong, please feel free to point out the flaws. I'd love to be wrong on this one...the direction we're going just doesn't make any sense. Like I say, I voted for the guy, I want him to do well, but from where i'm sitting it doesn't look good. Thats all.


^Thats what I was saying. I don't know what numbers to believe...so many have been thrown around. I don't mind as much letting the bush tax cuts expire, I mind re-arranging the brackets and increasing the taxes to higher numbers than they were before Bush. I also have a problem with letting them lapse before the economy turns around.



[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 5:05 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2009 5:02:00 PM

^so in a nutshell, the government shouldn't try to stimulate the economy through spending?

and really. . . criticizing extending unemployment right now. . . ? of all things to bitch about.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2009 5:07:45 PM

You're looking for things to argue about here.

I didn't say they shouldn't try to stimulate the economy through spending. I'm saying that they are racking up an amount of debt that will get us all by the nuts in about 10 years if not sooner. Is it not a little bit scary to think about to you? That, coupled with the fact that nobody in congress even read the first stimulus bill, its 800 pages of a public document that you can't use the search function for, and the fact that the bank "bailout" (which, was not on Obama, but congress, obama, bush, mccain) was a miserable failure, I think there is reason to question it. Thats all I'm saying.

The unemployment piece was just thrown in there as an example...i wasn't really bitching about it. There is no time limit for how long it stays extended. i'm pretty sure that in the past, when it has been extended, it hasn't gone back to its previous length. Plus, people are beating the system as we speak. Thats not one of my major concerns.

Like I said in my previous post, I wan't it to work. I just don't see how it will, because its done nothing to instill confidence in the public, and its going to cost a lot more in the future, especially if we screw it up now.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2009 5:35:11 PM

Why did Obama snub British Prime Minister Brown during his recent visit,

3/9/2009 5:40:28 PM

Obama, especially through his foreign policy basically looks like he'll just be another continuation of Bush but in a nicer presentation so at least he's restored respect to the office

3/9/2009 5:42:11 PM

he acted real classy to our greatest ally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303660.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

i despise obama

3/9/2009 5:46:23 PM

Quote :

"You're looking for things to argue about here. "

no, you're trying to find anything you disagree with and claiming it's "socialist", when you obviously have no concept of the term.

3/9/2009 5:54:29 PM

^^now THAT is desperation.

keep grabbing at straws. jesus. of all the things to "despise obama" over. oh shit he didn't stand infront of some flags and returned a bust of churchill.

3/9/2009 6:54:23 PM

Whether you agree with the mere concept or not, unemployment benefits are one of the most direct ways to put money back into the private sector immediately.

3/9/2009 6:58:36 PM

^^ No, for all this shit GWB got (legitimately) to his piss poor foreign policy, Obama takes a big hit for this one. Gordon Brown gave the President a pen holder made from the same wood the Oval Office desk is made of and a first edition of a seven volume biography of Winston Churchill. In return we, the American people, gave him a 25 DVD set that doesn't even play on British DVDs.

Completely asinine.

3/9/2009 7:04:29 PM

Quote :

"no, you're trying to find anything you disagree with and claiming it's "socialist", when you obviously have no concept of the term."

First of all, I wasn't talking to you.

Second of all, I invited you to show me where I'm wrong. So instead of being a dick, put up some facts for yourself. I gave you the courtesy even if i'm wong, care to do the same?

3/9/2009 7:20:40 PM

^^hey listen, i agree it wasn't the greatest gesture in the world. but fuck you if THAT is what you're going to complain about. shit, why should the american people give him something anyway?

sounds like socialism to me!!!1

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 7:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2009 7:23:28 PM

Joe the Plumber said it sounded like socialism

3/9/2009 7:55:23 PM

Quote :

"Second of all, I invited you to show me where I'm wrong. So instead of being a dick, put up some facts for yourself. I gave you the courtesy even if i'm wong, care to do the same?"

you're the one making the claim (that Obama's policies thus far are on a narrow road to socialism), therefore, you provide the evidence.

