Comments for Obama calls meeting with top Democrats on stimulus »
Posted By STONERS 10 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsFacing opposition from Republican lawmakers to parts of his economic recovery plan, President Barack Obama called Democratic Congressional leaders to a meeting on Monday to drive home his message of urgency.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 220
-
100%
STONERS10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"With hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their jobs, many their homes, and a rapidly shrinking economy, Obama is under pressure to move swiftly to get his nearly $900 billion plan through Congress by mid-February."
Reply
"Senior Republican senators warned on Sunday their party was unlikely to back the stimulus bill without changes to cut waste and to ensure the package provides an immediate boost to the deteriorating economy."
"The thing I want all of them (lawmakers) to remember, and the thing I am thinking of every single day, is the thousands of people being laid off from their jobs right now," Obama said in an interview with the NBC television network."-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user28 Replies
-
-
-
100%
jordan1110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't give a fig if republicans back it or not. They've already shown me they are incapable of handling money. IMO, Obama needs to put democrats on notice that he won't allow them to repeat the disasters of the republicans. Get that junk out of that bill!
Reply-
88%
bruhaha10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans won't back anything Obama proposes unless it is exactly what they want....so why bother. Compromise only works if both sides agree to compromise. The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they will not compromise.
Reply-
60%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The House version lacks focus and has not set priorities
Reply
As more and more info comes out critics from the right and left are hammering the House version
Boston Globe: Only 5 percent of $819b plan would go toward infrastructure
Critics say transportation is shortchanged
WSJ:
Congressional office admits:
Obama stimulus plan won’t meet job-creation target
On several of the business shows yesterday the estimate was creation of 1 - 1 1/2 million jobs with the House version
We can only hope that the Senate has more sense that the Pelosi House-
50%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That was 6 years then Congress was turned over to the Democrats for the last 2 years
Reply
Frankly, I didn't see much difference
I didn't like the first 6 years so I certainly didn't like the last 2 years of Bush either
But that is what happens when there are very few fiscal conservatives left on the Republican side of the aisle to team up with the Blue Dog Democrats and return the country to fiscal responsibility
"More pork under bush than ever before"
I think the Pelosi House just managed to surpass pork barrel spending for a number of years in one giant pork barrel spending bill -
-
63%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's why I have to hope the Senate version is much better than the fiasco created by Pelosi and her cronies
Reply
As I posted on another thread:
After reading story after story on how the House version of the bill was crafted this is not the bill Obama had in mind. This massive boondoggle was created by Pelosi and her cronies behind closed doors - no Republicans allowed. The portions of the bill went to the 3 House committees after it was already drafted
I guess Pelosi didn't get the memo on bipartisanship
Pelosi stuck it to Obama with this bill. Now it is his and what is he supposed to do? Have a showdown with Pelosi? Do you think he has the backbone to do that with his own Speaker?
That's the test isn't it?
I suspect the Obama team will work with the Senate and you are going to see a very different version of the bill. Although heaven only knows what will happen once this goes to a conference committee and they have to reconcile 2 radically different versions of this bill-
100%
ybdogsct10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOSTALGIA:
Reply
"I suspect the Obama team will work with the Senate and you are going to see a very different version of the bill. Although heaven only knows what will happen once this goes to a conference committee and they have to reconcile 2 radically different versions of this bill"
As I understand it, that has been precisely Obama's strategy since Day 1. The goal is to get the stimulus package signed by President's Day, but Congress would not have reached that deadline if the stimulus were stuck in the House in debate.
So he allowed the House to pass the bill as is in order to get the legislative process moving along, but is now pressuring Senate Democrats to make compromises with Republicans. Once the Senate passes its version, Obama will throw the White House's support behind the more bipartisan Senate version and may encourage even more compromises to be made as the two versions are reconciled.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1818337~Obama_open_to_co...
"Democratic leaders in both houses have promised to have legislation ready for Obama's signature by mid-February [with] national economy seemingly growing weaker by the day.
One Republican later quoted the president as saying any changes would have to come after the House gives what is expected to be largely party-line approval Wednesday to the Democratic-backed bill.
