The last time they did this, I had no doubts that the Republicans were wrong. When not one of them voted for Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act in 1993, it was about as pure an example as I can recall of partisan mule-headedness and populist demagoguery. Not to mention the fact that they were wrong on the issue. Argue cause and effect all you like, the passage of that legislation WAS followed by dramatic deficit reduction. And the way the GOP went to their home districts and told everybody about how those awful Democrats had raised their taxes was unconscionable. Especially when South Carolina Republicans said it — most people in S.C. did not see their taxes increase, unless you count the 4-cent rise in gasoline tax. And what importance can you honestly attach to 4 cents a gallon when monthly fluctuations in price are usually far more than that? (Of course, you know what I think about gas taxes.)
I remember actually watching TV news — something you know I don't often do — during that vote. Somebody had Al Gore on live, and Al was as stiff and awkward and priggish as only he can be as he talked about how wrong the Republicans were not to support it, with the roll call going on in the background (I'm thinking it was the Senate; in any case not one Republican in Congress voted for it). But he was right.
This time, I'm not as sure. I'd LIKE for our elected representatives to get together on anything as big as spending $819 billion, rather than splitting along partisan lines. I mean, if we're going to do it, let's do it together — doing it divided increases the chances that it the stimulus will fail. I say that because Phil Gramm had a point — so much of the economy is psychological. If the country sees this as THE plan that everyone agrees on, the country is more likely to have its confidence boosted. If it sees every member of one of the two major parties (for now) decry it as a waste doomed to fail, we could be looking at some self-fulfilled prophecy.
That said, I don't know but what a Republican — or UnPartisan, or anyone else — who says this plan isn't going to do the job doesn't have a point. After all, Paul Krugman says it won't, and he's no Republican.
On the other hand, their reason why this package isn't quite the thing is all bass-ackwards. They complain that only about a third of it is tax cuts. Well, I'm worried that a third of it IS tax cuts, and that those tax cuts will have zero effect on stimulating the economy. I haven't seen figures yet on exactly what the tax cuts will mean to the average American, but as I pointed out before, in an earlier version, the amount we're talking about would have given each worker only about $9 a week — which is just barely enough to go to a movie. By yourself. If you don't buy popcorn.
If you're going to have a stimulus package, either SPEND enough to really kick-start the economy (and this doesn't appear to be enough), or target tax cuts to where they are likely to stimulate some real activity. Unfortunately, in trying to provide something for everybody — and then going to woo the GOP in person — Obama may have produced a solution that doesn't do enough of anything. And then, after all that trouble, you fail to get the bipartisan support that you were trying to buy with that $300 billion in tax cuts.
As for what you will probably hear them yammer about most on TV news (and in the rest of the blogosphere) — what partisan political effect this vote will have — I don't have a dog in that fight. Whether the Republicans have cooked their own goose by voting against a plan that will work, or set themselves up to be blamed for it NOT working, or are poised to recapture the House because they were the only ones to see it wouldn't work, or whatever… I don't care. I'd like to see both parties suffer in the next election, just on general UnPartisan principles. Unfortunately, I might get my wish: The stimulus could fail, and both parties be blamed — but that be the least of the nation's worries. You know what I'd be worried about right now if I were a Republican? I'd worry that my caucus just invested its hopes in economic failure — just as Harry Reid et al. bet all their chips on our failing in Iraq. That's not a position you want to be in — your nation having to fail for you to be right. But that's their lookout, not mine.
For my part, I hope the stimulus works. Or that something we do soon works. And as long as it does, I don't care who gets the credit — even a political party.
Related Posts
In your linking of this vote back to the vote on the Clinton Deficit Reduction act, you mentioned that in ’94, the Republicans went back to their districts later and hammered them for raising taxes.
The hysterically funny aspect about this reckless gamble by the House GOP is that they have just set themselves up to get hammered in the 2010 elections for—guess what?– voting against nearly $300 billion in tax cuts. Karma’s a b—-h, isn’t it?
But $468 in a year in tax cuts to the average citizen is nothing to snort at. Yeah, it is more than the $300 bucks I got from dubya at one time– was that a post bribe?– but over 1 year if I saved it I could buy a new tv or use it to fix my car– money that I would not have had otherwise.
Or go to the Nic more often.
But you know — even if you could isolate out that $9 a week (not spending it on your increasing health care costs or whatever) and save every bit of it, would $468 spent all at once, even targeted at some product or service that needed the boost to keep from laying people off, or to grow and invest, or whatever…
… would that be enough to help anything?
I don’t know. Mind you, I’m not sure those are the actual figures now, and they’re probably not. That’s what it amounted to in an earlier version of the bill. I’m sure the current numbers are available; I just haven’t had time to look hard today…
But since the overall tax cut amount did not grow from earlier (I don’t think), I think that’s in the ballpark….
For what it’s worth, here’s a link to the editorial I wrote for Jan. 8, when the tax cut would have amounted to $9.62 in an average weekly paycheck. By the way, I was riffing on “Trading Places” with the going to the movies by yourself thing… Remember the waiter in the club, receiving his $5 Christmas bonus from the Duke brothers?
Sorry I don’t have all the current details in front of me. It’s been a busy day. FYI, we had an editorial board meeting with the state Employment Security Commission today. More about that later.
Obama was just BS-ing about bipartisanship.
The Pelosi Pork Package was passed by just Democrats.
11 Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, voted against this spending fiasco.
The tax cuts were not large enough.
The Democrats are telling us they don’t need taxes, because they are going to run a $1,200 BILLION deficit.
So why not run the deficit by cutting taxes instead of borrowing more money for earmarked pork?
The fastest way to get money in the economy is to leave it there. Reduce taxes.
The smartest way to spend money is to let those who took risks and made money decide where to re-invest it.
Democrats want control over spending because money is POWER. James Clyburn said the American people could not be trusted to spend their own money, because they would just save it, pay down debt, and buy goods from China. He would blow it, run up more debt, and borrow from China.
