Although the latest reports indicate that a compromise on a roughly $800 billion stimulus package is likely to pass the Senate this weekend, the debate has not been without consequence to Barack Obama's approval ratings. Whereas Obama had been averaging approval ratings of about 70 percent in the immediate aftermath of his inauguration, his approval ratings have since declined by approximately 6 points, with his disapproval scores increasing by about the same margin:
Post-Inauguration Day Approval Ratings
Pollster Approve Disapprove
Gallup 68 12
Research 2000 77 20
Rasmussen 65 30
==============================
AVERAGE 70.0 20.7
Current Approval RatingsNow, it could be that this decline is a result of something other than the stimulus debate: the Daschle debacle, for instance. But my impression is that those stories have had little resonance outside of the Beltway, whereas the public has been following the stimulus debate rather closely.
Pollster Approve Disapprove
Gallup 63 21
Research 2000 69 26
Rasmussen 61 36
==============================
AVERAGE 64.3 27.7
So what has Obama learned here? There have been three lessons, I think:
1. Republicans have nothing to lose. Public perceptions of Congressional Republicans are also significantly down from their already-low levels since the stimulus debate began. But, the Republicans will gladly torpedo their own brand if it means taking Obama down with them. They are dangerous to him, in the way that a gang of rabid velociraptors is dangerous to a T-Rex.
2. Obama has to do the heavy lifting himself. Support for the stimulus dwindled when the Congressional Demorcats, who are not much more popular than their Republican colleagues, were charged with the job of selling it. The more Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the faces of the Democratic Party, the more Barack Obama's approval ratings will come to resemble those of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
3. The benefits of "bipartisanship" are dubious. The public says they want bipartisanship, and a large majority of the public believes that Obama acted in a bipartisan fashion during the stimulus debate. And yet, his approval ratings fell significantly during this period.
There are, obviously, a lot of factors to keep in balance here, but more than anything else the public seems to be seeking strong leadership from Obama; they don't want him to be deferential to either Congressional Democrats or Congressional Republicans.
208 comments
I suspect the revelations about Geithner, Daschle, and Killefer wore him down somewhat as well. (Hilds Solis' tax problems weren't reported until after these polls were taken, I believe.) If Obama doesn't actually believe in his endlessly preached moral standards, he becomes less believable in everything else he does.
As for the GOP, this stimulus fight is going to help them. The measure isn't popular, the GOP pointed out major problems and got major changes against a President who was supposed to be nigh-invincible. And if it fails, as is likely, they are not likely to be blamed.
Zero's problem with this Bill as in life is that he is essentailly a passive man, weak and somewhat womanish. He allowed Pelosi to write the Bill because it suited his submissive nature and afforded him cover.
Mark my words Obama will use Congress like this as a place to float his trial balloons.
He won't be so much Commander in Chief as Orchestator in Chief.
Jenkins has it about right.
Right wing, too?
drop the repubs and drop all those idiotic tax cuts that were supposed to get the repubs to sign off.
and while im talking of dropping something PeteKent needs to drop off the planet-as usual. guess the oncoming depression hasnt scared you huh Pete?
Please change the font on the polling data. 6's look like 5's right now.
Does Obama need to learn anything from this. I highly doubt he cares about his upper 60s approvalr rating right now. He is essentially getting the bill he wants, with some Republican support. What else gives? Nothing.
MN Senate Litigation: The Universe of Reconsiderable Absentee Ballots
It's unfortunate that President Obama's first legislative battle already was of such tremendous importance. And the tax problems of his nominations didn't help either. Obama's administration still wasn't in full swing and the Democratic response in general has been slow and uncoordinated.
But Democrats can be happy that it's over now and Obama's approval rating is still way above his November election vote share. The stimulus bill was probably the wrong beginning to end partisanship and all this, but it had to be done. The Democrats also need to sell their policies on the road and in the media, even though Republican arguments deliver more one-liners.
P.S.: Now that Specter and Collins turned out to be the important senators, should I assume that Sen. Snowe is now officially left of the center?
There goes Pete again, he can't win an argument based on logic so he has to attack the President's character.
What you see in those polls is merely the expenditure of political capital. The numbers in the account go down a little once the bet is placed. The winnings are produced after the bet is won.
In time, you will see Obama's numbers spike as a result of the public's approval of the effects of the stimulus. Like any other investment, the profits don't come immediately.
Let's look at the stimulus package itself. If you find specific faults with it, speak up. If your problem is that you don't liek Obama personally, well, that doesn't have alot to do with the stimulus, does it? That's just another obfuscation-hey, don't look at the bill-pay attention tot he shocking things I'm saying about Obama!
Look, over there! as Pete Kent makes another grab for your wallet and then runs like hell.
These are the lies one expects from a con, neo or otherwise.
Obama had a spike of approval around the inauguaration party itself and has now returned to the numbers he enjoyed in the post election/pre-inauguaration period.
Nate, nothing Obama is doing policy wise is causing this drop. His approval experienced an 'inauguaration bounce' that was similar to the 'convention bounce' theory that was bourne out in the election.
wow. so this is the new hangout for sore loser Republicans? Impressive!
My biggest worry is the stimulus package is too small to be effective and will be seen as a failure of Keynesian economics. As Paul Krugman says, in these circumstance, half measures are inadequate.
by the way, Sen. Collins, in her speech after the agreement had been reached, mentioned that many of the cuts agreed to in the compromise bill, actually related to useful items, but those should be brought up in the appropriations bill. So, I think that Sen. Collins just wanted to keep THIS bill relatively small - maybe she wanted to support the bill from the beginning, but in a way that was in line with her fiscally conservative image. Maybe this year's appropriations bill will be bigger than usual...
"a gang of rabid velociraptors" -- ROFL
breaking out the dinosaur analogies are we?
@ Missy:
Let me guess, you voted for that "leader" John McCain, right? The same person who told us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The same leader who suspended his campaign to deal with the economic crisis and then had absolutely NOTHING to contribute in a meeting about the crisis. He even had nothing to say when directly asked what he thought should be done about it.
Or maybe you think of Lindsay Graham as a leader. The same person who kept quiet all 8 years of the Bush admin while billion after billion was spent on an unnecessary war; money that was ALL provided by use of a credit card, NONE of which was part of any of Bush's annual budgets. This guy is all of a sudden shocked and angry about a bill that calls for more spending for the purpose of helping the millions of Americans who have lost their job and have NO prospects for finding new ones.
But let's look at the end result. Obama got a bill that he liked, with the approval of well-respected moderate Repubs. Hmmm, how is that a poor showing on his part? Just because the bill isn't every Liberal's wet dream doesn't mean its a failure either.
While Obama's tactics may need to be adjusted and fine tuned (I guess he just couldn't bring himself to believe that the majority of Repubs would be so pig-headed as to continue this fight), his overall strategy remains solid. So stop hating already and get over yourself.
Missy- Everyone went down this week. Sausage making eats up good will on all sides. Congressional Republicans lost points from their anemic 20% approval rating. The only Democrat whose approval rating is even near any Republicans is Harry Reid- and thats because Democrats think he's a spineless corporate whore who will bend over backwards for Republicans. Republican light. And he still has 10 points on McConnell.
I gather you are new here (haven't seen your tag before). Look at the side, read the posts under the tag labeled 'convention bounce' and realize that this was a real analytical theory presented by Nate that was backed up by past trends and bore out in the 2008 trends as well. It is not an absurd proposition that an inauguaration produces a similar effect, especailly an inauguaration that was this heavily watched/attended/covered.
