ahhhh. so now we are relying on the people entering data to get it right. so they got their district wrong, and you thus trust them to get the number of jobs right? it all falls apart...

and I'm sure there is absolutely no incentive to inflate the jobs number, right? I mean, no one who takes government funds ever does anything dishonest, right?

2/18/2011 6:37:55 PM

Quote :

"ahhhh. so now we are relying on the people entering data to get it right. so they got their district wrong, and you thus trust them to get the number of jobs right? it all falls apart..."

They could certainly commit fraud, and likely get found out. But I would guess that the government would care a lot more about misquoting jobs than misquoting districts. It's like your suggesting that because I misspelled my name on a tax form I am more likely to commit tax evasion.

2/18/2011 6:43:50 PM

i was unaware there was a group of gov't agents going around making sure no one abused stimulus funds or misquoted their jobs numbers... not like Obama would want those numbers to be inflated, would he? naaaaaaaaah

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 6:44:55 PM

Quote :

"i was unaware there was a group of gov't agents going around making sure no one abused stimulus funds"

Then you are a fool. What mechanism would prevent fraud if it were not investigated? Flowers and sunshine?

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110218/AGENCY05/102180301/

2/18/2011 6:49:20 PM

yep, and they caught every single one. this one is the best:

Quote :

"A federal agency awarded $7 million in contracts to a recipient that had been barred from government contracts for previous wrongdoing. The agency later canceled the contracts."

that they even awarded the contracts in the first place is incredible.

keep rallying behind it, though

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 6:51:32 PM

Fraud is inevitable, everyone (except you apparently...) knew that going in.

2/18/2011 6:58:01 PM

but hey, don't take my word for it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125858473074554505.html

Quote :

"Recipients of stimulus money ranging from small business contractors and community colleges to large companies and state governor's offices struggled to accurately fill in the forms. The Wall Street Journal reported two weeks ago that errors by hundreds of recipients appeared to have inflated the total number of jobs attributed to the stimulus by at least 20,000."

how did THIS create jobs?
http://www.hvpress.net/news/126/ARTICLE/9892/2011-01-05.html

Quote :

""NY State plugged its’ budget deficit hole by using federal stimulus money to pay its’ share of a decades old state mandated children’s program, and is now demanding the county report bogus job numbers to justify state government’s use of the federal stimulus money,” said the Dutchess County Executive. ... County officials have again notified the New York State Department of Education that the County had properly fulfilled all applicable reporting and accountability requirements for the receipt of $5.5 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for the state mandated preschool special education program, reporting “0” jobs retained/created. New York State officials have threatened to “recover” the ARRA monies from Dutchess County taxpayers if the reports are not modified to show 64 jobs retained/created, in accordance with a state and federal pre-calculated job creation formula."

Oh look, it seems that you had to use a certain formula to say how many jobs you created. hmmm, that wouldn't skew those numbers at all, would it?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/83512527.html

Quote :

"A new report touts more than 10,300 jobs created or saved in Wisconsin by federal stimulus money in the last three months of 2009. But the jobs listed are based on new accounting rules that make it impossible to track the total number of jobs created or saved by the program. And the updated guidelines also make it impossible to avoid double counting from quarter to quarter."

in other words, those numbers are bogus. oh, and a job from march to september counts as TWO jobs. awesome!

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/

Quote :

"But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for. One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’"

2/18/2011 6:59:46 PM

Quote :

"but hey, don't take my word for it"

I won't, apparently you wouldn't have even known about it had I not pointed it out, considering you didn't even know that the government investigated fraud.

2/18/2011 7:01:38 PM

yep, they are going around investigating every single company that took funds. yep.


just curious, though... what part of "use this formula for calculating job numbers" makes you think the job numbers are accurate?

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 7:05:24 PM

Let me just trace the argument because I'm not clear about what you're asking me.

You originally implied that the money was being used in imaginary districts.
I explained that the districts had been misreported.
You claimed that because the districts were made up the money could have been fraudently used.
I pointed out that there is no reason to believe there is a correlation between inaccurately reported districts and fraudulent misreporting of jobs or money.
You then claimed that fraud exists.

While the claim you've finally backpedalled to is correct, it is obvious to most anyone that some level of fraud would exist, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

2/18/2011 7:47:55 PM

So according to burro,

giving organizations money doesn’t help them create jobs. Makes perfect sense!