The Senate shows signs of greater bipartisanship, including a decision in the Finance Committee on Tuesday to add a new tax break for upper middle-income taxpayers. It was advanced by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican. Several hours after Mr. Obama’s visit to the Capitol, the Senate Finance Committee approved Mr. Grassley’s proposal as an amendment to the emerging Senate economic recovery plan."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28ob...
-
-
-
73%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Someone needs to obstruct Pelosi and her cronies before they destroy the country
Reply
The House wants to panic everyone so their boondoggle will be passed quickly before the general public becomes aware of what is really in the bill - all of the payoffs to their interest groups which will have zero impact on a recovery
Looks like the Senate isn't buying into that nonsense-
40%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Someone needs to obstruct Pelosi and her cronies before they destroy the country"
Reply
--I wasn't aware something that was already lying in ruin could be "destroyed". But I think that level of cluelessness pretty well sums up why the GOP is in flames and out of power.
-
-
58%
amazed10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..but we need to do something and do something fast!
Reply
Here's an alternative idea. How 'bout we take a little bit of time -- a couple of weeks maybe -- and get a bill that might actually address some of the problems?
...oh no, I'm so sorry to be obstructionist!-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
88%
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Im curious where was the outrage when Bush and his rubber stamp Congress were busy creating this mess?? It is interesting to not ethat the REPUBLICANS were busy spending anad borrowing like crazy to create this mess and not a single peep form the right wing wacks on here about the massive debt and un sound econimic policies that are leading to the next Depression. BUT when a Democratic President initiates legislation to help the common man then they riasie in an uproar., It might have more meaning IF you had done the same when this disaster was being created.
Reply -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
amazed, you realize that taking "a little bit of time" to "get a bill that might actually address some of theproblems" isn't what House Republicans had in mind, right? Even after Obama met with them to attempt to compromise on the bill, they all voted against it because it didn't include enough tax cuts--which is a strategy that hasn't worked for years.
Reply-
75%
amazed10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fine, then let the DEMOCRATS come up with something that actually has a chance of working instead of a huge, deferred spending bill that is a thinly veiled attempt at social realignment.
Reply
The stimulus should be one bill, the social engineering should be another.
I dont' really care WHO comes up with something realistic, but some one needs to rather than just continuing on the same old way...and that's what this is.-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is this the same old way? It's not what we've been trying for the past several years.
Reply
It is something closer to the New Deal, in that it involves massive government spending on programs that create jobs. (Regardless of what many think, spending for new programs in various sectors in this country that aren't run by stockholders will create jobs, even though many disagree about whether those sectors perform worthwhile functions. For instance--not that this is even in the stimulus bill--giving lots of money to Planned Parenthood will allow it to hire more people.) Perhaps any similarity to the New Deal is what you mean by the same old way. Some say the New Deal didn't work, but I'd disagree with that assessment--the facts simply don't bear that out.
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/17/layoff-tracker-un...
Reply
Number of layoffs since Nov. 1, 2008, at America's 500 largest public companies*:
total........ 362,335
November......91,250.......25%
December....108,123.......30%
January.........162,962.......45%-
100%
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Reply
workforce....unemployed.....percent
Oct...154,878,000..10,221,000...6.60%
Nov...154,620,000..10,476,000..6.78%
Dec ..154,447,000...11,108,00....7.19%
change. -431,000...-887,000
-
-
-
-
-
80%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why should that concern them since the party in control of the White House usually gets blamed no matter what?"
Reply
From the comments on here it seems that only liberals believe that
I totally blame Congress for all spending - the House is the only part of govt which can appropriate money
-
-
-
39%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dont see why they cant get it passed.
Reply
That's because you don't understand liberal ideology. Liberals are not leaders. They rule based on polls, soundbytes, class warefare, and opposition.
Well, now that they can't oppose themselves, they need to create a scapegoat. If they can get Republicans to join them, any failure (and it will fail) will be explained as "bipartisanship".
Look at Blagojevich and Illinois. The state could have held a special election to circumvent the whole problem, but that would have meant the chance for a Republican to step into office. So, they didn't. And then, Blagojevich got caught in a scandel. What did the liberals do? They gave him a mock trial, restricting him from the ability to even call witnesses, and got rid of him before he was even charged with a crime.