The third lesson is the key. Screw the Rethuglicans. They still believe that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. They are listening to Sean Inanity and Russ Slackjaw. Economists? Fake science, clearly, to these idjits.
At this point the Denocrats should do what's necessary to save the country and let the Rethuglicans vote aganist every measure, try to filibuster every measure, whine they aren't being consulted, etc., etc.
Under the law of unintended consequences what will happen is this: the hardliners, who aren't up for re-election in 2010, don't have to worry about their seats, but the "moderate" right wing nuts who are voting with their hardliner cohorts, will get smashed and the Democrats will pick up another 7-10 seats.
Let the Rethuglicans self-destruct. Let Inanity and Slackjaw become the voices of the party. Let Sarah Palin be their cover girl. They will become irrelevant and a joke.
Missy,
Did you miss your naptime?
Why don't you go take it now, and stay in 'naptime' for about four years?
I think this vote will show Obama (and the rest of us) just which Repubs are actually willing to compromise, and which are just blowing hot air when they talk about bipartisanship. The American public will see that all but 3 Repubs are completely disinterested in "working together" and would rather whine about how they can't get their way.
Sorry, I keep thinking of things to add...
We all now know that going forward, attempts to bring in more than 3 or 4 Repubs is an exercise in futility. It will save us a lot of time going forward.
Well, the stimulus bill is completely unlike the first stimulus. If it was $800 billion going out to people, I think it'd be fine. But since it's going here and there and has had "pork" tacked onto it, it's sunk to the bottom of the political sea.
I'm sorry, but exactly what pork was "tacked on" for this compromise?
Yes, the Repubs "put up" for the last 14 years and look where it got us.
But since your posts are completely lacking in hard data, facts, or specifics, and instead rely on attacks, I guess its time to ignore yet another troll.
Nate: the image of McCain, Kyl, Cantor, and Graham et. al. as velociraptors made my sides hurt from laughing (especially picturing them as the lousy, glassy-eyed, plastic puppets from the first Jurassic Park--hey not a bad analogy).
Juvanya; you might want to actually *read* the bill (go to congress' website and download the pdf), before saying anything about pork.
School lunch programs?
A new fleet of fuel/energy efficient vehicles from American auto makers?
Jobs in pretty much every sector?
This is what you call pork?
I've read the whole bill and have been writing about it all week; you do the same and then you can talk about pork (if you can find any that's there).
The beginning #'s were all hope and no action. Now that he has had a couple of weeks to have the press declare his presidency in trouble and the Republicans make every attempt to savage at every opportunity it is surprising that his ratings are as good as they are. He hasn't been perfect either but I don't know of any politicians that would turn down his current ratings.
His team is just learning the fine art of governing. They are a bright group and will be fine.
I voted for McCain. I handed out flyers and canvassed door to door for him. I even double checked the law, saw that if you turned 18 by election day you could vote in the primaries and made sure I was registered just so I could vote for McCain. Man was I pissed when Virginia went for Shrub and the GOP was confirmed as a good old boy network completely unconcerned with any actual issues of governance. My McCain 2000 T-shirt sits pathetically in the back drawer of my dresser. He has since completely sold his soul- or maybe just shown me his true self. I have voted for Democrats ever since.
I think of myself as moderate and independent, but I've voted for Dems in every election from 2004 on (I voted Nader in the 2000 general as a hissy fit, I was 18).
Obama has been president for 2 weeks, and already you are so down on the possibility that he can lead us successfully through the right adjustments with our democracy intact and a functional sustainable economy that you are predicting that the US will do what is is structurally built not to do - a third party revolution.
As long as our political parties consist of the Democrats with half a clue and the Republicans in their alternative Christian Taliban/Milton Friedman/Laffer Curve universe with none I will vote for Democrats warts and all. And I refuse to believe we can't get through this and that Obama can't lead us. Sorry,
Missy?
Nappy time??????
Hop to it, little girl.
Brian, does Hilda Solis actually have her own tax problems? Last I checked, the tax problems were her husband's, relating to liens on a car dealership that Hilda reportedly had no exposure on. Unless I see something different, I will believe that the Republican opposition to her is because they can't stand the idea of a Labor Secretary who's actually pro-labor, and has nothing to do with taxes.
As for Geithner, he shouldn't have been nominated nor should he have been confirmed, and I'm livid that President Obama didn't ask Daschle to step aside once his tax cheating and sleazy connections with the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries were revealed. I'm forced into cynicism, once again, toward any presidential candidate who campaigns on ethics reforms in Washington. But this president is already a damn sight better than Bush, and will continue to be, no matter how much he screws up.
Meanwhile, it's important for Al Franken to be seated soon.
Mike, please quit it with the "nappy time" stuff. I'm approximately as far left as Bernie Sanders, but I think it's stupid to use juvenile insults against all McCain supporters.
Bob, President Obama has already done plenty. Ledbetter, SCHIP, nullified oil leases in Utah wilderness, cancelled all GW-era executive orders for review, executive order to close Guantanamo and secret CIA prisons within a year, etc.
Folks:
I think we're all too consumed with what the Senate bill is going to look like.
The real action is going to be in the House-Senate conference, and what comes out of that conference.
That conference is Obama's chance to put his stamp on the final measure.
It is true that he was not much involved in what the House Democrats wrote up; I seem to recall he was busy picking the members of his administration at the time (and perhaps he needed to be busier, judging by the tax follies of some of his nominees).
The real deal is going to be in what comes out of the conference. You can count on some of the Senate cuts being restored, with not much change on the tax side. The bill will wind up north of $800 million again, probably close to $850 million. The Republicans will then have to decide if they're going to try to block the final bill, although 58 Democrats and 3 Republicans should be enough to close off debate.
Missy, if you have to resort to personal attacks rather than logic, your logic is poor and your obfuscation blatant.
Obvious troll is obvious.
I honestly doubt that, polls; I doubt the House and Senate Blue Dogs, who've really driven the results thus far, will put up with that kind of nonsense. They're not going to let Obama play them for fools- especially not the Senators who worked so hard on the compromise now approaching a vote.
I think the bill will be no bigger than the Senate bill, and perhaps a little smaller. Especially in the wake of whatever 'bad bank' announcement is coming on Monday.
There is an alternative interpretation of "bipartisan" and that is to tell the Republicans to sit down and shut the fuck up, NOW!
But that is just my interpretation.
Brian,
According to Roll Call, The Senate has reached a deal that will pass
Brian:
In the House, the "Blue Dogs" amounted to 11 votes against the original $819 billion bill. If I'm right, the Senate bill has increased the tax cuts in the House bill by about $50 billion. ($280 billion -> $330 billion). Spending in the original House bill has been cut by about $90 billion. I'm estimating that about $60-70 billion of that will be restored. I don't see any Blue Dog problems with this bill in the House (due to the increase in tax cuts), and I think that Democrats in the Senate will vote for cloture even if a handful desert on the final vote. The presence of an ailing Ted Kennedy will do wonders for Democratic unanimity on cloture; it might even bring along another Republican or two.
Missy,
You haven't actually produced an argument yet. You just keep attacking people.. why don't you come up with some kind of argument against the stimulus itself which we can discuss, and then maybe I'll let you troll me.