I agree with Lee’s astute comment that this is a Pelosi Pork Package.
I’d like to add that it’s Harry Reid-iculous and we’re really creating an Al-Frankenstein.
Brad,
I agree with Krugman’s assessment of the Republicans in his recent op-ed in the Times. Essentially, the Republicans are claiming that it is their party’s failure to adhere to orthodox conservative positions that resulted in their electoral defeat.
Republicans believe that government is the problem, not the solution. But in this case, Republicans did not simply cut taxes since 2001, they also dramatically increased spending, reduced government regulation of private industry, and unleashed a new gilded-age mentality on Wall Street. They became, in effect, the party of greed and encouraged us all to get ours and get greedy about it.
Now they claim that fiscal conservatism–targeted tax cuts (mainly on those who CAN afford to pay) will somehow stimulate the economy. Yet, tax cuts produce far less economic return dollar-for-dollar than job creation at public expense through project funding. Keep in mind that the country has a lot of skilled, under-employed tradesmen whom the downturn has hit bad.
Krugman says that, not only have Republicans failed to manage the economy when they were in power, they are failing to work in a bipartisan way because they fear that the stimulus may actually work, thereby showing that government is the solution and re-regulation of the economy the answer.
The Republicans risk becoming this century’s version of the antebellum Whig Party–a force today, gone tomorrow.
The Democracy, fortunately, is sufficiently fractious that even a government controlled by that party could be considered multiparty for all intents and purposes.
It is the Republicans who, with their unanimous “no” vote in Congress have demonstrated their capacity for monolithic ideological expression.
If Krugman, a nobel-prizewinning economist, believes that the stimulus has a chance, then I am heartened and wish the President nothing but the best, particularly since I voted for him.
But even if the stimulus fails to work as intended, if it keeps people employed, covered with appropriate health care, and housed and fed, then it will have been a success.
Remember that FDR’s New Deal was a disappointment. But it captured the imagination of the American people who, in 1933, were in a dangerous pre-revolutionary mood. Very few people at that time knew how evil communism would prove to be and the American party was very effective at public relations as its members fought and died for some very progressive causes here that resulted in tangible good. Think of the Scottsboro case that lasted from 1931 to 1946.
The Republicans like to think that if the economy tanks even more, that they can recover Congress in the mid-term elections. But if Obama keeps people employed, housed, fed, and insured, then there is hope that we will weather the storm. Just as with Roosevelt, the Democrats will win term after term hoping against hope that prosperity would eventually return.
And it did.
Brad,
I agree with Krugman’s assessment of the Republicans in his recent op-ed in the Times. Essentially, the Republicans are claiming that it is their party’s failure to adhere to orthodox conservative positions that resulted in their electoral defeat.
Republicans believe that government is the problem, not the solution. But in this case, Republicans did not simply cut taxes since 2001, they also dramatically increased spending, reduced government regulation of private industry, and unleashed a new gilded-age mentality on Wall Street. They became, in effect, the party of greed and encouraged us all to get ours and get greedy about it.
Now they claim that fiscal conservatism–targeted tax cuts (mainly on those who CAN afford to pay) will somehow stimulate the economy. Yet, tax cuts produce far less economic return dollar-for-dollar than job creation at public expense through project funding. Keep in mind that the country has a lot of skilled, under-employed tradesmen whom the downturn has hit bad.
Krugman says that, not only have Republicans failed to manage the economy when they were in power, they are failing to work in a bipartisan way because they fear that the stimulus may actually work, thereby showing that government is the solution and re-regulation of the economy the answer.
The Republicans risk becoming this century’s version of the antebellum Whig Party–a force today, gone tomorrow.
The Democracy, fortunately, is sufficiently fractious that even a government controlled by that party could be considered multiparty for all intents and purposes.
It is the Republicans who, with their unanimous “no” vote in Congress have demonstrated their capacity for monolithic ideological expression.
If Krugman, a nobel-prizewinning economist, believes that the stimulus has a chance, then I am heartened and wish the President nothing but the best, particularly since I voted for him.
But even if the stimulus fails to work as intended, if it keeps people employed, covered with appropriate health care, and housed and fed, then it will have been a success.
Remember that FDR’s New Deal was a disappointment. But it captured the imagination of the American people who, in 1933, were in a dangerous pre-revolutionary mood. Very few people at that time knew how evil communism would prove to be and the American party was very effective at public relations as its members fought and died for some very progressive causes here that resulted in tangible good. Think of the Scottsboro case that lasted from 1931 to 1946.
The Republicans like to think that if the economy tanks even more, that they can recover Congress in the mid-term elections. But if Obama keeps people employed, housed, fed, and insured, then there is hope that we will weather the storm. Just as with Roosevelt, the Democrats will win term after term hoping against hope that prosperity would eventually return.
And it did.
This is interesting. So the Democrats are pushing spending to buy votes and stimulate today’s economy. Meanwhile, the Republicans are pushing for tax cuts to buy votes and stimulate today’s economy.
So both parties are looking out only for themselves (vote-buying) and for short term (2-6 years depending on the length of the term of office) economic success.
Who the hell is looking out for tomorrow? Who the hell is concerned about the skyrocketing deficit? Who the hell is protecting this country from almost certain inflation?
The last VP said “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” and he was absolutely right. You can screw up the future of this country and still win elections. They know what they are doing.
The Democrats are continuing down this path today. This is morally unacceptable to me. It’s outrageous. It pisses me off to no end. Why should I have any other feeling towards these people other than pure bitterness?
I am only 23 years old. I just joined the workforce in this country. I pay a few thousand to a poorly-thought out Social Security plan for benefits I will likely not receive (certainly not in full). Meanwhile I get to look forward to a life of diminished earnings thanks to inflation because we’re in a recession today and these politicians want to keep their damn jobs. Talk about looking out for number one. Even if you argue these goons are looking out for the best interests of the country, it’s only for those of us living and working now. What about the future generations of this country? Will they even have a chance?