It's the liberal way of justice.-
44%
BBcamaro10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean the bail out that our Democrat president just did the same thing with the other half of that bail out? Yes it will do the same as the first half did and that's to absorbed all these bad loans morons in this country created by buying houses they knew they could not afford. I did not agree with the bail out from the very beginning!
Reply
As for the economy stimulus package from the house, please tell me how the 300 million dollars the house planned for contraceptives was going to help this country and all the other junk in there! I hope you can do a better job than Pelosi did. Do you really want you kids paying for all that garbage in the package? -
80%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The so called bailouts for the banks by the Republicans"
Reply
You missed what happened with that entirely
That entire bailout was planned by King Henry and Prince Timothy in Prince Timothy's NY office no less
That "bailouts for the banks by the Republicans" was actually bipartisan!
No Child left behind - bipartisan
Repeal Glass Steagall act bipartisan
Campaign Finance Reform - bipartisan
Ain't bipartisanship grand? -
40%
BB6410 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would we? The GOP has been under attack since we won the majority in the 90's. I find it funny that when you guys toss road block on top of road block, you feel that's a compromise. When the GOP clearly states they won't back a huge pork bill like this, we're evil. Have you read the budget the House supported? In the end less than 12cents of every dollar actually is stimulus. I support anyone including Dems that didn't support this.
Reply -
60%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That's because you don't understand liberal ideology. Liberals are not leaders. They rule based on polls, soundbytes, class warefare, and opposition."
Reply
--Republicans are amazing leaders, Hhussk. That's why Obama and a Democratically controlled House and Senate are now sorting out how to clean up after Bush and the GOP's 8 year-long clusterf*ck. Oh well...Keep blathering about socialism. That was a REAL winner of a campaign strategy for McCain, wasn't it? ;-P-
-
67%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks, Endo but I think I'll adopt the con approach to judging a President's performance. Remember the one you're using for Bush? Yessiree--I've decided that cons won't know how Obama is doing until 50 years (maybe longer...why not?) after he leaves office. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;-P
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk, you really need to look back past the Bush administration at the history of Republican Congressional opposition before making ridiculous pronouncements about sound bytes, class warfare and opposition.
Reply
And try not to bring up Blagojevich and Illinois until you do a little homework on the subject. It only serves to highlight your ignorance of the subject. (As just one example, Blagojevich refused to submit a list of witnesses he intended to call before the deadline expired--he had two weeks to do so.)
-
-
-
-
92%
fsev4110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There you go again Hhussk, spreading lies about the Blagojevich situation. He has been charged with a crime in federal court by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (a decent Republican). After his arrest there was talk of a special election but two issues arose, one was the cost of 50mil and the second was the fact that Illinois would only have one senator during the crucial economic decisions being made in Washington. It was widely hoped, and expected that he would resign or at least temporarily step down until the charges were resolved. He did not. Talk of impeachment had been circulating well before the new charges as there was widespread concern in Springfield about how he was running his office and the state. These charges were the final straw. All representatives, Democrat and Republican,save one (his sister-in-law) voted the articles of impeachment. The "sale" of OBama's senate seat was far from the only accusation leveled, in fact other transgressions made up the bulk of the articles. The restriction on witnesses dealt only with those involved directly in the US Attorney's criminal case. There were many other witnesses he could have called if he chose to do so. He chose to not even answer guilty or not. ALL Senators in the Illinois Senate voted to convict him after the trial in which he refused to participate until the last minute. He was an embarrassment to the State of Illinois and an impediment to the everyday functioning of the government. The Senate had little choice but to impeach. Mr Blagojevich made his own bed.
Reply
Quit spreading lies.-
40%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bruhaha
Reply
What you and other libs are ignoring is that the Democrats locked the Republicans out of having any input. This bill from the house is a massive pork spending bill that only 15% will be spent in this year. It is the wish list that Democrats have wanted since Bush was elected. They could not pass it under him so they are creating a real boondoggle of a bill that does not stimulate anything. -
71%
GLee10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I don't give a fig if republicans back it or not.............Obama needs to put democrats on notice that he won't allow them to repeat the disasters of the republicans. Get that junk out of that bill!"