- anti big business? ha, right - his administration is doing everything possible to keep the banks and car companies alive. I believe it's McCain and his guys pushing these companies towards bankruptcy as soon as possible.
- pro-welfare? well, considering how many people are out of work now and how many more in the coming year, i'd be careful about complaining out welfare (especially in the form of Unemployment and COBRA benefits)
- "everyone earn the same"? give me a break. this is so fucking weak. Going from 36% to 39% on incomes over $250k or whatever is hardly putting a cap on incomes.


not that any of his actions thus far are even extreme on any of these measures (except for continuing the Bush policy of keeping the banks alive at apparently any cost) or point towards an impending Socialist hell

3/9/2009 8:06:10 PM

to be fair, I'd say presenting a plan to "move us towards Universal Healthcare" is, frankly, a bit socialist. But that's just me

3/9/2009 8:13:18 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, I'd say presenting a plan to "move us towards Universal Healthcare" is, frankly, a bit socialist. But that's just me"

to be fair, you could make that claim if you were using the market to lower prices you were making that move, so really its you're abuse of the phraseology. i'm just saying.

you do want everyone to eventually, though some way, have access to healthcare, right?

3/9/2009 8:30:09 PM

absolutely. But "Universal Healthcare" is not the same as "giving everyone access to healthcare." Mainly because, and you know this, Universal Healthcare has always meant gov't funded healthcare for all. Don't be obtuse.

And, no, using the market to lower the cost of healthcare is not the same as "Universal Healthcare," either. It also doesn't futher that aim, either.

3/9/2009 8:37:03 PM

Quote :

"And, no, using the market to lower the cost of healthcare is not the same as "Universal Healthcare," either. It also doesn't futher that aim, either."

It doesn't futher universal access by making it affordable when you need it? That's what implementing the IT records, which is pretty universally supported by the AMA, et al. It's not the solution but it's a step.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ,]

3/9/2009 8:39:39 PM

Quote :

"You know, I have more than enough to do without having to worry about the financial system. - Pres. Barack Obama"

Well now that makes me feel better.

3/9/2009 8:45:02 PM

if you reframe the accepted definition of Universal Healthcare, then you can make fucking a snail on a rope into "Universal Healthcare." Give me a fucking break, man

3/9/2009 8:46:24 PM

Quote :

"Mainly because, and you know this, Universal Healthcare has always meant gov't funded healthcare for all."

Obama has stated his entire campaign that he wants "universal healthcare" in the sense that he wants everybody to be funded. He says he is against a single-payer system and wants to supplement the private insurance system, not replace it. If you don't believe that's his intent, then that's your problem.


btw, I've wondered anyway - I know that Conservatives are against gov't sponsored healthcare. that's fine. i get the ideological resistance to that.
But I just have to wonder - is what we have now really that much better? If you are, as a conservative, presumably "pro-business", wouldn't one of the best ways to help businesses be more efficient and profitable be to remove the burden of employer-sponsored healthcare from their books? Is it really necessary for businesses to spend $10 to $30k/year on each employee for insurance?

3/9/2009 8:50:21 PM

Quote :

"But I just have to wonder - is what we have now really that much better?"

See, that's the brilliance of the strategy liberals have taken. Take a perfectly functional system, and slowly work the government in to it. Every intrusion mucks things up, which requires a little more gov't intrusion. And then, you can finally get to the point where you say "is what we have now really that much better?"

Quote :

"Obama has stated his entire campaign that he wants "universal healthcare" in the sense that he wants everybody to be funded. He says he is against a single-payer system and wants to supplement the private insurance system, not replace it. "

And that's fine, but to call that "universal healthcare" is absolutely misleading and wrong. To even begin to say "well, what I meant was..." is bullshit, because to use those specific words, knowing their meaning, reveals the true intent. If he didn't want UH-proper, then he would be damned-sure to avoid those words.

Quote :

"If you don't believe that's his intent, then that's your problem."

And if you believe that's his intent, then you are a fool. Just as much of a fool as you are if you look at his "tax cut" as an actual "tax cut," especially when he and other policy advisers have made it clear that such "cuts" are really offsets for other, brand-new taxes (ala Carbon-tax)

3/9/2009 8:54:20 PM

^^^^

uhhh, context, anyone?