But as it is, you keep trying to make this personal. You attack me or cajole me or damn me with faint praise, but you haven't stated a single logical or valid argument.
So there's not much to discuss.
Really, back int eh day trolling meant something. You're a disgrace to the art.
Michael said...
. . . but I think it's stupid to use juvenile insults against all McCain supporters.
Michael,
He/she/it has already admitted that she "begrudgingly with teeth bitterly clenched" because he/she/it "made the careful inner-calculation that McCain would be a horrible POTUS and that Obama would be catastrophic."
Thus this 'Missy' who missed his/her/its naptime isn't a McCain backer, but a right-wing troll who has the same political leanings as the wackiest of the wacko Neo-Cons.
Missy,
here, you,re obviously new at this. Let me help.
Start with at least two premises and a structure of some kind.
Like this:
A
If A, then B
therefore, B
or something like that. So long as you just do this,
"oh, Statler, Statler, Statler..." I'm not going to fall for it.
the bait is just too obvious.
Jeezus christ you're green.
No, Missy, try again. You have to make the argument yourself, not rely on other people to think for you.
You can think, can't you?
Missy is SuperGreen
Anyway, back to discussing things of substance with people who actually have some substance to contribute....
It will be interesting to see how the House Dems will react in conference. There are already reports that they are hardening their stance on their original bill. Does anyone know how the members of the conference committee are selected?
PG,
I dunno, but I hope Kucinich is on it.
Lessons? Regression to the mean?
No one liked my online porn industry tax idea?
I tell you, overnight debt relief!
But seriously folks, back to work now...
Seems like we're at a crossroads in the American experiment. All this reminiscing over FDR and Reagan, all this attention to history is tittilating. Obama is playing this as cool as can be and like clockwork the RW noise machine is trying to make him blink and inane comments from the disciples of Palin are kind of... cathartic.
This is chess. Early in the game. The GOP doesn't like chess because they see it as effete and counter to their "pound the square in the circle" approach to almost everything because they can't stop thinking about how much money they might lose. Poverty thinking, really, which is ironic since they supposedly represent "business" and that "self-reliant individual". Dems believe in fair play and bringing up the other while Republicans go "waaa, I don't want any taxes" like the shit-diapered crybabies they are. Thank god there are still some good ol' Rockefellerites that want a functioning society and government. This GOP makes me teary eyed for Nixon and Ford.
"Waaaah! We don't want to fund schools. We want more war toys. "
Fucking incompetent babies.
I am getting a bit tired of hearing/reading people spout off about how everyone should cut back on spending now that we are in a severe recession.
Individuals should cut back on spending (so they say). Companies should cut back on spending. States should cut back on spending. And the federal government should cut back on spending. . . . Then what?
Will these cuts in spending help a single business big or small? Will they create or save any jobs? Will they help increase tax revenues so as to balance the various deficits? Of course not!
Of course to add insult to injury, most of the morons that claim we have to worry about deficit spending during a severe recession are the same people that were in favor of massive deficit spending during the Reagan/Bush years.
Morons and hypocrites.
Quick, someone send the White House solutions to Velociraptors Problem #2! THIS IS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.
The republicans of every stripe that have tried to kill the proposed stimulus are not obstructionists. They are traitors.
They place political points and a completely bankrupt ideology above the well being of the country. They would rather the country languish through a great depression than see a recovery under an Obama administration.
Hell many have openly followed in Rush crackhead's footsteps and have openly stated that they hope that Obama will fail. They hope that there will be a major terrorist strike that will claim the lives of thousands of Americans, so that they can rant about the draconian measures enacted by their previous standard bearer were essential to keeping us safe. They hope that the economy tanks, there are more massive layoffs, and people go without food or healthcare so that they can argue about the sanctity of tax cuts.
They are insane. And they are traitors to this country.
Perhaps Gitmo is being closed a bit prematurely.
I feel the need to weigh in regarding all of the "bipartisanship" threads.
The reason this process has been so partisan is because of the House Dems. The bill was drafted with no Republican input and House Republican amendments were in most cases dismissed out of hand. Many of these amendments were not partisan or ideological, nor were they designed to scuttle the legislation.
I'm not saying the House bill wasn't good or that there's something wrong with it.
I have no problem with Democrats railroading a bill through Congress. Like Obama said, they won. If they have the votes to do it, they have every right to.
But, they don't have much ground to stand on to claim bipartisanship. You can't deny the minority party any substantive input to the bill and cry partisanship when none of them vote for it.
PeixeGato said...
. . . Does anyone know how the members of the conference committee are selected?
Wikipedia has an article that seems to be fairly correct and objective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Conference_committee
After observing Sweden's strategy during the Great Depression, It seems our stimulus has many of the same aspects.
smk22 said...
The reason this process has been so partisan is because of the House Dems. The bill was drafted with no Republican input and House Republican amendments were in most cases dismissed out of hand.
Which GOOPer amendments, besides 'tax cut for this, tax cut for that' were rejected?
When one side amends to be obstructionist, and obstructionist only, in my book, that side does not then have the right to say "The bill is partisan because we didn't have any say in it!"
Remember the old saying - 'It takes two to tango'? In this case, if you're not there to tango when the tango is called, then you can't say "The other side didn't do the waltz with me."
The economy stinks. People are losing their jobs. Their assets are worthless. Their retirement accounts are evicerated.
I think the approval ratings have little to do with bipartisanship or any specifics of the bill. The problem is that it's taking so long. People are panicking and they wanted a solution yesterday.
The question for Obama is, you won the election, you have majorities in the House and Senate, why haven't you managed to get something done?
The Democrats can cry about the obstructionist Republicans all they want, but the public isn't buying it. They were given the power to push these things through and haven't done it yet.
Here is how the Swedes stimulated.
"A reduction in taxes for the average wage earner gave him more money to spend. A raised minimum wage increased the ability of low-income people to spend money. The government increased investments in public works. Federal money was pumped into unemployment insurance, medical care and old age pensions."
It seems where Japan failed was they put too much emphasis into new roads and bridges. They got the best results from schools.
Unfortunately, the Senate ripped the spending on schools out because they decided the govn't shouldn't get involved in state issues?!?
I can't find any evidence Sweden spent on schools so I'm not sure what that means exactly if the loss of funds for school will hurt us now or what.
@ defender
Public school funding is a major issue for the Christian Right. They want to cripple public schools and would rejoice if they were completely unfunded.
Children should be in private schools subsidized by organized religion.
Well, I've written both my Senators, Webb and Warner, who I believe were part of the bi-partisan group that ripped the school funding out.
I don't believe the people in that group are religious right ideologues though so I'm not so sure that is the reason why it was removed.
Lets see if the House puts some of it back in. There is no doubt schools across the U.S. are deficient and one would only think investing in schools would be a great long term investment no?
Public schools are only a good long term investment if you are actually interested in supporting the middle and low income segment of the population, who either can't afford a decent private school or does not want their children to be indoctrinated by a church.
On the other hand. If your children, and all of your friends children go to private school, who really cares about public school funding, or the welfare or the working class? Why should my tax dollars put some factory worker's kid through school?
Nate sorta has it backwards. It's the details of the ill-fated that were late entering the public consciousness as the grotesque, non-stimulative details emerged.
In contrast, the trevails of the tax-cheat nominees more quickly contributed to loss of credibility because of the ridiculousness of the excuses made by the tax cheats. It's quickly become a national joke.