Reply
Jordan, this post of yours really makes alot of sense. We better be very happy that someone (Repubs) are NOT backing this bill. Does Obama have any 'pull' up there in DC. ? This bill needs to be 'killed' and replaced with something to boost the economy. Obama did say "don't send a bill to my desk full of pork", didn't he? Then he should be the 'shooter' for this bill.
-
-
86%
orndorffter10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
42%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Incorrect. He has not been charged with a crime. His house was raided from a warrant. As a matter of fact Fitzgerald asked for an 60 day extension on January 25 so that he could gather more evidience to charge Blagojevich.
Reply
The lies are coming from people like you who don't understand that they could have held a special election to avoid this whole mess, but didn't because there was the possibility of a Republican winning the seat. You may quote a 50 million dollar cost, but it is clear that what has transpired now is costing liberals more dearly.
The Senate had many choices. They could have let Blagojevich face his accuser, call witnesses, and substantially provide his defense. But, of course, they didn't because that would have opened up even more scandal.-
71%
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe you can expand on how a special election would have avoided this mess?? It assumes Blago was removed from office, you do understand that right? You cant have a special election to replace an elected official if that elected officail hasnt already been removed from office. The REPUBLICANS didnt want to follow the laws of Illinois as defined in the Illinois COnstitution which is hte Lt Gov replaces the Gov. Seems that is something Republicans liuke yourself seem to love to do, place party over country.
Reply -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk:
Reply
1) Blagojevich was arrested. You cannot arrest someone without charging him with a crime.
2) Special elections cost more money than the Democrats are losing. I don't know where you're getting your idea that not holding one costs them. And you can't hold a special election for governor until you oust the current governor from office.
3) Pat Quinn, the new governor, is wildly unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans. He will make the hard choices--he will raise taxes because Illinois is $3 billion in the hole, and Quinn understands how to spend responsibly. (And of course, much of that hole--like that of many other states--was created by the Bush administration's unfunded mandates and the Republican Congress's withholding of funds from blue states.
4) Again, PLEASE do some research on the situation in Illinois.
If you'd like to know the truth about Blagojevich's absurd claims that he was not allowed to defend himself, please check your facts here.
-
-
75%
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems as usual, your off and running in fantasy land again. Illlinois has a rule of succession.Calling a special election is NOT an option. Impeachment of the Gov was quite quick and as defined in the Illinois COnstitution the Lt Gov succeeds him. Seems all you are showing is the true REPUBLICAN disdain for Constituion as was eveidenced by your hero the Dumya,
Reply -
-
50%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I actually think this is a very smart, common sense-based idea and it's too bad the GOP will look for any little thing to seize upon and criticize. I think Democrats realize we're going to be digging out of this mess for at least another decade, they know that so many people out of work we're guaranteed to have a baby boom (which may not be the best thing for us right now while we're trying to get back on our feet) and many people will want to delay starting or enlarging their families.
Reply -
75%
jordan1110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dont see why they cant get it passed.>>>>
Reply
The Senate needs to FIX it first. There is too much nonsense in the House version. Passing it like it is would be irresponsible. They can start with throwing out the millions to pass out condoms!.-
83%
jordan1110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is passing out condoms a good idea? In what way will it stimulate the economy? Will it give business loans they need to stay in business? How many jobs will it create? What do condoms have to do with what the stimulus package is supposed to be about? What am I missing?
Reply-
100%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is passing out condoms a good idea?"
Reply
--jordan, it's a bit more complicated than that. Check out the article linked below. Yes, the stimulus is largely helping some people keep their jobs while helping others find job but it's about pumping up the economy in a variety of ways. This was meant to help states that are struggling to pay for healthcare costs for low income women. It's stimulus in the sense that it's taking some of the burden off of states that are struggling to support their constituents. At the same time, money that these women don't have to spend on contraceptives can be spent in other ways.
"As usual, in addition to throwing out insults, conservatives are distorting and simplifying the facts. Here is the actual text from the stimulus package’s summary:
State Option to Cover Family Planning Services. Under current law, the Secretary has the authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred."