Quote :

"OBAMA: By the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system, and the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people is that if coming in the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. REPORTER: Right. OBAMA: You know, I have more than enough to do without having to worry about the financial system."

the second statement was obviously a followup on the first statement. you know - he poses a rhetorical situation ("the market is fine, i would stay out of it"), the follows up with a rhetorical answer.

grow up. learn to read.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 8:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2009 8:55:09 PM

Quote :

"if you reframe the accepted definition of Universal Healthcare, then you can make fucking a snail on a rope into "Universal Healthcare." Give me a fucking break, man"

he never said his goal was to create universal healthcare through gov. spending. if that was so, then it would be a hell of a lot more obvious. he's never supported single-payer no matter how many times you yell and shout about him being a left wing radical.

3/9/2009 8:55:33 PM

Quote :

"you're the one making the claim (that Obama's policies thus far are on a narrow road to socialism), therefore, you provide the evidence. "

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just didn't read the post where I provided the evidence, and told you why I'm not giving a source. Its a matter of opinion that I think we're moving in a socialist direction...and I gave you the details as to why I believe that, and gave you the opportunity to correct me.

The tax issue and welfare can be debated. I'm of the opinion that welfare discourages people from getting a job, and it would be more beneficial to the economy if they worked jobs that businesses need workers for where they would make more money than the government can provide them. Once again, its a matter of opinion. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't have a huge problem with Baracks tax plan as it was laid out before the election. I have heard/read where those cutoffs and numbers would be reduced to include tax hikes on more people. Plus, combine that with the proposed spending and its scary to think that eventually, that money has to come from us...got it?

3/9/2009 8:57:22 PM

Quote :

"See, that's the brilliance of the strategy liberals have taken. Take a perfectly functional system, and slowly work the government in to it. Every intrusion mucks things up, which requires a little more gov't intrusion. And then, you can finally get to the point where you say "is what we have now really that much better?""

so 50 million uninsured and spiraling healthcare costs is a "perfectly functional system"?

oh, right - it would be if there was no gov't intursion.

See, thats the brilliance of the strategy the conservatives have taken - take any system that is broken, and just blame all the problems of that system on the government.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2009 8:58:49 PM

^^^ he never said that was his immediate goal. But I have heard it numerous times through the media, and left-leaning ones at that, that this plan is part of Obama's "move to UH." When NPR tells me that during All Things Considered, you better fucking believe my ears perk up.

Quote :

"so 50 million uninsured and spiraling healthcare costs is a "perfectly functional system"? "

You assume that I am saying that right now is a perfect system. Which I did not.
Btw, don't fucking include illegal aliens in your estimate. It's fucking dishonest.

3/9/2009 8:59:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm of the opinion that welfare discourages people from getting a job, and it would be more beneficial to the economy if they worked jobs that businesses need workers for where they would make more money than the government can provide them. Once again, its a matter of opinion."

It's a matter of fact that people are also discouraged from getting a job by the fact that they can't find one, esp. when unemployment is going towards 9%. that's the reasoning behind expanded unemployment benefits right now, unless you think millions of people are going to get just as much from an already very stressed private charity system which is getting fewer donations since noone really has the money right now (and to be fair, eliminating the deduction for charity Obama proposed is just wrong). not to mention, a lot of these people not paying mortgages aren't just people who stupidly were encouraged to buy beyond their means...some are just people in avg. houses who lost their jobs for one reason or another(see: detroit).

Shit, I don't even support the stimulus package but all this "poors need to just get a job right now...obama is a secret socialist" stuff is only going to make me think that the other side of the aisle has nothing at all to offer right now.

Quote :

"But I have heard it numerous times through the media, and left-leaning ones at that, that this plan is part of Obama's "move to UH." When NPR tells me that during All Things Considered, you better fucking believe my ears perk up."

and i dont think anyone can convince you otherwise that "move to UHC" doesn't mean "move to single-payer"

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2009 9:05:06 PM

btw, this argument is based on the assumption that Obama has been using the term "universal healthcare". I have not heard him say this. I have found several articles where Obama outlines his plans, then the reporter or author starts talking about universal healthcare.