Now, both debacles are having effect, and the stimulus bill is the main unresolved focal point. Most people have very little understanding of economics (a national tragedy), so rudimentary education is in order by the media, and there's a lot of crap to sort through. That's all for the good. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
This will continue to be an ideological battle as long as Obama and congress try to make the patently wrong case that any government spending is stimulative and that government is a better allocator of resources than is the free market.
Any dollar that the government spends is necessarily taken from somebody else either through taxes or by borrowing. If the government wasn't taking that dollar, it also would be put to stimulative use elsewhere. If those government dollars aren't spent as productively as in the private sector, then that spending is a net-negative stimulus, not a positive.
It is this Econ 101 material that is being given more air play as media people try to understand and rationalize this debate surrounding the disasterous overreach by Dem leadership with Obama's acquiescence.
There is no way to patch over the errors in economic strategy and still follow a bulldozer path to passing severely-flawed legislation.
Even what will eventually passes will hang around the Dems' collective necks unless the bill becomes truly bi-partisan, which would necessarily include more real stimulus that creates more dollars and jobs rather than redistributing.
Looking at this series of events solely through the political prism of nosecounting tells only a piece of the fuller story. The evolving mosaic of the Obama administration is at odds with expectations and promises.
Strange how Missy suddenly disappeared...
Rudy, please, elaborate how, (moodys.com) if $1 spent on infrastructure puts $1.53 back into the economy and if $1 spent on food stamps puts $1.73 back into the economy, while the GOP mantra of non-refundable tax cuts only gives a $.02 gain in economic activity, how are these supposedly bipartisan Republicans are trying to help the economy?
RL, that analysis, which I've read, is a non-sequiter. It reeks of tortured logic to reach a predetermined conclusion. It is mumbo-jumbo and makes no sense whatsoever.
Explain, then, your reasoning, in detail, why it reeks of tortured logic, why it makes no sense, why these conclusions are predetermined, why it is a non-sequiter.
Please.
Explain also, just how tax cuts for the wealthy will stimulate the economy. That is the big question that everyone is just dying to hear from the GOP and their 30 years of framing the debate and shaping policy toward that end and why we are in this mess. I'm all ready to learn from you.
RL, it might be easier if you went through that analysis yourself and explain to me why the logic you suggest is valid. I view it a mumbo-jumbo because it's nonsensical to say that allowing people to keep more of their income doesn't both benefit people and stimulate more consumer spending everytime those dollars get passed on.
I didn't say anything about tax cuts for the wealthy. What stimulates economic activity is tax cuts for working people so that they have more left to spend, which then creates economic growth and jobs. That includes those who earn high wages as well as low wages. We want to incentivize our most productive people to be more productive, not punish them disproportionately for being productive.
I don't think you're ready to learn at all. You seem to want to find scapegoats.
The GOP is not interested in tax cuts for lower to middle income people, that much is true. You view it as mumbo jumbo because it doesn't jive with your politics, that much is plain to see.
Is the CBO full of shit?
In a February 1 article, The Associated Press reported an assertion by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that the recovery bill will not stimulate the economy without noting that the CBO disagrees. ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson echoed this assertion during his February 3 interview with President Obama, stating: "And as you know, there's a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn't stimulate." Additionally, on the January 28 edition of his show, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh allowed Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) to falsely claim of the bill: "Even the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by the Democrats now, says it is not a stimulative bill." Fox News host Sean Hannity repeated this claim on the February 2 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity, asserting that the CBO "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill."
In fact, in analyzing the House version of the bill, H.R. 1, and the proposed Senate version, the CBO stated that it expects both measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Additionally, in his January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that H.R. 1 would "provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions." Elmendorf further stated: "In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."
Several media figures, including CNN correspondent Carol Costello, CBS Evening News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, and ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson, have all uncritically reported or aired the Republican claim that, in Gibson's words, "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus," without noting that economists have said that government spending is stimulus. Indeed, in his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf explicitly refuted the suggestion that some of the spending provisions in the bill would not have a stimulative effect, stating: "[I]n our estimation -- and I think the estimation of most economists -- all of the increase in government spending and all of the reduction in tax revenue provides some stimulative effect. People are put to work, receive income, spend that on something else. That puts somebody else to work." Additionally, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said, "[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple."
In a January 28 Wall Street Journal article, reporter Naftali Bendavid uncritically reported congressional Republicans' criticism of the proposed economic stimulus bill on the grounds "that much of the money in the package wouldn't be spent until 2011 or later, when a recovery is likely to be already under way." CNBC anchor Melissa Francis and MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer repeated this criticism on the January 29 edition of MSNBC Live when Francis stated: "Only 64 percent of the money is going to be spent within the next 19 months," and Brewer replied, "And how do you justify that?" Francis responded: "How do you justify that is the real question." Limbaugh also suggested that stimulus would not be necessary after a turnaround begins in a January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he asserted that "[t]he average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention." None mentioned the position of many economists that a stimulus package will be necessary even if the economy begins to turn around.
In his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf said that fiscal stimulus in 2011 or later would be effective in the current economic situation, in which economic output is projected to remain below its potential even after the beginning of the recovery. Elmendorf stated that unlike in ordinary "periods of economic weakness" that "are fairly short-lived," "CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate." From Elmendorf's testimony:
Timing. The economic effects of fiscal stimulus should occur during the period of economic weakness, all else being equal. When, as now, a recession is clearly already under way and aggregate demand is declining, it is better if stimulus affects spending quickly in order to mitigate further deterioration in the economy. Different types of policies may differ greatly in how quickly they can be implemented.
Because most periods of economic weakness are fairly short-lived, it is generally preferable that stimulus policies be short-lived. Currently, however, CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate. Indeed, a fiscal stimulus that ends before the economy has started to regain its footing runs the risk of exacerbating economic weakness when the stimulus ends.
Likewise, in a January 27 blog post, New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote:
It's not a problem if some or even most of the stimulus arrives after the official recession, as determined by the NBER, is over. Why? Because in modern recessions, unemployment keeps rising long after the NBER has determined, based on things like industrial production, that the recession proper is over. [emphasis in original]
On the January 27 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown and CNN chief business correspondent Ali Velshi repeatedly claimed that provisions in the economic recovery bill that extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are, in Velshi's words, "not stimulus." But the same day, Elmendorf stated in congressional testimony: "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010." Additionally, in 2008 congressional testimony, Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- stated that "extending food stamps are [sic] the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump" and cited extending food stamps and unemployment insurance payments as having a greater "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck" than any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, including temporary and permanent tax cuts.
If there's one fact that should be made clear in every news report about the stimulus package working its way through Congress, it is this: Government spending is stimulative.
That's a basic principle of economics, and understanding it is essential to assessing any stimulus package. So it should be an underlying premise of the media's coverage of the stimulus debate. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case. Indeed, reporters routinely suggest that spending is not stimulative.
Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explains: "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy."
Unfortunately, many of the reporters who have shaped the stimulus debate don't seem to understand that.
ABC's Charles Gibson portrayed spending and stimulus as opposing concepts in a question to President Obama: "And as you know, there's a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn't stimulate. A lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus."
That formulation -- "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus" -- is complete nonsense; it's like saying, "This is a hot fudge sundae, not a dessert." But nonsensical as it is, it has also been quite common in recent news reports.