Pelosi Says Birth Control Will Help Economy
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/26/contraceptives...-
Neutral
jordan1110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hundreds of millions of dollars for birth control? Tell you what. Let's get creative here and ask everyone to tighten their belts, starting with the drug companies who enjoy billions in profits while WE give them money for research! How about them dropping the price of birth control, asking for volunteers to man clinics & educate low income women, & as most condoms are imported, start manufacturing our own and creating jobs? THEN I might believe that Pelosi 'gets it' that this country is in very serious financial trouble.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
75%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kudos to you Jordan!
Reply
At least you understand and aren't afraid to speak out on the boondoggle the House bill is
Can you explain to me why so many of the other liberals here on Propeller don't understand what needs to be done to stimulate the economy?-
-
100%
jordan1110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can you explain to me why so many of the other liberals here on Propeller don't understand what needs to be done to stimulate the economy?>>>>>
Reply
No more than I could explain to my conservative friends that voting for george bush would be a disaster. No, I'm serious. Now I'm going to go take an aspirin. I have a headache. -
100%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Can you explain to me why so many of the other liberals here on Propeller don't understand what needs to be done to stimulate the economy?"
Reply
--nostalgia, just because you and your poorly educated brethren here greedily suck down the right wing's version of everything (without question and without even trying to use your brain to consider that there might be more thought behind this aspect of the stimulus bill than simply handing out condoms) doesn't mean you actually understand the scope of the bill. It also doesn't mean you're qualified to judge whether or not it'll be a success. Please TRY to be more thoughtful in the future. Don't you ever feel embarrassed by your lack of critical thinking skills? Wow...
-
-
-
-
100%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Complaining? No way! I'm elated that liberals are actually coming out of the woodwork and proving that they are mentally devoid of good ideas. This is like mana from heaven to me."
Reply
--All I hear are bitter cons bleating about "socialism" and trying to scare Americans into thinking that anyone could possibly do worse than their god Bush. Your party is in flames and this is the best you can do. Admit it. ;-P
-
-
-
39%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder how many of the "good" folks who so roundly condemn the "waste" in THIS "stimulus" package REACTED WITH ANYTHING LIKE PROPORTIONATE OUTRAGE at the waste that is implicit in the "TARP" boondoggle to "bail out" "our" FINANCIAL institutions --- which was, after all, undertaken on a DIFFERENT, supposedly more "conservative" "political watch".
Reply
Did you say "more conservatives poltical watch"?
Perhaps you didn't know that liberals have been in charge of our federal spending and appropriations for the last two years.
By the way, in the last 6 months, Democrats have been trying to campaign for Iraq to pay us in oil. They justify it as compensation for the war. Don't pay any attention to the fact that they tried to run away in the middle of it. -
83%
birdsabound10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder how many of the "good" folks who so roundly condemn the "waste" in THIS "stimulus" package REACTED WITH ANYTHING LIKE PROPORTIONATE OUTRAGE at the waste that is implicit in the "TARP" boondoggle to "bail out" "our" FINANCIAL institutions --- which was, after all, undertaken on a DIFFERENT, supposedly more "conservative" "political watch".
Reply
And I wonder too how many of them argued against the MASSIVE boondoggle undertaken over the past eight years to SUBSIDIZE THE OIL COMPANIES by means of THE HUGE CAMPAIGN TO IN EFFECT TRY TO TAKE OVER THE FOURTH-LARGEST REMAINING OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD IN IRAQ! People who would even still surreptitiously continue to shell out $10 Billion of “our” tax dollars a month to "buy off" all those Sunnni militias in order to "keep the lid on and the oil flowing", but somehow do NOT explicitly recognize that as a part of its REAL COST --- misrepresenting (to others, and perhaps even to themselves) what is in reality a HUGE SUBSIDIZATION OF “BIG” OIL --- as being, instead, some sort of "noble" exercise in promoting "democracy in the MIddle East" --- are HARDLY in a position to be able to condemn OTHER practitioners of "porky politics" on a much SMALLER scale!