So one of you tell me why I should ever vote for another Democrat or Republican again. If these idiots stay in power I predict every patriotic feeling I have ever had in my body will eventually be extinguished.
Apologies for the rant.
Birch, damn good rant and dead on the money. Don’t apologize. Actually, we need more of it from your generation.
When you reach my age, think back on what you just witnessed in this election. I can still remember when my high school was first integrated and how it felt when the young lady sat next to me in my literature class. Her family and mine were friends and it was strange to hear some of the comments directed at her and how angry it made me.
So, things can and will change. Stay involved and make a difference. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. I like your passion. Don’t let it turn to bitterness or anger but channel it into a positive for change. Sorry for the sermonette.
When Republicans act like and follow the sound principles of true conservatism, not the neocon brand, they will make a strong comeback and retake their rightful position as a major influencial party. But, until they get their house in order, more and more losses will continue and that is the danger we as a nation face right now.
We need a strong Democrat AND Republican two party system to maintain an honest balance of government. We don’t need to go too far one way or the other because it serves no good purpose for any of us.
Democrats were on the brink of being irrelevant a few years ago as well and came back. A moment here for a biased observation but much of their success had to do with a much needed ideological partner spreading their message – i.e., the media and entertainment industry. Facts are facts and even the media admits to this one.
As much as each side wants to believe that they have all the answers, it just “ain’t” true. We are an equally split country in terms of liberal and conservative depending upon each person’s own definition. Most share many common beliefs as we all know.
Rich, if we cannot admit to some truths about the events that reshaped the agenda of George Bush, then we don’t have much hope or expectations of ever coming together in a meaningful way. Not one of us were in his position on 9/11 and not one of us know exactly what our reaction would have been. I know from personal experience that some incidents can alter your outlook and perspective if they are traumatic enough. Bush was the sitting President that day and was presented with an act of terrorism unlike anything else that has happend in modern history.
Bush made mistakes of course, what president hasn’t? As much as I disagreed with a lot of Clinton’s policies, never did I grow to hate the man the way or from all indications, the way you and bud hate Bush. If we forget and don’t make allowances for the simple truth that this economic disaster was decades in the making, where can we come together on common ground? There are too many from BOTH sides of the aisle who made major contributions to our current crisis for us to assign blame to one or two.
I don’t know if this stimulus package will have any useful effect at all. It may and it may not. There are too many pork projects in it for my taste just like the excesses in the bills Bush signed during his two terms. He pissed me off when he failed to use the veto and demand fiscal responsibility from Republicans and Democrats alike.
Capitalism didn’t fail, it was those who were irresponsible who failed. Greed took over and greed knows no racial, gender, political, or ideological boundaries. We have just as many Democrat millionaires and billionaires if not more than Republican ones. Each is just as damn greedy and unscrupulous as the other when it comes to self-serving interests. The false image of conservatives being stingy is as distasteful as the one some neocons try to hang on liberals when they are accused of not being partiotic.
I could go on and on but I think you and others get my drift and understand what I am trying to convey.
Think about it.
I’ve been wondering for awhile: If elected republicans think government is the problem, why do they go into politics?
Conservatives represent working people who want to keep, save, invest and spend THEIR OWN money.
Socialistic liberals represent non-working people who want to enrich themselves by TAXING AWAY the wealth from those who created it.
Big difference.
This time, I’m not as sure. I’d LIKE for our elected representatives to get together on anything as big as spending $819 billion, rather than splitting along partisan lines.
-Brad
This is a theme you constantly harp on yet I find this whole partisan/bipartisan business totally irrelevant. The Democrats are in charge and they can and should follow the will of the people. If that upsets the increasingly partisan Republicans so be it. It’s just not important.
What IS important is passing legislation that will stimulate the economy. The Democrats have crafted just such legislation and even thrown in a few tax cuts that would appeal to the GOP. Since none of them voted for the bill we can only assume they want to take the country in a direction away from the will of the majority of the country. So be it. Pass the legislation along party lines and move on. That’s the democratic way. Nothing about democracy requires bipartisanship. It’s just not necessary.
Birch and Bart, rant and sermonize away. As for Birch’s question, “Who the hell is looking out for tomorrow? Who the hell is concerned about the skyrocketing deficit? Who the hell is protecting this country from almost certain inflation?”
Why, the UnParty, of course. But you know what? Until enough of us gets elected to make a difference, or at least until ONE of us gets elected (do you think one of us should run for governor, or Congress? Actually, we should start with local gummint or the Legislature), we have to make do by supporting the best efforts of the better people in those OTHER parties.
And Obama’s genuine outreach to Republicans, trying to involve them, trying to include them and their ideas, is highly laudatory. And I’m sorry bud doesn’t appreciate it. Sometimes I wonder why he switched from Hillary to Obama. I chose Obama among the Democrats (just as I chose McCain among the Republicans) because he was the most likely to put partisan nonsense behind us to the best of his ability, whereas Hillary was the embodiment of the “Let’s get 50 percent plus one, and do what we damn’ well want to do” school of partisanship.
Obama is the closest thing to an UnParty president that I can recall — so far. And I hope he keeps it up. No, he can’t make the Democrats and Republicans in Congress play nice, but he can do HIS part, and he’s doing it.
As for the specific point bud argues with — did you not read the next sentence? “I mean, if we’re going to do it, let’s do it together — doing it divided increases the chances that it the stimulus will fail.”
Do you not see that? Do you not see that a plan that Congress acts upon without the usual partisan games is more likely to inspire the confidence among consumers and investors that is desperately needed to pull us out of this mess?
That doesn’t mean that if you think you have the right plan and you can pass it without the other side you shouldn’t go ahead and pass it (any more than we should have stayed out of Iraq because France and Germany and Russia opposed it). But surely you can agree that it would have been BETTER if it had passed overwhelmingly and without the partisan split (just as it would have been better to have the support of those other nations, if we were going to go into Iraq). I mean, between passing it along party lines and passing it in a bipartisan manner, the latter is always preferable.