There's another problem with Gibson's formulation, though -- in describing the stimulus as a "spending bill," he ignores the fact that the bill contains tax cuts, too. Lots and lots of tax cuts. And those tax cuts, by the way, provide less stimulus than government spending on things like food stamps and extending unemployment benefits. It probably goes without saying that Gibson didn't ask if the bill would be more effective if the tax cuts were replaced by additional spending.
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, among others, has repeatedly suggested "welfare" provisions in the bill wouldn't stimulate the economy. This is the exact opposite of true; those provisions are among the most stimulative things the government can possibly do. There are some fairly obvious reasons why that is true, beginning with the fact that if you give a poor person $100 in food stamps, you can be pretty sure they're going to spend all $100 of it; but if you give a rich person $100 in tax cuts, they probably won't spend much of it at all.
But we needn't rely on logic and common sense to know that welfare spending is stimulative; economists study these things. One such economist is Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who served as an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. Zandi has produced a handy chart showing how much a variety of spending increases and tax cuts would stimulate the economy. According to Zandi, a dollar spent on increasing unemployment benefits yields $1.64 in increased gross domestic product, and a dollar spent on food stamps yields $1.73 in GDP.
As for tax cuts, Zandi says the most effective form is a payroll tax holiday. A one dollar reduction in federal revenues as a result of such a tax holiday would produce a $1.29 increase in GDP -- far less than the benefit realized from extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps, providing general aid to state governments, or spending on infrastructure.
Yet if you turn on MSNBC any given morning, you're likely to find Mika Brzezinski saying something like, "I want to look at the plan and how much of it is sort of welfare programs and how much are things that we know, either from history or because economic experts somehow know this, actually stimulates the economy." Or like this: "Does this plan add up to the definition of stimulus? I don't think it does. And I don't question the value of food stamps and helping low-income people pay for college. It just shouldn't be in this bill." Or this: "If you're gonna have welfare programs in this bill, call them welfare programs and pass them, but don't call them facets of the bill meant to stimulate the economy. I do feel like there's some old politics at play here."
There's old politics at play, all right -- the old politics of demonizing "welfare spending" without any regard for the simple truth that such spending not only helps those Americans who are struggling the most feed their families, it also does more to stimulate the economy than anything else you can think of.
What you probably won't see is Mika Brzezinski or Charles Gibson or any other TV reporter suggesting that the tax cuts in the bill are not stimulative and should be stripped -- even though they are less effective as stimulus than unemployment benefits and food stamps.
At this point, it becomes impossible to ignore the elephant in the room: Television anchors like Charles Gibson are not going to qualify for food stamps anytime soon. But they would certainly benefit greatly from some tax cut provisions that wouldn't do nearly as much to stimulate the economy.
(This is not the first time Gibson has shown himself to be badly out of touch on basic economic issues. During a Democratic presidential primary debate, Gibson challenged the candidates on their support for repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year by saying that a family in which both parents are schoolteachers would be hit by the repeal. Gibson's cluelessness was so apparent, the audience actually burst out laughing at him.)
So far, the news media's coverage of the stimulus debate has consisted largely of repeating false Republican spin and pontificating about which side has been making their arguments more successfully (all the while ignoring the media's own role in aiding the GOP.)
The bright side is that if reporters care about informing the public, it's pretty easy to do -- they just have to start basing their reports on the true premise that government spending is effective stimulus, rather than on the false premise that it isn't. Everything else flows easily from there; for example, asking Republicans why they want to lard up the bill with less-stimulative tax cuts rather than unemployment benefits.
Wow how confsed is Pete Kent's first comment on this thread! First of all he is being submissive, then he is using congress?
The only real problem with this bill is that a simple majority, or even just a party line vote isn't enough. However much of a fig leaf it might turn out to be, it needs some GOP support.
But I wonder if something smarter isn't going on as well. Perhaps Obama and the Democrats are drawing some smart battle lines, between the nay sayers, who are just GOP hacks, and the GOPers who will be able to be called upon for help and support from time to time. Obama is a far savier politiician I think than he is given credit for.
Maybe it's the late hour or the liquor but it seems to me that people elected Obama because they wanted a president that used all the executive power that Bush had to do the opposite of fucking things up.
That is, Obama may believe in constitutional checks and balances, but a chunk of the people who elected him or who supported him before don't want checks and balances. They want Obama to fix things and use the executive powers Bush had to do it, not give them back to Congress and they think it just means he's weak.
MN, it's the liquor, trust me. Only 12:30 out here in the islands!
Listen, the Democrats have majorities in both houses of congress. Just because they are of the same party does not mean that Checks and Balances are thrown out the window: it's called political capital. Dems respect that, almost too much, as the GOP still acts like they have the power (they don't). All this fear that is being projected is not surprising in light of how the GOP blatantly abused that and got us into Iraq and have perpetuated VooDoo economics to the extreme. This Tax Cuts mantra is almost embarrassing were it not believed by so many whose self interest it runs directly counter to. Reagan hypnotized the middle class that way and we are still coming out of that coma (in no small way thanks to a complicit media).
Any tax cuts are likely to go right into that giant money sink called consumer credit.
Totally off topic to this thread, but all those A$$HOLE$ who defended the criminal justice system in wrongful conviction cases when the Burris discussion was heated (especially those so-called attorneys who stated "it's not the prosecutor's job"), please look at this:
Texan who died in prison cleared of rape conviction
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/06/texas.exoneration/index.html
And some people wonder why there are many of us who want the death penalty discarded into the ash bin of history?
Brian Jenkins said...
I suspect the revelations about Geithner, Daschle, and Killefer wore him down somewhat as well. (Hilds Solis' tax problems weren't reported until after these polls were taken, I believe.) If Obama doesn't actually believe in his endlessly preached moral standards, he becomes less believable in everything else he does.
As for the GOP, this stimulus fight is going to help them. The measure isn't popular, the GOP pointed out major problems and got major changes against a President who was supposed to be nigh-invincible. And if it fails, as is likely, they are not likely to be blamed.
Wow, where did you pull those talking points from, FReeptard Central? Mark Halperin?
Hilda Solis' tax problem? Yeah right, only to wingnut fringe who want to delay a real progressive from being confirmed.
PeteKent in agreement 100%. Nuff said.
Given the piss-poor week President Obama has had, which will likely go down as one of the worst not just of his presidency but his 4 years as senator, those numbers are pretty reassuring. I fully expected Obama to be around 55% by the end of this week.
Obama took a hit with the liberal base, plain and simple. Anyone who doubts that haven't been paying attention. Over the weekend, speculation began to grow that Governor Lynch would appoint a wingnut placeholder to replace Judd Gregg, and by Monday, this appointment was being percieved as the worst decision Obama has made as president... and it just got worse from there. Liberals were extremely pissed. It also didn't help that Tom Daschle pussied out. Rather than take responsibility himself, Obama should have shit all over Daschle for lying to him. Daschle was a liability in the senate, and was proven to be an even bigger liability as an appointee.
The fact that that a weasel like Judd Gregg will sail through confirmation basically debunks the Geithner/Daschle tax problems. Any Democratic senator could torpedo this appointment if they wanted to.
Question 1: "Why did you want to abolish the Commerce Department, Senator Gregg? And like John Bolten and the UN, don't you think it would be foolish to give the job to someone who doesn't believe in the department?"
On bipartisanship, I cannot believe Obama and his advisors were this unprepared for how prickishly partisan the opposition would be. The time Obama spent wooing them could have been better spent with his wife and kids. That's the first thing I thought when news broke he'd be dining with conservative columnits and pundits and hosting cocktail parties for the likes of Boehner and Cantor. A complete waste of time and energy.