For a great many ideological idiots, the REALITY is that THEIR HYPOCRISY IS NOW SHOWING!-
80%
wtagg10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Perhaps you didn't know that liberals have been in charge of our federal spending and appropriations for the last two years. "
Reply
Absolutely rubber stamping everything the president wanted. So, was congress conservative or Bush liberal? Pick one.
Payment for effort. What a concept. Not that the effort was managed properly or in an efficient way.-
25%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, was congress conservative or Bush liberal? Pick one.
Reply
Congress was liberal, and so was Bush. Especially in spending. Every now and then, they acted liked Conservatives.
Payment for effort. What a concept. Not that the effort was managed properly or in an efficient way.
That's why liberals screw things up. They don't understand that government is inefficient and must be kept small.-
71%
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's why liberals screw things up. They don't understand that government is inefficient and must be kept small.
Reply
ROFLMAO, yeah that why the government doubled in size and grows whenever REPUBLICANS are in charge. Seems they like to generate the waste they love to whine about.-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
30%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, yeah that why the government doubled in size and grows whenever REPUBLICANS are in charge.
Reply
Maybe people would believe you if you were also angry about the quadrupling size of the government that will be coming out of this festering pork stimulus bill. -
-
-
-
20%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I bet not
Reply
Well, you also "bet" on Ron Paul. How did that go? What you don't understand is he is virtually "the conservative Obama". He has great ideas, but really has no clue how things interact with markets and the global economy.
Eventually you'll understand.-
100%
wtagg10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He has great ideas"
Reply
That has to be heads and shoulders above the candidates you have supported in the past. Yours had bad ideas that were poorly implemented.
The only thing you have said is that Ron Paul is as bad as what we have or had in the past 8 years.
I voted for someone that best represented what I wanted. Did you? Or did you vote the lesser of two evils?
-
-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
17%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Payment for effort. What a concept. Not that the effort was managed properly or in an efficient way.
Reply
It's never really ironic to here a liberal who bashes Bush on his "War for Oil" justify Democrats and their plan to take "Oil from War".
Hypocrisy, and the victims of Iraq scream your name.-
100%
wtagg10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would think the victims would scream the names of those that sent them to such a futile and useless effort that returned nothing to this country than the names of those that did not want to send them.
Reply
Who are the innocent victims screaming for or don't they count?
-
-
-
-
-
80%
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why don't you teach us something about veto-proof legislation, Hhussk?
Reply
Veto-proof legislation requires a majority of two-thirds of both houses to override a presidential veto.
Are you really trying to tell us that Democrats had that kind of majority over the past two years?
Or are you not an American, or simply an uneducated one?
Really, MP, I thought you took pride in your intelligence.
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, many Americans advised us against going in the first place, from what I recall. Bush ran away from Afghanistan "in the middle of it" to do a half @ssed job planning the operation in Iraq. Technically he ran away in the beginning of the Iraq disaster. There likely wouldn't have been a need for a "middle" to run out of had the moron simply sent in more troops as he was advised to do early on.
Reply -
-
38%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Correct. Republicans were very skeptical about the last bailout bill. President Bush, in a very non-conservative manner, signed a very liberal bill.
Reply
I did not support Bush signing that bill, and I will certainly not support this one.-
100%
wtagg10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, why are you up in arms about a continuing of the previous admin 's policies that championed it?
Reply
How would things have been different with the candidate that you voted for? Didn't he stop his campaign to rush to Washington to sign the highly effective TARP bill?
Considering the 8 years in office, why do you consider Bush's signing of the bill as a surprise? Everything about his tenure was non-conservative.
-
-
31%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Equally as funny is how this Bill quadruples the size of government and you compare it to the spending of the last eight years.
Reply
The Democrats have been in charge of federal spending and appropriations for over two years since they've controlled Congress. Take a look at the economy.
If you were interested in what's good for the nation, you would be voting in conservatives and not liberals.-
14%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, why are you up in arms about a continuing of the previous admin 's policies that championed it?
Reply
Because I'm a conservative and continue to adhere to conservative values.
How would things have been different with the candidate that you voted for?
Not much difference with McCain. He's barely a conservative and I was never greatly impressed by him as a candidate.