Obama thought so, anyway, which is why he put those tax cuts in there, and why his first trip to Capitol Hill was to talk to the Republicans and try to involve them.
(And bud, I’m not trying to provoke another argument over the war with those parentheticals above. I’m just trying to use a case where YOU were on the dissenting side, as the Republicans are in this case, to illustrate my point. Whether you’re taking military action or passing one of the biggest spending bills in history, your chances are better of succeeding if you have as many allies as possible. It’s not at all healthy for a significant portion of the political world to be betting on the nation to fail, when it’s so important to us all to succeed.)
so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
Source: Merriam-Webster
But surely you can agree that it would have been BETTER if it had passed overwhelmingly and without the partisan split.
-Brad
No. And here’s why. Obama attempted to reach across the aisle to craft legislation that would have bipartisan support. In doing so we ended up with a bill that was not as good. By larding it down with the tax cuts we ended up with a bill that was not as good. Ultimately it didn’t help get any GOP votes anyway. But valuable time was devoted to the effort and in the end the vote was still along party lines.
Brad, your concerns would be more valid if the GOP was simply not so completely out of touch. They’ve pretty much decided to abandon moderates in an effort to shore up their shrinking far-right base. By attempting to reach across the aisle Obama just made of fool of himself. These people are not worth the effort. In this environment bipartisanship probably does more harm than good. Let’s just do what’s right.
And by the way. The Clinton bill you spoke of passed without a single GOP vote and the economy soared for 8 years. That undercuts your argument that something will work better if it has bipartisan support.
I say let the Democrats own this bill 100%. It’s easier to hold someone accountable in that case.
A compromise agreement would allow both parties to blame the other side when it doesn’t work.
This is Obama’s bill. This is the Democrats bill. This is what they’ve been telling us they would do for eight years. It’s not like the Republicans can stop it from happening — so why would it matter if they support it or not? If the plan is sound it will work because the plan is sound, not because everybody sings Kumbaya.
But the plan is NOT sound. It is NOT going to help the economy. It has a far greater chance of ruining the economy down the road.
Brad or Bud – how much of your own money would you wager that this plan will work?
Would you bet me $100 that stock market will be below 9000 in December and that the unemployment rate will improve by no more than .5% in the next year? Would you bet $1000?
Doug, because of the slumping economy I don’t have $1000 or even $100 so there’s no point in making that bet. But I will bet a Starbucks (if they’re still around then). I feel confident the unemployment rate will increase a bit more to say 9.5% by June, then drop to around 8% by Christmas. The DOW will easily top 9000 by then.
Whoa Buckaroo bud! The vote against the bill was along BIPARTISAN lines. The vote for the bill was along PARTISAN lines. Remember that some, not very many but some Democrats voted WITH the Republicans. And based on some reports starting to trickle in, the tone of the country is not so hot in favor of the bill after the pork has been indentified and the actual stimulus portion of the bill is about 1/3 of the total and 2/3 is pork. I’m being generous. Some estimates are coming up with 12% numbers for actual stimulus to the economy.
Bianco Research had the following to say about the package.
============================================
……Remember, this is an economic stimulus bill. It is not intended (we’re told) to tackle social problems, feed the poor, house the homeless, improve the landscaping in Washington D.C., etc. The President has gone to great lengths to assure citizens that the sole purpose of this unprecedented legislation is to stimulate and jump start the U.S. economy. He promised us that the bill would be free of pork, social programs and pet projects. He went so far as to guarantee the public that he would not sign a bill if it had any pork in it.
So then what’s the multiplier for the $50 million for the National Endowment of Arts? How about the $400 million for global warming research, the $335 million for STD prevention, the $650 million for digital conversion coupons, the $81 billion for Medicaid, the $20 billion for food stamps, the $30 billion for Cobra insurance extensions, the $4.1 billion for neighborhood activist groups like ACORN, the $83 billion for the earned income credit to give tax refunds to people who don’t pay income tax, and the $6 billion to subsidize university building projects just to name a few…….
In reference to the multiplier effect, Bianco had this to say………
“……Let me explain. Building a highway from one point of commerce to another should over the life of the highway produce an economic benefit greater than the cost of the construction. Some say the multiplier for new highway construction is from 3 to 5 times the initial cost. The important thing is not that we agree on the exact degree of the multiplier, but that we agree that the expense will stimulate the economy and bring some return in excess of the cost…………….”
============================================
What we have in front of us now is a socialist driven pork package with a few crumbs thrown out for political cover. If this is a true stimulus bill, then the bulk of it should be going to the task of actually, physically, creating new jobs as promised. Even the highly touted “green” economy has taken a back seat to the social pork.
Finally, Obama won 52% of the vote. Last time I checked, that is 48% short of being 100%. When the day comes a presidential candidate is elected with 100% of the vote, then the argument can be made for governing along partisan lines. Until then, just as you have screamed for eight years, we have a voice in this too. In fact, we conservatives may have an even greater claim to having a voice since it is our taxes we pay in that goes to support 80% of the 52% majority you claim in your victory celebration. But again, that’s socialism, “ain’t” it?
The Clinton bill passed and economic growth went to zero in 1996. So Clinton and the Democrats targeted massive deficit spending and used the Oklahoma City bombing to come from behind and barely beat Bob Dole.
In 1998, Wall Street financiers of Clinton’s 2000 campaign cashed in to take profits from his cutting their taxes to 14%, and left naive investors holding the bag in the Dot.Com Crash.
Then, the Clinton Tax Increases on the Middle Class brought about another recession in 2000.
Paul Krugman lends his name and diploma to those who want this pork spending, but Krugman offers no arugments for it, because he knows nothing about business or recessions. He doesn’t even have his facts straight on the Great Depression, New Deal and other recessions.
Over 400 top economists, including several other Nobel Prize recipients, have taken out advertisements saying this Pelosi spending bill is a sham, and will cause more harm to the economy.