So, honest question - have I missed something? Is "universal healthcare" something he has put into his policy speeches or writings recently?
It is not mentioned here - http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/health_care/

3/9/2009 9:07:52 PM

I think I saw a breakdown the other day where like 1/3 of the uninsured in this country are uninsured because they can't afford it. There is a huge population of people who are uninsured who can afford it, like 20 million of the 50. But its a big cost to ask them to pay.


I'm not one who thinks the government fucked up the healthcare system, but they have had a hand in it. I think its more on insurance companies fucking over their customers, then fucking over the hospitals/doctors who they are supposed to pay, and next thing you know the insurance companies are posting billions of dollars worth of profit (non profit organizations) while their customers can't afford them anymore, and the doctors constantly get paid less.

Next you have the increasing cost of healthcare, which in part, comes from people's inability to pay for services, so cost goes onto the people who can afford it. A surgeon may bill 8000 for operating on you, but he's lucky to see 3000 of it. One of the problems from the government's side is that they dictate how much certian services are worth, and pay that amount. Insurance companies then follow suit, and the total income goes down for the practice. Then take into account the number of people he worked on for free, you start to see why it costs so much. Get more people paying into the system, you bring down the cost for everyone.


The next big problem is your shortage of primary care physicians, and the aging population. They don't pay shit for someone to go into geriatrics, and they pay less every year while the cost of doing business goes up. Doctors are quitting obstetrics because malpractice insurance in some states is too high its not worth their time to practice anymore. Why would you do primary care when the income for that keeps falling, insurance rates go up, and the cost of going to medical school keeps going up? Its too difficult of a profession to discurage people from going into it, and thats exactly what has happened.

I know some of you who post in here are doctors or are married to them, fill me in on the details i'm missing. People I know disagree on where the cost is going, and its definitely mutifactorial.

Quote :

"It's a matter of fact that people are also discouraged from getting a job by the fact that they can't find one, esp. when unemployment is going towards 9%. that's the reasoning behind expanded unemployment benefits right now, unless you think millions of people are going to get just as much from an already very stressed private charity system which is getting fewer donations since noone really has the money right now (and to be fair, eliminating the deduction for charity Obama proposed is just wrong). not to mention, a lot of these people not paying mortgages aren't just people who stupidly were encouraged to buy beyond their means...some are just people in avg. houses who lost their jobs for one reason or another(see: detroit)."

I don't disagree right now. I'm speaking more of the principles of the system in the first place. People who are on welfare could make more money by being productive members of society in a low paying job where there is a demand. I'm not pretending like we should stop welfare and unemployment benefits and everything will be a-ok, especially right now. On the same line though, I don't think you can say that there aren't jobs out there....there are jobs out there....that people don't want to do b/c of low wages or what have you. Its not cut and dry either way....I guess thats what I've been meaning to say.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2009 9:10:23 PM

Quote :

"OBAMA: By the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system, and the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people is that if coming in the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. REPORTER: Right. OBAMA: You know, I have more than enough to do without having to worry about the financial system." the second statement was obviously a followup on the first statement. you know - he poses a rhetorical situation ("the market is fine, i would stay out of it"), the follows up with a rhetorical answer. "

So, E-Dogg, do you take your talking points directly from Rush Limbaugh, or from a right-wing blog that reposts whatever he says?

I did a search for the quote "I have more than enough to do without having to worry about the financial system." The first result that popped up was a Rush transcript where he quotes the sentences I pasted above, then goes on a rant about them. Most of the other Google results were just copy/paste jobs from the Rush transcript.

So, then, I try to go to the actual source of the quote, to see if maybe, just maybe Rush was taking it out of context.

Well guess what? he was. Here is the whole answer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama-text.html?pagewanted=6

Quote :

" Well, I just think it’s clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system. The fact that we’ve had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis."

As I surmised above, Obama was taking a rhetorical stance and arguing against it. The full quote clearly indicates that, under other circumstances (i.e. if he didn't take office on the precipice of a long and deep recession) then his "ideological preference" would have not been to become embroiled in the financial situation. As the circumstances present themselves, however, he has no choice.