Considering the 8 years in office, why do you consider Bush's signing of the bill as a surprise? Everything about his tenure was non-conservative.
Not true. When President Bush nominated Roberts and Alito, I was extremely please. -
-
100%
mesodude10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So Obama's bill just goes beyond your threshold for debt, huh? Bush's multi-trillion dollar war was bad (even though cons were cheerleading every time Bush begged for another 70 billion here or there) but surprise--a Democrat is in the White House and now cons are suddenly outraged and springing into action. ROTLMAO
Reply
-
-
-
-
33%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Psssssst the last President to produce a budget surplus was CLINTON. One of those liberals u talk about. ROFLMAO.
Reply
You mean the last Congress to send a budget package to the President which was signed by President Clinton was the "Republican Congress of 1996". HAHAHA.
Keep trying. -
88%
tchef10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's funny how during the Bush years the Republicans had no problem spending money like it was water. Now I agree that this bill is far from perfect. But they could be making more of an effort on both sides to come up with a compromise.
Reply
We need to stop thinking about what's good for the party and start thinking about what's good for the nation.-
-
20%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can't spend more than you collect.
Reply
Oh really? Because the amount of money being spent in this over-bloated, non-stimulus package is 4X our current spending.
The massive deficits are exactly what is NOT conservative. When Bush passed the last spending bill, that was not conservative.
And this spending bill...it's worse than the last one by far. -
22%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's worse is that Obama's taking your money right in front of your face and you're calling him your "savior". Typical liberal strategy. Screw up the country, leave it for the next guy.
Reply
But, of course, you forgot that Democrats have been controlling our Federal spending and appropriations for the last two years. They control Congress. -
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
obama-watchComment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan1110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The liberals who stuffed that stimulus package with their nonsense ARE "morons." So are the GD republicans who demand more tax cuts! So are the republicans who spent all those years squandering more than a trillion dollars! So knock off the BS that "liberals" are alone in this.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
rimbaud10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans love to spend other peoples' money (that's what Wall Steet is all about): so what if the war in Iraq costs a billion a day, as long as they don't have to pay for it with increased taxes. They hate it when tax revenues are spent on such wasteful things as welfare: give them the money and they will hire those welfare recipients and put them to work ...but only if they are willing to compete, in the open labor market, with the wages illegals are willing to accept. Decrease taxes on only the wealthy and remove mimumum wage laws and you'll get full employment!
Reply
-
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
-
100%
Poulenc10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of the objected-to "pork": funding for arts groups, global- climate change studies, and for family planning programs....
Reply
Ah, a Repub day-mare! Especially that artsy stuff. I mean, who works in the arts? Better yet: who needs 'em!
Real-world solution: get rid of the wish-listier pork.-
13%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah, a Repub day-mare! Especially that artsy stuff. I mean, who works in the arts? Better yet: who needs 'em!
Reply
Obviously someone doesn't understand the difference between a stimulus bill, designed to grow our economy, and a pork bill, designed to give money to interest groups. This is why our country is in trouble...-
-
14%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It doesn't matter of Republicans understand it or not. They aren't in charge. You'll have to learn to accept the facts. Liberals and socialists are in charge now. You're about to be poorer and unemployed. All that whining about Bush really paid off for you.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It doesn't matter of Republicans understand it or not. They aren't in charge"
Reply
And the reson for that is they never DID understand it and people have had enough. Unfortunately you exhibit one of the common tendencies of the right to totally disregard cause and effect. To understand why the economy is reaching the lows of the Depression its important to understand what caused it so we dont repeat it. Unfortunately the right seems to believe if we do the exact same thing every time we're going to get different results,. . If we look at the bail out passed under the Dumya (YOUR guy) the Republicans fought tooth and nail to remove any kind of oversight from what was done with the money, the end result being their stillis a credit crunch but a lot of execs got huge bonuses, removing oversight from the same group that was complicit in causing the mess. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
43%
BB6410 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gee he's calling for all key dems to support his pork bill, I wonder why? Could it be he failed at pulling enough of his own people to support this scam? Could it be people are asking how we're going to put everyone back to work when more than 80% is actually special interest money? Take Milwaukee Schools as an example. We would see around $90,000,000 for new buildings. For what? We have 24 empty schools now, why would we want to build more? Most people are leaving the city and sight the schools as one of the major reasons. The other is the very high school taxes. This is little more than payback for the teacher's unions here and I'm sure every other major city. I hope no one on the GOP crosses. If they do, I'm all for voting to remove them from the party. It's time to do a little Rino hunting.