2/18/2011 8:07:11 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I was thinking of examples like this like this: Quote : "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." Political posturing, perhaps? "

You’re definitely taking this quote WAAY out of context.

I actually wouldn’t have thought you’d be gullible enough to be tricked by neo-seccesionists. You should probably read up a bit more on that era of history.

2/18/2011 8:19:25 PM

^well it depends moron.

What money are they receiving? money that will later be taken away? Businesses have to plan ahead, some might pay off debt or save the money to use to pay back later.

People bitch about tax cuts but you are letting people keep money they earned, which is much more sustainable and long lasting. Which is MORE likely to create jobs. Think about "getting" 50k one time payment, vs a 50k annual tax break. Which do you think would be more likely to create a longer term job?

2/18/2011 8:21:00 PM

^ So what you’re saying is that the stimulus did in fact help to create jobs?

2/18/2011 8:28:47 PM

Oh im sure it did. Just not to the extent it was promised. And then they doctored the numbers so we cant even get a real number of what it did. Which is great accounting by the way. Enron did something similar, worked out well for them.

2/18/2011 8:35:51 PM

Quote :

"You’re definitely taking this quote WAAY out of context. I actually wouldn’t have thought you’d be gullible enough to be tricked by neo-seccesionists. You should probably read up a bit more on that era of history."

That quote was used during a debate. Am I missing the part where, shortly after, he said "oh yeah, just kidding - all men are created equal!" Sorry, Abe Lincoln was not an egalitarian, no matter how much it goes against everything you've been told. He also stated, on many occasions, that the number one priority was preserving the union. He said that if he could preserve the union and not free a single slave, or preserve it and free every slave, he would.

I can't help but be amused at all these people throwing out "neo-secessionist" and "neo-confederate," as if anyone that disagrees with Lincoln's policies supports slavery or secession. Seriously, don't criticize people's understanding of history when all you can do is regurgitate what every American was taught in U.S. history.

Quote :

"I won't, apparently you wouldn't have even known about it had I not pointed it out, considering you didn't even know that the government investigated fraud."

When you expect the state to police itself, you get a predictable outcome. The individuals in government will always make "honest mistakes" that just happen to reflect relatively well on them. It's ludicrous to me that some of you think differently, like once people get elected or appointed, they suddenly become altruistic civil servants.

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 8:42:32 PM

Quote :

"So according to burro, giving organizations money doesn’t help them create jobs. Makes perfect sense!"

Not always. And we even have proof of it! But really, when you tell people to use a certain formula to "calculate the number of jobs created" when reporting how many jobs they actually created, is it a surprise that the number is inflated?

Quote :

"Let me just trace the argument because I'm not clear about what you're asking me."

Convenient that you left out the last part: there are countless questionable job numbers being claimed as "created", some even in state government, where pressure is being applied to inflate the number of jobs. AKA, the numbers being reported are bogus. Which is, in essence, what I originally said.

2/18/2011 8:49:18 PM

No one’s saying he was an egalitarian, but he didn’t have the Hitler-esque anti-black stance that you seem to think, and it makes no sense for Rand Paul to bring his nutty friends in to spread their naive ideas about monetary policy.

Before the great depression, recessions were more numerous and sporadic than after. The gold standard has no inherent stability mechanisms to a fiat system, and is more easily prone to manipulation (by more forces than just the government, with less accountability) than a fiat system. It’s value is derived from the perception of scarcity rather than productivity. Just like DeBeers was able to manipulate the diamond trade, any non-gov. group with access to the best mud could manipulate economies of entire countries. THis makes no logical sense in a modern era when people who create iPads should be more valuable than people just digging up shiny rocks.

Quote :

"Not always. And we even have proof of it! But really, when you tell people to use a certain formula to "calculate the number of jobs created" when reporting how many jobs they actually created, is it a surprise that the number is inflated? "

So your point is not that the stimulus didn’t help save or create jobs ,it’s that the government inflated the numbers a bit to make themselves look good…?

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 8:51:28 PM

Quote :

"What money are they receiving? money that will later be taken away? Businesses have to plan ahead, some might pay off debt or save the money to use to pay back later."

All of those are irrelevant on the aggregate.

Quote :

"When you expect the state to police itself, you get a predictable outcome."

If you notice, burrito's OP was from a website that the government made public knowledge. You should be excited, but instead you just whine about how the sky is falling.