As ever, the liberal blogosphere, including Paul Krugman, were on top of this from the beginning. They've been telling Obama for weeks that bipartisanship doesn't work. He only has 3-5 Repub senators to work with. The rest are committed to prolonging the recession, destroying the country and his presidency. Hopefully lesson learned. I'm just glad it happened in the first two weeks.
BTW, the whole "Team of Rivals" delusion needs to be put to rest. President Obama should be studying the presidency of FDR (Economy), JFK (Foreign Policy) and Clinton (Republicans). Obama would also be well advised in looking to Tony Blair's time as Prime Minister as a cautionary tale, particularly his legacy.
The so-called moderates have pushed a stimulus bill where tax cuts are 42% of the legislation. A dubious way to encourage jobs. Hard to be bipartisan where there is nobody to deal with. For the Rebubs who have no alternatives–there is just ideology and destructive negation.
Re: Obama's approval ratings: isn't this more or less "regression to the mean"? His ratings can't stay sky-high forever.
Obama is fine, his mistake was not making this a small focused bill. The bill should have had only three things
tax cuts
mortgage relief
infrastructure - strictly defined
Nate said
"more than anything else the public seems to be seeking strong leadership from Obama"
Interesting,maybe BHO is trying to model rational discourse as America's New Leader? Unfortunately it takes at least two rational participants to engage in rational discourse. How much longer will BHO look for rational behavior in John McCain and Vitter? McCain's behavior is unconscionable.
I have hope, a small hope, that Olymipia Snowe's comments indicate that much of the spending that was cut from the stimulus will simply have to go through budget approval rather than being off the table permanently.
At Cugel- Maybe all they have done is put the discussions about NSF, k-12 education spending etc back into the budget discussions. Maybe that is what Snow suggested.
Snow form Maine- now that is funny- She has to be in weatherizing homes!
Weatherizing homes and federal buildings right now is a great idea. It is no coincidence that Obama gave his first, big, pro-stimulus, bully-pulpit sermon to the DOE . We have a president with the good sense and intelligence to recognize the relationship between the economic crisis, the energy crisis, and our environmental crisis. Now that is a man that can lead nation.
3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since the recession began. This is just the number whose jobs were eliminated permanently, due to work site closures, position elimination, etc.
national unemployment rate is at 7.6%.
In Louisiana, it is over 9.5% and climbing.
People are scared. Do something.
Can someone explain why it was OK to give billions to the auto industry while getting nothing in return was OK, but the "compromise" cut $300 million for hybrid cars for the federal fleet?
It seems to me that buying $300 million worth of cars is better than handing the them a check with no conditions.
Rabies is a mammalian disease. :) Just FYI.
Is there a quick way to search comments so that I know I'm not dredging up a long-ago-beaten-to-death horse?
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the hell the House or Senate Republicans have been able to do all of this on the mere "threat to filibuster"? It makes absolutely no political sense to cave to that and drop one cent from the proposed stimulus -- unless there is another game entirely, going on behind the scenes, here (granted, there always is, but usually somebody has enough savvy to report on it).
If the Democrats just said "F*** you" to the Republicans and passed everything, as proposed -- or even added some stuff, for good measure, where does that leave the Republicans? They CANNOT defeat the bill on a straight vote, so their only alternative is some sort of parliamentary procedural gamesmanship to block its coming to a vote, but then they are totally exposed, as the economic situation just becomes clearly worse with every passing day. Does anyone really think it's going to be a sustainable filibuster with Phil Graham reading Dr. Suess as more and more people are thrown out of work and local governments are unable to provide basic services? What the hell? Why should the party in majority give a freakin' inch here?
@Olathe- thousands of employed people able to support their families is not nothing. In fact it is quite positive for the country. With luck and informed public support these people will be building public transportation vehicles for the next few years.
Do the big three have any of those public transportation contracts that have been on hold?
@Olathe: you have to try to look at the whole deal, not so much at a particular item. What's essential at the moment is keeping the integrity of the package (mix of spending and tax relief programs), an acceptable overall total dollar amount, and a winning voting coalition together, The question is not whether each and every item is valuable in itself.
The Fed Govt can decide to purchase hybrid cars for its fleet without allocating billions in this bill to do so.
Also, it's important right now to get a supermajority of supporters for the overall bill in the Senate.
Then some of the items that have been dropped from the package in this bill may find their way back into it in the conference later on. As we know the House has a different bill with different priorities.
So nothing is totally gone from the package right now. It's a process with a lot of horse trading and compromises, not an outcome, that we're really witnessing now. The goal is to get a solid majority.
I have to say, I hope the main lesson Obama gets out of this is #2. Don't take your mandate and hand it off to individuals who instantly diminish the public support for your ideas. Part of the reason people like Obama and don't like Pelosi/Reid is that the former (and his team) is going to have better vision and ideas, and this effort has squandered that advantage.
Keep this in mind. In 1981 when Reagan's administration started to show some muscle, they got a lot more out of Tip O'Neill and the Democrats than Obama is getting out of the Republicans now.
The goal is to get America back to work. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives have cornered the market on good ideas. The Republicans should be looking for doable compromises and, when they get them, they ought to vote for the bill.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats are guilty of wanting to vanquish their opponents. That's not the way democracy works. We've been debating the relative merits of big government vs. small government since the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. As long as the debate is lively the prognosis for the USA is good.
As a conservative, I believe one thing needs to be clear. A conservative's opposition to this "stimulus" bill has absolutely nothing to do with obstructing the democrats, wanting to prolong a recession, or hoping to sabotage Obama's presidency. Believe it or not, people like me want the best for the country. And we're also concerned about the loss of jobs. The reason I'm opposed is simply because I believe it's the wrong approach. I'm not going to get into the whole tax cuts vs. spending debate, because I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Let's just say that I'd like the government to make it as easy as possible for business to succeed, so that people can get hired -- though at the same time enforcing anti-trust laws for the change. Look at California, the state has made it as difficult as possible for business, and it has crippled the state's economy.
And before you point out the Bush pushed his big bailout package, I'd like to note that the Republicans who voted for that are not really conservatives. Republicans v. conservatives, there IS a difference. I opposed the bailout in any way, I'm definitely in the "let them fail" camp. If you're dumb enough to give a $250K mortgage to an unemployed person, you deserve to be broke.
We gave the GOP a chance for 8 years. Where has it gotten us? Change. change. change...can it be worse? I doubt it.
@Matthew: You sound reasonable, and I probably fall on the conservative side, as well, if you contrast that with graft and/or hyper-partisanship. I also think that in a healthy economy, bad decisions ought to be allowed to lead to failure. Where we don't agree, I suspect, would be where you seem to propose that there are no circumstances in which the government -- as pretty much the only agency in a position to do so -- should step in and do it's damned-est to mitigate disasters; and that the current financial situation is more akin to a natural disaster than to a few isolated overly risky decisions. People who did all the right things are going to be wiped out, here. Children who didn't have any power to influence anybody's decisions are going to be in need of help. I think in this situation, it makes good sense for the government to step in. Yes, the free market normally self-regualtes, broadly speaking, but clearly it can swing hard and if the government can do anything to make sure we can all live to play another day, this is exactly when they should do it. You could say "Sure, feed people who are starving" - but doesn't it make more sense to do what you can in the short term to reduce the number of people who reach that point? Especially when, if left unchecked, the need threatens to exceed our combined ability to help?