I intended to post this before the subject drifted–anyway—Liberal Democrats are so disrespectful and spout so much hate because they are insecure and afraid of the truth. Good examples of this are bud and Rich. Deep down they sense that they are wrong and can’t have any bit of truth from the other side. They still have to trash President Bush, else they begin to doubt their phoney world. They call President Bush a racist, yet he has done more for the black people of Africa than all our previous presidents combined. You can disregard most everything else they say. I am offended when anybody throws a shoe at my president. I would feel the same way if it had been President Obama.
Occasionally, Peggy Noonan gets it right. This time she hit the nail on the head in her latest column. She addressed the Obama phenomenon and the opportunity to do as he promised to govern and include all, reach across the aisle for ideas and input, not just from his party.
Democrats, liberals, and others have belabored the point about Republicans not voting for the stimulus package in the House. Yet, the most important point has been overlooked as evidenced by this comment……
============================================
“.. Rep. Mike Pence is reported to have said to the president, “Know that we’re praying for you. . . . But know that there has been no negotiation [with Republicans] on the bill—we had absolutely no say.”………”
She wrote about the Democrats in congress not knowing what time is was. She described it as having Goldmansachs Head or GSH.
…..
“Here is how you know if someone has GSH: He has everything but a watch. He doesn’t know what time it is…….
……….But you don’t have to be on Wall Street to have GSH. Congress has it too. That’s what the stimulus bill was about—not knowing what time it is, not knowing the old pork-barrel, group-greasing ways are over, done, embarrassing. When you create a bill like that, it doesn’t mean you’re a pro, it doesn’t mean you’re a tough, no-nonsense pol. It means you’re a slob.
That’s how the Democratic establishment in the House looks, not like people who are responding to a crisis, or even like people who are ignoring a crisis, but people who are using a crisis. Our hopeful, compelling new president shouldn’t have gone with this bill. He made news this week by going to the House to meet with Republicans. He could have made history by listening to them……..”
============================================
A very astute observation. Barack Obama had the golden opportunity to win not only the battle but effectively end the war of partisanship for the time being start to build an honest coalition of elected representatives from across the political and socio-economic spectrum. Instead, he chose to let the Pelosi-Reid contingent continue to call the shots and disavow any legitimacy of the Republicans in congress who want to do the right thing.
Make no mistake, this was Barack Obama’s call and from the way it was handled, his call allowed the ball to be fumbled on the goal line. He allowed the assistant coaches to make the calls, not Obama, the head coach. When you consider just how damn silly most of Pelosi’s calls really are, no wonder partisanship is still alive and flourishing in Washington and will continue.
Just when I think Obama actually believed his own words, something always comes about to prove me wrong once again. He won’t stray far from his roots and his “electrifying rhetoric” – yeah,right – is nothing more than “words, just words”.
She also observed that the constant appearance of Obama on everything broadcast or printed is reaching the saturation point.
I’ve seen it before and soon, the glow will diminish and when that happens and his disciples are no longer blinded by the light emanating from his halo, the fall and sudden impact with the ground can be devastating.
Everyone who is remotely aware of the crisis we face realizes and understands that something needs to be done but no one has all the answers. Like most crises’, when one occurs, the party in power will come up with their version of a rescue plan to the exclusion of all others. When the plan fails or has serious shortcomings, only then will they consider other options. However, with this crisis, failure will have enormous long term consequences. Can we or will we be willing to wait that long? I doubt it.
Remember when Obama said he would go over the entire budget with a scalpel? Guess he left the scalpel in Chicago. Here are some of the items in the so-called stimulus package (from NRO):
$345 million for Agriculture Department computers
$650 million for TV converter boxes
$15 billion for college scholarships
$1 billion to deal with Census problems $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year.
$2.1 billion to pay off a looming shortfall in public housing accounts
$870 million to combat the flu
$400 million to slow the spread HIV and STD’s
$40 million to convert the way health
$380 million rainy day fund for the Women, Infants and Children program that delivers healthful food to the poor.
This isn’t a stimulus package. It’s a Jimmy Dean Extra Fatty Pork Package.
If any of our state’s representatives vote for this they should resign.
That’s right, Doug! What pork. Just think. We could be invading another country, which would cost us 3/4 of a trillion dollars, or infusing money into Wall St. so that executives could have their bonuses.
I think you hate this package because you just don’t believe government should be in the business of helping people make their way.
It was the same thinking of the people who fought Reconstruction and the Freedmen’s Bureau in the 1860s.
Or is it that you’re just willfully stupid like Lee!
That’s right, Doug! What pork. Just think. We could be invading another country, which would cost us 3/4 of a trillion dollars, or infusing money into Wall St. so that executives could have their bonuses.
I think you hate this package because you just don’t believe government should be in the business of helping people make their way.
It was the same thinking of the people who fought Reconstruction and the Freedmen’s Bureau in the 1860s.
Or is it that you’re just willfully stupid like Lee!
We know, Richie – you don’t give a rat’s rear about the 3,000 American murdered by Islamic terrorists. Military defense spending is interfering with handouts to you. You are the perfect Yuppie Democrat, except you aren’t urban and you aren’t professional
Lee,
4,237 > 3,000
That is all.
Rich,
I was against the war before it was hip to be against the war. I think the “war on terror” is a scam. It was an over-reaction to a horrific event. It will prove to be a worthless endeavor once we leave Iraq (if ever) when the various sects driven by their interpretation of religion start killing each other again. It’s a fight we cannot win.
I am opposed to the stimulus package for two reasons: it doesn’t do what it claims to do and it does it in the typical fashion of inefficiently funneling money through Washington to whichever firms the best lobbyists represent.
Money for preventing HIV has nothing to do with economic recovery. Money for student loans has nothing to do with economic recovery. Money for fixing the census bureau has nothing to with economic recovery. Or are you just willfully stupid enough to believe otherwise?
Economic recovery will only come via direct tax cuts to individuals and businesses. More money in the pocket = more money in the economy moving at a faster velocity than any pork project. More money in business coffers means more jobs which also means economic growth.
What is so hard to understand about that? Other than it doesn’t allow you to take money from me to give to whoever you think deserves a handout?