Quote :

"neo-secessionist"

You are a successionist and you are a confederate, I don't know why you run away from the term when it describes your beliefs so accurately. You don't see me run away from the term "socialist" or "communist" simply because they have a negative connotation. You are not a racist, which I understand many people confuse with the earlier terms, so make that clear, but you are a confederate and a successionist.

Quote :

"And then they doctored the numbers so we cant even get a real number of what it did. Which is great accounting by the way. Enron did something similar, worked out well for them."

Proof?

Quote :

"Convenient that you left out the last part: there are countless questionable job numbers being claimed as "created", some even in state government, where pressure is being applied to inflate the number of jobs."

Certainly this would be easily determined by people smarter and more motivated than you.

2/19/2011 3:37:21 AM

Quote :

"Proof? "

I dont believe proof is something you are interested in, but im bored.

"On December 18, 2009, the Obama Administration issued new guidance to recipients on how to report the use of stimulus money. The new guidance drastically changed the formula for counting "created or saved" jobs.

Unless the Board modifies the " JOBS CREATED/SAVED" label and adds appropriate explanatory language about the new formula, the total jobs number on Recovery.gov will be even more misleading.

The Administration's original guidance defined a job "created" as "a new position created and filled or an existing unfilled position that is filled as a result of the Recovery Act." Similarly, the original guidance instructed recipients to count a job as "saved" if it "would not have been continued to be filled were it not for Recovery Act funding.")

However, the new guidance counts every job that is funded using stimulus money - even if it existed before the Recovery Act, and was not in any danger of being eliminated, as "created or saved".

This definition ignores the plain meanings of the words "created" and "saved," and makes Recovery.gov's "JOBS CREATED/SAVED" label a falsehood, further eroding the confidence of the American people in their government. ...."


Another source
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/economy/stimulus_job_counts/index.htm?section=money_topstories

" Now we'll never know just how many jobs were funded by the $787 billion stimulus program."

Which is kinda the point when you need to hide the data. Frankly the "jobs saved" is a fudge factor too, so no surprised businesses were having a hard time defining it.

2/19/2011 6:45:50 AM

Quote :

"You are a successionist and you are a confederate, I don't know why you run away from the term when it describes your beliefs so accurately."

It's secessionist, and no, I'm not a confederate. This is 2011, dude. There are no real confederates. If there were, I would not support their cause. You're ridiculous.

[Edited on February 19, 2011 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2011 9:36:41 AM

Quote :

"However, the new guidance counts every job that is funded using stimulus money - even if it existed before the Recovery Act, and was not in any danger of being eliminated, as "created or saved"."

As I explained, that would save a job on the aggregate. It may not be the same job, it may not even be the same job, but it would still be there. It's quite a stretch from suggesting it be "Enron" accounting, which would imply that it is maliciously and outrightly false.

Quote :

"There are no real confederates. If there were, I would not support their cause."

What do you consider a confederate? Someone who supports slavery? That's not it at all. The term is synonymous with secessionist(), of which you are both, as you do not believe in the union.

[Edited on February 19, 2011 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2011 11:23:15 AM

^the accounting for a job saved or created has a formula based on ESTIMATES. Why is that? It is hard to measure a "saved" job. A created job is something that can be defined.

Like I said, you cannot accurately gauge how well the program went. As the link I got from CNN talked about. THere are plenty of others, just google for more PROOF. The Enron comparison was meant to show how they too doctored their numbers for their own benefit.

2/19/2011 11:37:09 AM

A confederate is someone that identifies as a member of the confederacy, which in the context of U.S. history, refers to the Confederate States of America. I do not identify myself as a member of the Confederate States of America. Opposition to the state is not the equivalent of supporting the creation of a separate state.

2/19/2011 11:43:38 AM

Quote :

"Like I said, you cannot accurately gauge how well the program went."

Actually you said they "doctored the numbers" and used "Enron accounting".

Quote :

"Opposition to the state is not the equivalent of supporting the creation of a separate state."

Then at the very least you are a secessionist()

2/19/2011 11:51:15 AM

I'm an anarchist, which is different than being a secessionist.

2/19/2011 11:52:17 AM

By definition anarchists would be encompassed within secessionists.

2/19/2011 12:03:33 PM

Quote :

"Actually you said they "doctored the numbers" and used "Enron accounting". "

I explained the Enron comparison for you.

I also gave you a link that shows that they used ESTIMATES and formulas. haha, like I said, you arent interested in proof.