3/9/2009 9:26:11 PM

Quote :

"See, that's the brilliance of the strategy liberals'conservatives' have taken. Take a perfectly functional system, and slowly work the government in to it. Every intrusion mucks things up, which requires a little more gov't intrusion. And then, you can finally get to the point where you say "is what we have now really that much better?""

3/9/2009 9:48:37 PM

Quote :

"So, E-Dogg, do you take your talking points directly from Rush Limbaugh, or from a right-wing blog that reposts whatever he says? "

he's a huge ron paul guy, i think

3/9/2009 9:50:01 PM

No, I figured out today that a lot of the righties are just reposting Drudge crap, which wouldn't be so bad if they actually had some real commentary of their own to add.

3/9/2009 9:58:06 PM

Quote :

"You're looking for things to argue about here. "

not really. you're taking issue with an increase in spending without being able to pay for and you're taking issue with raising taxes. you can't really stimulate the economy if we're satisfying your conditions.

3/9/2009 11:09:21 PM

And thats what I've been saying the entire thread...its a matter of opinion as to whats the best way to stimulate the economy. I'm not trying to be uber conservative. I happen to think you stimulate the economy by lowering taxes, encouraging companies to hire people, etc. Clearly, this "crisis" is a different situation because the flow of credit has stopped (or slowed) so business as usual can't cary on....thats where the government steps in...i have no problem with that


What I have a problem with, is that the government already fucked up the first big "bailout" bill, so why would I believe that more spending in another stimulus is the answer?

In all honesty, I don't even have a huge problem with any of it. I have more of a problem with the partisanship with which its being done, and the hastiness with which these bills are being written and passed....so the flaws come out later when its already too late.

The economy is already in the tank....waiting another month to make sure they get it right isn't going to hurt anyone, and it will benefit everyone in the long run.

So thats my stance. Like I say, I voted for the guy, I hope he gets it right, I just think some of the decisions made recently are a poor start.

3/10/2009 9:22:15 AM

Quote :

"The economy is already in the tank....waiting another month to make sure they get it right isn't going to hurt anyone, and it will benefit everyone in the long run."

actually it likely would. and it didn't seem that much of any amount of negotiating short of eliminating all spending would have gotten any house republicans on board. not to mention the talking heads were blasting this 24/7. obama actually stalled the process to talk to republicans and look at what good it did. . .

anyway, i agree that the bill isn't perfect, but i disagree that adding time to the process would have improved much.

3/10/2009 11:05:34 AM

people have ACCESS to healthcare CURRENTLY. So please stop using that BS line.

You want to lower the costs of healthcare while maintaining levels of service and advancing med technology? DONT COVER IT.

Let the market dictate the costs. However you had govt started the ball rolling on third party and the costs have risen ever since... they essentially changed the business model for private practices. What you will never see out of a dem admin full of lawyers is any tort reform. Why?

3/10/2009 11:16:19 AM

Quote :

"actually it likely would. and it didn't seem that much of any amount of negotiating short of eliminating all spending would have gotten any house republicans on board. not to mention the talking heads were blasting this 24/7. obama actually stalled the process to talk to republicans and look at what good it did. . . anyway, i agree that the bill isn't perfect, but i disagree that adding time to the process would have improved much."

There hasn't been any real spending that has happened because of the stimulus in almost the month that it has been signed. I don't see how discussing it an additional month could harm anything. Companies have still been laying off, employment has still been going up. The reality is, whether we take a Keynesian approach to fixing the mess (which is the approach we are taking) or more classical Austrian views of the problem, there is no real way to no which one would work better as we can't go back in time to try them both. All we can do is make policy and find out in a few years what happened as this crisis doesn't match too well with any of the others.

Quote :

"What you will never see out of an dem admin full of lawyers is any tort reform. Why?"

Fixed it for ya.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 11:53:34 AM

Quote :

"There hasn't been any real spending that has happened because of the stimulus in almost the month that it has been signed. I don't see how discussing it an additional month could harm anything."

because the money would start getting spent even later. . . is it really that complicated?