One more comment on the war – we could have saved a whole lot of lives by telling Saddam that he would be the first person killed if there was any proof that he was building WMD’s and threatening the U.S. We should have a top down search and destroy mission against terrorists not a bottom up approach. With the bottom up approach many innocent lives are lost and that just fuels the anti-American hostility. Every innocent life taken as part of the War on Terror is the same as every life lost on 9/11.
Rich,
What is your point? We COULD invade another country or throw more money at Wall Street, but if you want to criticize someone, how about the man who DID vote for funds for the bailout and the invasion (Hint, he lives in a big house on Pennslyvania Avenue).
It’s not like the money for this new stimulus is just sitting around not being used. We don’t have it. Washington is good at not telling people where it comes from.
I don’t think the government should be in the business of helping people make their way at the expense of another generation who can’t even defend itself.
To me, that is the lowest, greediest act that a government can do.
Gentlemen:
Review your history of the Depression from a reputable history book, not a partisan screed! Herbert Hoover presided over the first three and a half years of the Depression and what good did that do us!
He balanced the federal budget, cut back spending, cut taxes, and did absolutely nothing to help people who had lost their jobs. The 30s was an era with no social safety net of any kind other than the extended family–and many of those were quite poor or living on the margin.
There was no social security (whereas our recent nemesis, Germany, had had a whole raft of social security and welfare provisions by the federal German state since the time of Bismarck), no social programs, no real federally directed economic policy of any kind. Even our sacred military establishment upon which we lavish about $500 billion a year (and that’s the part of the budget we’re allowed to see!) was starving at the time.
Hoover and the Republicans then believed that prosperity was just around the corner–if only the government would get out of the way and let the de-regulated or unregulated private sector have all the freedom it needed to “create jobs and wealth.”
Unfortunately, the only thing the private sector at that time did was concentrate wealth ever more securely into the hands of the super-rich while ordinary people began to starve in the streets and the great dust bowl (there was no FEMA at the time) blew away the farms of the midwest, thereby creating the enormous human tragedy chronicled in “The Grapes of Wrath.”
Instead, what I am reading in your posts, conservative gentlemen, is anger directed at those who have the least in our society and whom you perceive to be a drain on government resources.
Well, we either build schools and improve public education with great literacy, numeracy, and job training programs, or we can build prisons. In S.C., however, we allow the poorest and most depressed parts of the state to have the worst schools with the least resources and lowest-paid teachers.
If your son or daughter wanted to teach, would you counsel him or her to go to Allendale, Denmark, or Lake City? Wouldn’t you want your kid to work in Richland Two, District Five, or Myrtle Beach?? When you’re young, the relatively bright lights of Columbia have a far greater attraction than the desolate fields of the Corridor of Shame!
Gentlemen, when FDR took over the reins of government in March 1933, fully three and a half years after the Depression first began, this country had already had three and half years of: balanced budgets, reduced spending, reduced taxation, virtually no social spending, and an unregulated market.
And what was the result?? The banks failed, the economy fell into a deep Depression that might have been alleviated under Hoover in 1930, and angry, ordinary everyday US citizens were starving. It was a pre-revolutionary situation. No one knew at that time that communism would prove to be one of the world’s greatest evils ever. The CPUSA was strong and attracting more and more adherents.
Why? Is it because those people wanted a hand-out so they could lie on the couch all day long and get fat eating snacks listening to FDR on the radio?
No, it’s because people were starving.
A society can well be judged, not only by its core values, but by how applies those core values to the weakest and the poorest among us. It can be judged by how well it respects the minority groups within it who could easily become objects of persecution, as blacks were under Jim Crow and Jews were under the Nazis.
Gentlemen, I submit to you that what you recommend we do has already been tried–and failed miserably under Herbert Hoover. You might want to consider that when you recommend the same policies to President Obama. He knows his history and he doesn’t want people starving in the streets while the rich get richer and everyone else has a shrinking piece of the pie.
Yes, it’s time to spread the wealth around. How many billions do you need to live? And do you ever think that by giving the rich the opportunity to be greedy that any of that wealth would ever come down to you?
What, in the form of a job with no benefits and inadequate pay? Come on!
Rich,
I’m not rich. All I want is to keep what I earn through my own efforts.
I just did my taxes for 2008. Combined, my wife and I paid approximately 40% of our total income to the government (federal, state, local). We paid more in federal taxes than we did for our mortgage. My federal taxes are the single highest expense I pay each year.
Tell me how much you contributed to the cause. Tell me how much more you want me to contribute to paying for STD prevention, digital cable converter box coupons, and new bureaucrat buildings?
Someday when (if) you start earning real money and have a family to support, your idealism and history lessons will seem like foolish folly to you. Or you can just wait until the government gives you a cut of my salary.
Doug,
I just did my taxes, too. As a public-school educator, my effective rate is 39%, if you include all taxes I have paid–state, local, federal, FICA, Medicare, and sales tax. That excludes my mandatory contribution to the Retirement System (6.5%–but who’s complaining; it’s an excellent defined-benefit program and I DO appreciate it, particularly since I am eligible to retire in just under four years from now).
Now, because of our over-reliance on the sales tax to fund public education, rather than a mix of taxes at all levels, we are looking at potentially a 5-day furlough for teachers at their daily rate (which is 1/190 of total salary), loss of national board stipends, larger class sizes (we already have some of the largest in the country), etc.
My district is going to start recruiting again because we are still growing and still need teachers. How do we get someone to start a full-time job after college, possibly loaded down with student loans, to work for $35,000 a year to start (and that’s generous; in Hampton 2, for instance, it’s $31K), knowing full well that they could be furloughed and lose some of what little they get.
It also demoralizes people like me with advanced degrees (I hold USC doctorate in education and I am National Board certified; I also have 26.5 years in this business, 24 of which are right here in S.C.) who have worked hard to rise on the salary schedule. Get the advanced training, do the advanced work, do the incredible amount of work required to get board-certified, and then take it away? What is this? Rapacious private industry where executives get paid millions while their workers are asked to “give back” what little they’ve got?