2/19/2011 1:08:01 PM

Your link shows that they simplified the reporting, not that the numbers were maliciously modified. So, like I said before, proof?

2/19/2011 1:14:06 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/stimulus-jobs-the-fine-print/

How many jobs did it create? The answer is WE DONT KNOW.

2/19/2011 1:42:21 PM

That's obvious and quite different from what you were implying earlier.

2/19/2011 1:46:19 PM

Quote :

"And then they doctored the numbers so we cant even get a real number of what it did. "

Really? Seems it is exactly what I said. I guess I should have said, doctored how we would count the numbers. Would that have been clearer to you?

2/19/2011 2:19:24 PM

Quote :

"How many jobs did it create? The answer is WE DONT KNOW. "

But it’s a # > 0, and considering how many billions it was, probably substantially > 0.

And considering too that the money was specifically targeted with at least the intention of creating jobs, it was most likely more jobs/$ than a blanket tax cut would have been.

2/19/2011 8:24:21 PM

Muslim Brotherhood = Tea Party (in terms of the lunatic fringe aspect)

2/19/2011 9:25:54 PM

Quote :

"As I explained, that would save a job on the aggregate."

bullshit. you didn't explain shit. you just made a claim and didn't even support it. it's a huge fucking cop-out. In typical liberal fashion, they just changed the definition of simple fucking words

in fact, this new definition is GUARANTEED to inflate the number of jobs "saved or created." There is no "on the aggregate," because that would imply that the old definition would have possibly missed jobs, but that's simply not possible. The old definition said "count jobs that were created or kept from being lost without the funding." Gee, where do you lose a job there? YOU DON'T.

2/20/2011 7:37:44 PM

Quote :

"But it’s a # > 0, and considering how many billions it was, probably substantially > 0."

even THAT isn't true. we don't know what would have happened had we NOT printed a trillion dollars and given a shit ton of money to democratic fantasies. we had a credit market that was completely seized up, so what did we do? WE BORROWED A TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS AT GUNPOINT. We don't count jobs LOST due to the stimulus, so you can't say either way. All we could do, at best, is say what # of jobs the porkulous bill funded, and that's it.

2/20/2011 8:07:17 PM

Quote :

"we don't know what would have happened had we NOT printed a trillion dollars and given a shit ton of money to democratic fantasies."

I think it's a pretty good expectation that more jobs would be lost. We would likely have recovered more rapidly from that bottom, but we don't have any hope of knowing if we'd be above or below where we are now as far as job loss/creation.

Quote :

"We don't count jobs LOST due to the stimulus, so you can't say either way."

Look, I hate the fact that bankers who caused this mess were saved and are now making record bonuses on top of it, but I can't think of any scenario where a job would be lost because of stimulus. I suppose there may be some business out there really sensitive to input prices that are just now being driven out because of the rise in commodity costs, but thats the best I can come up with. What kind of job do you think may be lost by the handing out of free money?

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2011 8:26:40 PM

Quote :

"I think it's a pretty good expectation that more jobs would be lost."

=/=

Quote :

"We would likely have recovered more rapidly from that bottom, but we don't have any hope of knowing if we'd be above or below where we are now as far as job loss/creation."

so which is it...

Quote :

"but I can't think of any scenario where a job would be lost because of stimulus."

I've already given the scenario: a further seizing of the credit market by the trillion dollars of borrowed money. moreover, just because you can't think of the scenario doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, it's the classic problem with the "alternate history" dilemma.

2/20/2011 8:34:03 PM

Quote :

"I've already given the scenario: a further seizing of the credit market by the trillion dollars of borrowed money. moreover, just because you can't think of the scenario doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, it's the classic problem with the "alternate history" dilemma. "

You brought this dilemma into play.

It's illogical to suggest that the amount of money we spent created less jobs than just doing nothing, this would be unprecedented.

If you're saying that money targeted towards creating and saving jobs might not have done either, then how could you argue that just giving people money back in general would create/save more jobs?

I realize you have an emotional need to hate Obama and the Democrats, but the most cogent argument you could make to satisfy this need is to suggest that the money was poorly targeted and they could have done a better job deciding who got it. But it makes you look a little foolish to suggest that the trillions spent on the stimulus and bailouts somehow resulted in less jobs than just letting the banks and American auto makers crash would have. This would be comical, if it didn't appear you actually believe it.