Research 2000 does not have an approval rating. It has a "Favorability" rating. There's a difference. I can say that I view him favorably but theres no way in hell I approve of the job he is doing.
So you might want to exclude them as part of your "proof".
If there was ever proof needed that our political culture was totally bankrupt that proof was provided this week!
The Republican "moderates" cut $100 billion of the only stuff that will actually HELP anything: unemployment compensation, food stamps and aid to state government, in favor of tax cuts for business -- which is TOTALLY ineffective in creating jobs, and increased Pentagon spending!
So we get another HUGE bailout for the rich and a "stimulus bill" that WON'T do the job. Then Republicans will all scream "I told you so!"
First they sabotage it! Then then complain that it doesn't work!
"Saint Dude said...
I am getting a bit tired of hearing/reading people spout off about how everyone should cut back on spending now that we are in a severe recession.
Individuals should cut back on spending (so they say). Companies should cut back on spending. States should cut back on spending. And the federal government should cut back on spending. . . . Then what?
Will these cuts in spending help a single business big or small? Will they create or save any jobs? Will they help increase tax revenues so as to balance the various deficits? Of course not!
Of course to add insult to injury, most of the morons that claim we have to worry about deficit spending during a severe recession are the same people that were in favor of massive deficit spending during the Reagan/Bush years.
Morons and hypocrites."
That pretty much sums it up. NOBODY is hiring. NO BANKS are lending and the Obama administration just decided to hand out the 2nd half of the $700 Bad-Bank Bailout WITHOUT REQUIRING BANKS TO INCREASE LENDING!
So, of course, they won't. Aside from some toothless rhetoric about the billions in bonuses and corporate give-aways from Obama, they just continue with business-as-usual at taxpayers' expense! And the slide into the second Great Depression continues.
@Matthew
California is one of the most productive states in terms of per capita GDP. I don't really see how you can say that regulation is stifling business.
@mhz
It's not that I am opposed to the helping out the auto industry if it means factories stay open and people get to keep their jobs. It just seems to me that we would all be better served by getting something for the money that was put in.
What seems like a much better use of our resources is to spend "stimulus money" to place a large order of cars to replace the fleet. The fact that they would be hybrids and help make it profitable to pursue "greener" technology is a bonus.
The disappointing part of this is that the Repugnant Party has used the illusion of leverage to reduce what appears on the surface to be a win-win for the Democarats: 1) money spent on something we need (not pork), 2) auto workers get to keep their jobs, 3) companies are encouraged to pursue hybrid technology.
@olathe- Point taken- sorry I had not read your post carefully enough.
on a previous thread someone made a very similar and excellent point- in effect they said:
What is better for a small business:
1) free money in the form of a rebate
or
2)A federal contract?
As you point out a federal contract in the context of a larger federal "Green Initiative" is definitely the way to go.
thanks for such a considerate and respectful correction- I appreciate it.
@Juris
I understand what you are saying, although I don't buy it at this point. I chose the hybrid cars because it illustrates what is wrong with this compromise. Democrats had no problem handing out hundreds of billions to corporations in the form of corporate welfare, but when the obstructionists in the Repugnant Party beat them at the PR game, they fold like a cheap suit.
The country chose to put Democrats in charge of the White House, the House and the Senate for a reason. They recognized that the Repugnants had spent the last 28 years driving the economy towards this cliff. Now that the Democrats have a chance to grab hold of the steering wheel, they decide to use the Repugnants map?
Also, a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. With a bad deal, we spend close to a trillion dollars and do almost nothing to correct the problems that face the country. With no deal, we can keep working to get this right.
The Democrats supported a bad deal because the sky was falling and they handed a blank check to Secretary Paulson. How exactly did that work out? Great if you work on Wall Street and got a bonus, bad if you are anyone else.
I agree with the first lesson, Nate. It seems to me the Republicans are holding their ankles no matter what they do.
I'm not sure that Obama had a choice on the stimulus. I must say, congressional Democrats are pretty stupid not taking their cue from the president better. Obama can't afford to let an unpopular Congress dictate what he wants to do.
I agree with the last point is well. Bipartisanship is just a euphemism for mutual CYA. As with the bail out, you have to do something together, otherwise one side can blame the other.in general, this isn't what democracy is supposed to be about.the whole point of democracy is accountability. If this package ends up being a partisan package (which seems likely), Democrats will be on the on the hook for it, which is as it should be.
Mike,
You should watch more C-SPAN1. The House Republicans offered a lot more than tax cuts. There were many pragmatic, non-ideological amendments that, like I said, were dismissed out of hand. And there are, in fact, tax cuts that are stimulative if targeted toward lower income earners.
I have plenty of friends who staff on both sides of the aisle in the House and they all confirm that House Dems decided they were not going to let Republicans do anything to their bill.
Like I said before, there's nothing particularly wrong with that, but don't claim bipartisanship.
Olathe and MHZ,
The downside of the federal contract is that the industry becomes dependent on federal deficit spending, which is finite, for business, whereas a rebate (hopefully) gives them the cash to make payroll in the short term while the private sector economy recovers in the medium term.
Obama will learn his lesson I hope that republicans are worthless to our system of government. They are against government and will never seek government solutions even when they are required. Katrina, Bank failure, economic crisis are prime examples.
How many more bridges will crash into the Mississippi, how many more jobs will be shelled. Good grief.
Obama needs to lead and not try to change history and pal around with our beloved repubs, the terrorists of government.
I agree with Nate's analysis. Obama was elected to lead. While he may be working his magic behind the scenes, the public image is tainted by hints that he is passive, too accommodating of failed GOP policies, and more willing to compromise than to push for the policies that he believes in. This may be an unfair image but it is bolstered by the gap between how the public expected him to act and how he is performing. It also plays into the stereotype that the Democrats have been more willing to go along than to lead.
I believe that Obama has the potential to be a great president. However, past great presidents have taken bold initiatives and shown decisive leadership. This may be happening away from the glare of TV lights but seems to me to be missing from the public's view. He has the intellect and skills to do the job but I believe he needs to use his power to inspire and unite the public behind his causes.
Our current economic crisis will be remedied by a combination of good policies and public enthusiasm. I hope that Obama realizes the importance of both.
A rebate does nothing to increase their business. Yes, they can make payroll once or twice, but then what? A federal contract gives them work. It allows them to earn money, which is what most Americans want to do anyway. Furthermore, that business will place orders with their various vendors in order to complete the contract. In other words, by getting that contract, they are increasing business activity and providing other businesses with some much-needed activity. A rebate doesn't help them (or give them any need to) place orders with vendors, especially if they just use the rebate to make payroll.
The idea of the contract is to spur activity and to get people back to work. The idea that the business becomes "dependent" on the government to maintain its viability implies that the economy will not improve to the point where they are getting business from the private sector IN ADDITION to the government sector. If this were to pass, then even rebates would have absolutely no impact on growth in private sector business.
Rebates provide a temporary injection of operating cash. A contract/job provides a way to make a living. Its like the old proverb about teaching a man to fish (i.e. providing him with a job) vs. just giving him something to eat (the rebate check).
Ron,
You said, "...the public image is tainted by hints that he is passive, too accommodating of failed GOP policies..."