No, the solution is stringent government regulation of private industry. There should be standards for everything–including, for instance, a government-mandated ratio of executive to worker compensation.
You like to talk about how government wastes money! Maybe it does from time to time. But a typical high-school principal in this state makes around $100K; a typical superintendent, $125K; a typical teacher, $47K–with everyone having the same benefits. Why doesn’t private industry require similar ratios from top to bottom?
If your lowest paid worker makes $31K, then, if you follow the public schools of this state as a model, the highest paid would make four times as much–about what a supt. makes.
It’s private industry that is utterly corrupt and unbusinesslike in this country. Their rapacity, greed, and lack of loyalty to their workers has decimated American business and industry, moving large parts of it overseas.
We need to face the “s” word squarely. The age of American capitalism must give way to a state-managed economy in which private industry will truly be subject to the market while the stock in the firms producing the goods and services would be owned by their workers and the government. The government would assume the commanding heights of the economy and manage it in the interests of the people.
The problem with Soviet-style socialism was not state-ownership of the means of production. It was the concept of command-based production rather than market-based production. The totalitarian, dictatorial nonsense that emanated deep from within Russian political culture foreclosed the emancipatory possibilities of socialism and now has left us with unfettered capitalism and its blighted economies, landscapes, global warming, and omnivorous military-industrial complex that needs weapons and war just to keep going.
I am not suggesting anything like communism, but I am saying that we have a collective responsibility to manage our economy in the interests of the entire people of the United States, not just those who “have theirs.”
Rich,
We are on our way toward your utopia. This past year for the first time there were more government workers than manufacturing workers in the U.S.
I find all the talk of state run industry laughable. Where has that worked? Where are the examples of government agencies with one quarter the innovation of a Google? The U.S. Post Office and Wal-Mart have about the same number of employees. Which one would you invest in?
All of the largest government programs are filled with waste, fraud, and patronage. When that happens in private industry, people go to jail or companies go bankrupt. When it happens in government, taxes are raised to pay for more waste, fraud, and patronage.
You and Brad share a similar idealism that completely ignores reality.
This country would go down the toilet without the advances made by private industry. America was built on initiative, innovation, and self-interested people willing to take risks. The only thing government does is stifle those people who actually provide the intellectual capital and hard work.
And if you don’t like your pay as a teacher the beauty of our system is you can go find another job.
And as for your specific comments about teacher pay, talk to your man Dr. Jim Rex. The money is there every year to pay teachers more but it is spent on other bureaucratic nonsense. You’re being paid what the districts want to pay you (i.e. your government leaders).
And as far as the furloughs go, you’re being sold down the river again by Dr. Rex. Every district has a rainy day fund that could be tapped.. in fact, most districts have increased the size of the “rainy day” fund in the past year. I believe the total amount in these funds across the state is somewhere around $700 million dollars. Seems like there would be enough to cover the furlough cost. Again, these are YOUR government leaders who have made the decision.
Regarding certification pay, I don’t see that there has been any research that shows that extra pay has resulted in better student outcomes. It would be better if we paid teachers for performance than for degrees and certifications.
Since we captured two Iraqi hijacker training camps with records, names, and videotape linking the Al Qaeda hijackers to Saddam Hussein, that is enough reason to invade that country, kill Saddam and his sons, and flatten his bands of followers.
Or we could do like Clinton did, and sit around while they blew up the World Trade Center, the USS Cole and our embassies.
Now we have Obama encouraging Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO. Remember that when they respond with a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.
Just last week, an entire Al Qaeda camp was wiped out by the bubonic plague. Gee, they must have mishandled something intended for us. Too bad.
Social Security is not “a defined benefit program”. It is not even a retirement program. It is not insurance.
Social Security is a welfare program, and no one has a right to one cent of money from it, according to the Supreme Court.
It is fascinating to watch how the same Republicans who jumped at the chance to spend trillions on an unnecessary war on the other side of the planet balk at spending money to help actual Americans on this side of the pond.
Cal,
Who is being helped and in what way?
What specific parts of the stimulus package to do you expect to benefit from?
Cal,
The Republicans haven’t been the party of Lincoln since 1877. They’re dixiecrats, racists, fundamentalists, and angry listeners of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
They have no problem with rapacious Wall St. capitalism or with commodities markets that artificially raised the price of oil on this side of the Atlantic. They have no problem with gigantic deficit spending just so long as it goes toward the maintenance of an aggressive American war machine. Most tellingly, they vociferously support detention of suspects without trial, torture, and massive electronic spying on the American people.
I have never seen anyone on this blog engage the history that I explain in my posts, particularly the policies of Hoover in the early 1930’s that turned a stock market crash into a decade of depression. By the time FDR took office in 1933, it was almost too late to reverse the collapse any time soon.
No, the Republicans lost this election and they will return to their angry conservative constituencies, fire up the base with their absurdities, and continue to lose, lose, lose!!!
Herbert Hoover ran huge deficits his last two years in office. FDR criticized him continually for it during the 1932 campaign.
The Democratic Party has always been full of racists.
Democrats fought against the GOP’s push for civil rights for blacks, all the way back to Eisenhower, and through 1964 and 1966.
Democrats made racial attacks on Clarence Thomas and other conservative blacks.
Obama ran a racist campaign of envy.
Obama says the stimulus spending “is not for skilled white construction workers and professionals”.
Barney Frank says there must be language in all future legislation to prevent whites from getting the jobs and money.
Charlie Wrangel says the stimulus jobs must go to non-whites first.
Robert Reich says the stimulus spending must not go to educated white and Asians.
4,237 is less than the 2,000,000 Kurds and Iraqi women and children murdered by Saddam Hussein from 1993-2002.
There are so many wasteful spending projects for South Carolina in the Pelosi Pork Package that this blog cannot list them all.