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2011 8:50:11 PM

Quote :

"It's illogical to suggest that the amount of money we spent created less jobs than just doing nothing, this would be unprecedented."

No, it's illogical to suggest that the money (which necessarily has to come from taxation or inflation) spent on "our behalf" did not prevent any jobs from being created. You must think that Obama shits out revenue. That's not how it works.

This is the problem with central planning. People in government (and their foolhardy followers) think they can spend money more efficiently than it would be spent in a free market. Any money that is taken away from us for "stimulus" is money that can't be used in productive, private enterprise.

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2011 8:57:12 PM

Quote :

"so which is it..."

Dude, what are you talking about? This is the job loss plot
http://tinyurl.com/68slspg
without stimulus, that percent loss would have been worse but the snap back would likely have been sharper (like the 74 and 81 recessions) as bad debts were purged and bad companies failed. We don't know this far into the recovery if we'd be above or below where we are now.

Quote :

"a further seizing of the credit market by the trillion dollars of borrowed money"

You're saying creating credit causes the seizing of credit? Is this kind of like harvesting a crop leads to hunger? That is what you're saying?

Quote :

" just because you can't think of the scenario doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

I think its a pretty reasonable assumption. I didn't say a scenario doesn't exist. I asked you to think of one and you can't.

Quote :

"Any money that is taken away from us for "stimulus" is money that can't be used in productive, private enterprise."

The money wasn't taken from us. It was created out of thin air or borrowed. It will be taken from us going forward to pay it back.

2/20/2011 9:22:41 PM

Quote :

"This is the job loss plot"

and how did the projected plot WITH the porkulous go again? so we should believe the other part of that plot because...

besides, you said:

Quote :

"I think it's a pretty good expectation that more jobs would be lost."

and

Quote :

"We would likely have recovered more rapidly from that bottom, but we don't have any hope of knowing if we'd be above or below where we are now as far as job loss/creation."

These two are conflicting. So, to quote myself:

Quote :

"so which is it..."

Quote :

"It's illogical to suggest that the amount of money we spent created less jobs than just doing nothing, this would be unprecedented."

based on what? Where is your proof for this? You are assuming that doing something automatically is good. That requires support.

Quote :

"If you're saying that money targeted towards creating and saving jobs might not have done either, then how could you argue that just giving people money back in general would create/save more jobs?"

strawman. I never said to give people money back.

Quote :

"You're saying creating credit causes the seizing of credit? Is this kind of like harvesting a crop leads to hunger? That is what you're saying?"

Think for a second: did we have a trillion dollars at the time? No. So, what did we have to do? We had to borrow. Borrowing is NOT creating credit. It is USING it.

Quote :

"I think its a pretty reasonable assumption. I didn't say a scenario doesn't exist. I asked you to think of one and you can't."

And I'd beg to differ. It seems pretty straightforward that taking a trillion dollars out of the credit market would *gasp* reduce the availability of credit.

2/20/2011 10:00:35 PM

I don't think you understand what I mean by "more rapidly" and understand percentages.

Let us assume that with or without stimulus would have us at the same amount of jobs today. If you initially lost more jobs without the stimulus, then the recovery to this point would have been more rapidly. Or, with real numbers. If 100 jobs is the reference, with stimulus the job loss is 20, without stimulus the job loss is 40, and we're back at 100 jobs now, then you gained at 25% with stimulus and 66.7 without...more rapidly.

Quote :

"and how did the projected plot WITH the porkulous go again? so we should believe the other part of that plot because..."

I have no idea what you are babbling about here.

Quote :

"Borrowing is NOT creating credit. It is USING it."

To be exact, we created liquidity for the banks. This was done by foreigns and the Fed creating the credit.

2/20/2011 10:33:31 PM

Quote :

"To be exact, we created liquidity for the banks. This was done by foreigns and the Fed creating the credit."

not with the porkulous, we didn't. TARP =/= porkulous. you know this.

Quote :

"I have no idea what you are babbling about here."

sorry, thought you were quoting Obama's job-projection plot.

Quote :

"I don't think you understand what I mean by "more rapidly" and understand percentages."

I don't care either way. I asked you to decide between "we don't know what would have happened" and "the stimulus was better than no stimulus," both of which you initially said. pick one.

2/20/2011 10:42:04 PM

Quote :

"not with the porkulous, we didn't. TARP =/= porkulous. you know this."