Reply -
-
0%
brucehopkins10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well the last one the Republicans submitted did not help any of the hard working people and this one will do even less. Everyone just needs to say no stimulus. We need something but this is not it. I posted about this same item earlier http://www.mytowntalks.com/featured/no-stimulus-am...
Reply
If we are going to mortgage our children's future then we should get something out of it. This bill does very little to help the economy and is just a stuffed pork sandwich by the authors. -
100%
deathray10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Before anyone makes a definitive assessment, I think it's appropriate to read this paper describing the scope and effects of a stimulus package emphasizing job creation and the various means to achieve this by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. Many of the statistics bandied about in the MSM come from this paper.
Reply
The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1t...
Get your information straight from the people being quoted, not from the various spin machines with varying agendas....-
100%
truthiness10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
excellent link deathray
Reply
from that link
Aggregate Effect of the Recovery Package on GDP and Jobs in 2010Q4
Real GDP (billions
of chained 2000 $)
Payroll Employment
Without Stimulus $11,770 133,876,000
With Stimulus $12,203 137,550,000
Effect of Package
Increase GDP by 3.7%
Increase jobs by 3,675,000
Source: Authors’ calculations based on methodology described above and multipliers
described in Appendix 1.
The table shows that we expect the plan to more than meet the goal of creating or saving 3 million jobs by 2010Q4.
-
-
100%
truthiness10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the thing the spinmeisters don't seem to be accepting is that people work in all sectors of the economy
Reply
people work for amtrak.. which also provides transportation that is green.
people work in the arts.. which also has cultural significance and affects quality of life
people work in pollution control...which improves quality of life
people work in poverty assistance ... the benefits of which should be obvious in this day
part of the keynesian philosophy is that during a recession, if the govt needs to pay people to dig holes and then fill them back up in order to keep the economy moving, then that is what we should do.
many classical laissez faire economists argue that if FDR had done nothing the economy would have turned around faster, which may very well be true from a Machiavellian view of economics as a numerical game. However there are real humans involved here, and the New Deal lessened suffering by keeping people fed and housed. where do you put that on a pie chart? -
100%
truthiness10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
let us also be clear the entire reason we are in this deep of a mess is the Reagan-Bush(s) endorsement of supply-side economics (mercantilism)
Reply
by cutting taxes and tariffs and removing oversight to the wealthiest while lowering interest rates they encouraged unrestrained investment that created the S and L, dot com, and Housing bubbles. at the same time they engendered massive debts that far outpaced the GDP growth with no plan for paying it off. And they set tax plans to encourage moving factories overseas where labor was cheaper (colonialism).
I can't stand it
I know you planned it
I'm going to set it straight
This watergate
I'm telling all y'all
It's sabotage
-the Beastie Boys -
Neutral
gabby31810 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When cotton was king, I picked! Now, nearly 60 years have passed, and I give you advice on the Stimulus. First of all,(1) TAXCUTS (proposed by the GOP) will not help the 600,000 unemployed because they will not have any income to tax;(2) TAXCUTS will not stimulate the economy because the unemployed will have no money to spend, and (3) TAXCUTS will not fund Social Security without deductions from Earned Income.
Reply -
Neutral
gabby31810 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The bottom line is, President Obama's Stimulus Plan will put Americans back to work, so that they can spend, eat, and get Medical benefits.Anything that looks workable goes against the grain of the GOP-John McClain Clan. They simply want another Depression.
Reply -
Neutral
onegawad8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, many Americans advised us against going in the first place, from what I recall. Bush ran away from Afghanistan "in the middle of it" to do a half @ssed job planning the operation in Iraq. Technically he ran away in the beginning of the Iraq disaster. There likely wouldn't have been a need for a "middle" to run out of had the moron simply sent in more troops as he was advised to do early on. air mattress
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.