3/10/2009 12:04:31 PM

So you are saying that additional damage to the economy would have happened this month while we have waited that hasn't happened because a bill has been signed?

Simply, you don't know.

You don't know if that brutal 651,000 job loss number would have been, say, 700,000. Do you really think there are many companies out there (well call it a construction company) that are going to pay employees now with work they don't have speculating that they might get a piece of that stimulus money at some point in the future? No. They will lay off all their laborers now, cut their costs, and rehire them when they actually have signed contracts.

3/10/2009 12:33:03 PM

what don't you understand about the funding being delayed further if the passage of the bill had taken longer?

i'm not saying that there have been substantial positive effects of the stimulus yet. just that the effects are much morelikely to be earlier with an earlier passage of the bill. and i didn't say i knew anything for sure (hence using the word "likely"). and really how big of a logical leap is it to say that a bill passed earlier would have an effect sooner than one passed a month later?

3/10/2009 12:43:48 PM

Quote :

"and really how big of a logical leap is it to say that a bill passed earlier would have an effect sooner than one passed a month later?"

Actually, the contention was that more harm would be done if the bill hadn't been signed, presumably now, not that the effects will be seen sooner.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 12:52:50 PM

i guess i assume that a more-prolonged recession is harmful. silly me.

oh yeah and you're completely misrepresenting me:

Quote :

"anyway, i agree that the bill isn't perfect, but i disagree that adding time to the process would have improved much."

Quote :

"because the money would start getting spent even later. . . is it really that complicated?"

Quote :

"the effects are much morelikely to be earlier with an earlier passage of the bill."

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : how many times do i have to say it to you for it to sink in?]

3/10/2009 1:25:29 PM

Of course it is, but you (or anyone for that matter) can't show what a one month delay would do to the state of the economy. The very fact that this recession has been going for 14+ months now kinda makes you wonder why we didn't spend additional time to craft the absolute best bill possible as 1 month on 14 is basically noise.

This is before we even begin to get into the discussion on the continued sell off because of the uncertainty in the financial system that has yet to be addressed in any meaningful way by this administration.

Quote :

"the effects are much morelikely to be earlier with an earlier passage of the bill."

No shit, including all the negative effects or lost positive effects due to a shitty stimulus bill you boob.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM. Reason : how many times do i have to say it to you for it to sink in?]

3/10/2009 1:31:47 PM

so your argument now is that i don't know what the effect would have been had events turned out differently?

i agree.

but since there wasn't much in the way of useful negotiation going on in the house (or the senate really), i don't think that additional time would have helped anything. that's all i've been saying. i've also said that given that the bill would be imperfect, the later the bill is signed, the more harm is likely. i mean MAYBE the congress would have suddenly had a revelation on march 1 where they solved the economic crisis equation. but as it is, i doubt that it would have been much different than what we got.

3/10/2009 1:38:51 PM

Quote :

"but since there wasn't much in the way of useful negotiation going on in the house (or the senate really), i don't think that additional time would have helped anything. that's all i've been saying."

I guess I wasn't understanding this was what you were saying. Of course, if they weren't going to do anything for 1 month other than bicker, then yeah, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Quote :

"i've also said that given that the bill would be imperfect, the later the bill is signed, the more harm is likely."

Well, I still maintain that if there are enough negative aspects in the bill (and shitty pork would be one of those negative effects) then delaying the signing would simply delay the negatives along with the positives.

3/10/2009 1:42:20 PM

The fact of the matter is, that nobody knows what the fuck was in the stimulus bill.


My point earlier, was that its probably a lot like the bank "bailout", which was a complete pile of garbage and a waste of 3/4 of a billion dollars that didn't fix the problem at hand, only put a band-aid over it. If you 1 year old shits on the floor, you're not going to kick it under the couch and hope the smell goes away, you're going to clean that shit up, and put some elbow grease in to make sure its out of the carpet.


I guess I just don't trust the gov. to do it right...of course...why would we? They're only there to get re-elected. Both reps. and dems. fuck 'em all amirite?

3/10/2009 2:04:27 PM