How about stop responding with half assed effort. I really don't know what the fuck you are talking about here. TARP =/= porkulous? No fucking shit. But the TARP program created liquidity for the banks by purchasing their illiquid assets for a period of time. If I need 50k to pay off my farmhands but I am out of cash and can't sell my farm equipment because it's an illiquid asset, then I am insolvent. If the bank purchases enough of my equipment on lease-back provisions so that I can pay my workers to continue to harvest my fields, then I can stay in business long enough to harvest, to pay them, and to get my equipment back. Do you understand any of that or are you so hell bent on winning the internet that you don't comprehend what you're reading?

Quote :

""we don't know what would have happened" and "the stimulus was better than no stimulus," both of which you initially said. pick one. "

Again, fucking comprehend what you read. I said we don't know how many jobs without stimulus would have been created up to this point. WE DON'T KNOW. Process that thought. I also said it's likely we would have lost more jobs WITHOUT STIMULUS. IT IS LIKELY. Those are two separate largely unrelated concepts. I'm granting that without stimulus the loss would have been harder and that without it the recovery...and this is important because it didn't enter your cranium yet apparent...WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IN PERCENTAGE TERMS. You understand how percents work right? I didn't say in absolute.

Please. Do everyone a favor and before you get all huffy and puffy and start firing in one liners that make no fucking sense, take a damn second to process a thought that doesn't sit well with the world view you created.

2/21/2011 7:35:32 AM

Quote :

"How about stop responding with half assed effort. I really don't know what the fuck you are talking about here. TARP =/= porkulous?"

great. so then how did the stimulus "create liquidity for the banks." We were all talking about the stimulus and then you started talking about creating liquidity for banks.

Quote :

"Please. Do everyone a favor and before you get all huffy and puffy and start firing in one liners that make no fucking sense, take a damn second to process a thought that doesn't sit well with the world view you created."

how about you speak clearly instead of getting huffy and puffy when someone says you aren't being clear or you are contradicting yourself.

2/21/2011 5:24:32 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-23-tennessee-law-shariah_N.htm
Tennessee bill would jail Shariah followers

LOL

this is what tea party/burro-esque nutbaggery leads to.

2/23/2011 11:23:23 AM

Quote :

"With Big Oil raking in record profits, House Democrats offered a Motion to Recommit to the House Republican short-term spending bill this afternoon making a responsible cut to the budget: putting an end to taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies. Repealing these subsidies would save taxpayers tens of billions over the next decade and even ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister agrees saying “with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.” Rep. William Keating (D-MA) offered the motion on the House floor saying “let’s stop sending taxpayers’ money to the most profitable companies in the world”. Republicans voted unanimously against the motion, defeating it by a vote of 176-249."

http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=3631

In case anybody is still pretending the GOP is concerned with fiscal responsibility.

3/2/2011 12:00:00 PM

Quote :

"Amid a number of bills filed in Texas that address the issue of illegal immigration, one, proposed by Republican state Rep. Debbie Riddle, stands out. As proposed, House Bill 1202 would create tough state punishments for those who "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" hire an unauthorized immigrant. Violators could face up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. But it is an exception included in the bill that is drawing attention. Those who hire unauthorized immigrants would be in violation of the law -- unless they are hiring a maid, a lawn caretaker or another houseworker. It is a tough immigration bill with a soft side that protects those who hire unauthorized immigrants "for the purpose of obtaining labor or other work to be performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence." Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, a Republican, said the exception is a wise one. "With things as they are today, her bill will see a large segment of the Texas population in prison" if it passes without the exception, he said. "When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers," Pena said. "It is so common it is overlooked.""

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/01/texas.immigration.bill/index.html

"I could never pay an english speaking person that little. They'd starve!"

3/2/2011 12:19:18 PM

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/gop_budget_cuts?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/millionherethere

Quote :

" A million here, a million there, you're still not talking about real money Mar 1st 2011, 20:27 by M.S. SPEAKING of above-average teachers who create social value not reflected in their salaries, it took George Will, of all people, to call my attention to the fact that Teach for America has apparently been designated an "earmark" in the GOP budget and slated for elimination. Teach for America costs the federal government $21m a year. That's what happens when you pass an $858 billion tax cut and then try to make up for it with cuts to domestic discretionary spending. Now if we can just eliminate 20,000 more programmes like Teach for America, we might get back to deficit-neutral, though it's an open question whether future Americans will care about our achievement since they won't know how to add."

3/2/2011 8:51:54 PM