So here is the link:
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/SC
List of projects in the stimulus package. Searchable by city/state. Note how many have listed “0” as number of jobs created.
http://stimuluswatch.org/
It is interesting to read the comments of those who apparently have never dived into the waters of entrepreneurship and started a business. When I read comments from the likes of Rich, I can only shake my head in total wonder and amazement at his absolute stupidity and ignorance of anything outside his insulated world of fantasy and make believe.
Many years ago, my partner and I started a business from scratch. Built it into a multimillion dollar enterprise, worked in several states and employed lots of people. We offered good salaries, paid health insurance, paid vacations, paid holidays, bonuses, and sick days. We never discriminated according to race, gender, or age. Yet, we were constantly paying huge tax bills, and meeting every damn government regulation and requirement we were required to do.
What drove us out of business was not our greed Rich but an overregulating government and exhorbitant taxes that went to cover the sorry asses those you constantly whine, and piss and moan about not receiving a “fair chance”. Total BS. Every “conservative” business person I have ever worked with or for has been the ones providing the source of employment and income for the general public. For the most part, they are good, honest, honorable people who take the chance when others won’t. I get totally pissed when people like you attack them.
When we did work for any governmental entity, the constant paperwork, requirements to document every time we wiped our butt, and make sure we met the smallest regulation ended up costing us most of what we had.
Then, to make matters worse, in order to placate a Democrat controlled congress, Bush,Sr. signed a tax law that drove thousands of us out of business and into bankruptcy or forced us to close our doors. We are in that same damn situation again and this time, it will get worse with your messiah, Obama. Except that now, he is going to force unions down our throat if he can and at the same time, ask a Democrat controlled congress to pass legislation that will guarantee unions will become the norm.
I get downright nauseated when I read your freaking drivel because you are perhaps the most extreme example of true socialism, bordering on communism I have ever read. If the government you are so damn in love with could produce on single dimes worth of goods and service, then you may have a case. Otherwise you are nothing but a damn drain on every person holding a private sector job, paying taxes that pays your salary. And when I think you are actually in charge of teaching young minds, it frightens the hell out of me.
Hell yes, it I could have paid myself millions each year, you bet I would have. When the bill came due, my partner and I stepped up to the plate and paid up. Out of our pockets and we walked away with nothing but the knowledge that we didn’t cheat, lie, or steal from anyone. We didn’t declare bankruptcy because we both firmly believed it was not right. After selling my home and everything of value I had, the slate was clean. So, don’t get on your damn high horse and go after those who pay the taxes that support the school system you work for and draw a salary from. And it would not surprise me that you support the lottery which is another form of taxing those who cannot afford it.
I won’t ask for forgiveness for this rant because I think it is well deserved and on target especially when it comes to parasites. The parasites who will benefit from this so called stimulus package that you and bud are so convinced is the best thing in the world. It is nothing but another drain on those who work in the private sector because government employees DO NOT PRODUCE GOODS AND SERVICES for sale to consumers.
I sincerely hope your toes are sore as hell because I tried to step all over them.
Lee,
Can you provide a link to where the 9/11 hijackers had ties to Saddam? Also, can you provide a link showing where Saddam killed 2 million people?
Thanks.
They have no problem with gigantic deficit spending just so long as it goes toward the maintenance of an aggressive American war machine.
I agree with this statement. In fact, I would argue that the Republican Party in general ignores the growing deficit. As long as they cut taxes, they can pretend to be conservative.
But, guess who else ignores the deficit. Democrats! The President and congress especially, have had no problem piling on the deficit when it comes to bailouts and the stimulus, which may or may not do anything.
Your condemnation should fall on both parties. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are rightfully upset at both Republicans and Democrats for blowing up the deficit.
Saddam Hussein kill tally
Up to 450,000 Iraqi and 730,000 Iranian combatants died during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals were killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. As many as 200,000 Iraqis died in the ensuing Gulf War. Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children died because of international trade sanctions introduced after the war.
Between 60,000 and 150,000 Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims are estimated to have been killed during Hussein’s reign. Over 100,000 Kurds were killed or “disappeared”. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Amnesty International estimates that at the time of Hussein’s downfall in April 2003 there were about 300,000 Iraqi refugees around the world, with over 200,000 residing in Iran. Other sources claim between three and four million Iraqis, or about 15% of the population, fled the country seeking refuge.
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
—– Oil-For-Food Starvation —————-
Denis Halliday, former director of oil-for-food program, [after his resignation as UN Assistant Secretary General to protest sanctions] October 18, 1998, NY Times, p 4.
“Sanctions are starving to death 6,000 Iraqi infants every month, ignoring the human rights of ordinary Iraqis, and turning a whole generation against the West. … I no longer want to be part of that.”
“We are in the process of destroying an entire society… It is as simple and terrifying as that.”
6,000 x 12 x 10 = 500,000 between 1996 and 2001.
The Red Cross estimated the death toll at 2,000,000 from 1991 through 2002.
Since the program began operating, in December 1996, the U.N. has shepherded about $64 billion in Iraqi oil sales, and more than $39 billion in relief purchases, plus billions more for projects such as compensation to foreign victims of the first Gulf War. To cover its dministrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers. – Red Cross, 2001
It will prove to be a worthless endeavor once we leave Iraq (if ever) when the various sects driven by their interpretation of religion start killing each other again.
-Doug
They never completely stopped killing each other. Although sharply down from the carnage there in 2006-2007 there are still about 200 Iraq civilians killed every month by car bombs, suicide bombers and all the other horrors. Otherwise you are on the money. This occupation has proven to be a catastrophe for both the U.S. and the Iraq people. And nothing of consequence has been attained.
Bill Clinton’s war in Kosovo is still continuing. Unfortunately, Clinton armed the Muslims, who have not burned out 250,000 Jews and Christians.
Bill Clinton’s war in Kosovo is still continuing. Unfortunately, Clinton armed the Muslims, who have SINCE THEN burned out 250,000 Jews and Christians.
Clinton armed Albanian Muslims who were trained by Al Qaeda. That ties him with Jimmy Carter for Most Stupid President.