That may be the gripe on the left. Most of the mainstream criticism is that he is too accomodating of the House Dems, letting them write the bill without Republican input and starting a partisan firestorm.
Politically, the White House should have started with a bill with much fewer tax cuts, insisted House Republican be allowed to add some big tax cut pieces, and he would have had a bunch of Republican votes for essentially the same bill that passed without any.
He also should not have promised to change the bill in the Senate. With that guarantee, House Republicans had an incentive to vote against the bill to give Senate Republicans more leverage. They also knew they ultimately would have a chance to avoid being seen as standing in the way because there'll be a new bill out of the Senate to vote on.
Peixe,
There is a problem with the following:
The idea that the business becomes "dependent" on the government to maintain its viability implies that the economy will not improve to the point where they are getting business from the private sector IN ADDITION to the government sector.
The risk is that government demand will supplant private demand and stifle its recovery. These goods are all consumed in the same economy. I would argue that the government contract, which depends on deficit spending, is as much "giving a man a fish" as is a tax rebate.
Peixe,
There is a problem with the following:
The idea that the business becomes "dependent" on the government to maintain its viability implies that the economy will not improve to the point where they are getting business from the private sector IN ADDITION to the government sector.
The risk is that government demand will supplant private demand and stifle its recovery. These goods are all consumed in the same economy. I would argue that the government contract, which depends on deficit spending, is as much "giving a man a fish" as is a tax rebate.
Interesting observations, if you're only looking at it through a conventional democrat's perspective.
The real lesson here, is if The President wants a historic spending package passed, irrespective of what's in it, how well it will work, or closely it reflects his stated purpose for it, he ought to get organized with his own party so they can effectively steamroll it through the congress, like the GOP did with it's contentious legislation.
the veneer of bipartisanship and transformational politics to sell conventional, 'tired old' policies (the *neither* party has a monopoly on) is what's dubious.
I think for the last 8 yrs defense contractors like Halliburton received a lot of handouts from Bush. They were stimulated with no-bids contracts and other freebies from Bush and Cheney; and they are dependent on government. But in the end even Halliburton created jobs.
Do you deny that, smk22? Jesus spending creates jobs. Always did and always will. Econ 101.
Obama's job right now, which he is handling masterfully, is to ignore all the crap coming out about how he is "slipping in the polls".
He has been in office about twenty days. If he were to begin to agonize over his poll numbers (which, if you look carefully, are pretty much all over the map) then his would indeed be a "failed presidency", as the cover of Newsweek labelled Clinton's after he had been in office less than a month.
While it is part of this site's raison d'etre to publish and analyze such data, I would encourage people to read the data and the analysis with a grain of salt. It is ridiculously early in the game to come to any conclusions.
smk22 makes a very good point. The Republican Party exists now merely as a foot-dragging enterprise. Where were the GOP complaints when W was personally running the deficit through the roof? When he went to war and cut taxes at the same time? Where were their cries from the wilderness when Ronald Reagan began his term by a combination of tax cuts and increased military spending that boosted the deficit by $1 trillion in his first term?
Allow me to quote Dick Cheney from 2001, when questioned about the exploding deficit: "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
So the current McCain-led griping about the deficit is all bullshit. It's the only ploy the GOP has left to try and salvage some relevance. As smk22 said, the Democrats should start off asking for an outrageously partisan package on everything; then when they back off and season their demands with a little of what the GOP wants, the GOP will think it has scored a victory. It's like the little girl said who advised her friend, "If you want a puppy, start off by asking for a horse."
oct,
I never denied spending creates jobs. The problem is that stimulus spending like this is not sustainable. It's a one shot deal. When that spending runs out, if there isn't private sector demand to take its place, many of those jobs are lost.
So, the question becomes, How do you spend that stimulus money in such a way as to stimulate private sector demand and make for the easiest transition from jobs supported by the public dole to the private sector.
THAT is econ 101
Nate Silver said: "Public perceptions of Congressional Republicans are also significantly down from their already-low levels since the stimulus debate began."
Rather misleading to mention that result from the R2000 poll, without mentioning the poll has Dems down by the same amount.
And Rasmussen has the GOP narrowing the generic ballot gap (from 7 to 4 points).
I think that the really interesting bit of this would be to compare the size of the stimulus that Obama put on the table with the size of the stimulus when the voting on it was done. If roughly the same size, then maybe he did quite a lot right and got what he wanted?
The content may not be quite what those of us on the left want, but to be honest, things are bad enough that the tax cuts v spending argument has less resonance than if the size of the stimulus was much bigger. This is likely to be just the first step on a long road to get through the recession.
Obama has learned who will work with him and who won't and seems to have a strategy in mind for how to sell what he is doing.
He is smart enough to get this right. Not perfect, but just remember - it could have been McCain handling this. Compared to that, Obama is doing just fine.
Republicans do not respect life. They will, if given the chance, declare war on everyone and everything, bomb foreign countries, execute prisoners, deny children access to doctors or medical care, deny poor people access to food, shelter, and healthcare, refuse to improve the safety of roads and bridges, mass slaughter animals , poison the water and air, refuse civil rights protections to the minority, and romanticize the distant past when people still died of the Plague and smallpox on a massive scale. They claim their religions promote life-but why are these religions symbolized by a dead corpse hanging on a cross? They eat someone's body and blood-ritualized cannibalism- and dare to claim moral superiority in their religious doctrines?Then they claim this country was founded upon that religion's principles, and use that as an excuse to keep loving couples from marrying or orphans from being adopted by such households? This is their supposed God of Love-in whose name they relentlessly kill?
No, Republicans are not pro-life. They are pro-death. They even worship death.
A real culture of life would promote tolerance, be averse to war and state-sponsored murder (executions). You would prosecute a mother for aborting a fetus-but who will prosecute you for taking human life in an electric chair? Is it acceptable to kill so long as the state has planned it out, and the governor signs off on the plan? As long as it's in the plan it's okay-even when the plan is something horrible?
And they claim to be morally superior to gay people-because wanting to get married and adopt homeless children and give them a good home is somehow evil, but invading a third-world country that poses no threat to us is somehow holy?
Your God would be deeply ashamed of your behaviour. You ignore all the commandments to love one another, and focus only on the passages that could be twisted to endorse hate.
Republicans seem to believe Jesus was full of shit when he said you should love your neighbor as yourself, else they must hate themselves deeply. And the passages indicating the vengeance was God's alone and it is not for man to judge one another are similarly ignored. People are considered Biblical scholars and respected theologians if they can twist the God of Love into an endorsement to hate. yes, you are very skilled indeed at making clear commandments to show compassion on the poor and the sick seem like an endorsement to profit on human misery and environmental devastation. It must take alot of schooling to learn how to lie to yourself so convincingly.
@ Matthew
Look at California, the state has made it as difficult as possible for business,
How so? Specifics,please.
[Republicans] claim their religions promote life-but why are these religions symbolized by a dead corpse hanging on a cross? They eat someone's body and blood-ritualized cannibalism- and dare to claim moral superiority in their religious doctrines?
Statler,
Your post does nothing to advance the cause of understanding. What you've done is invented a cartoon character who subscribes to a number of spiritual, political and economic beliefs you find objectionable -- but you're not addressing a real person. If you went looking for someone who disagrees with you on EVERY issue you might discover that fewer people fit that bill than you think.
Better to address one issue at a time and stay on topic. You were leaping all over the place -- partisanship, Iraq, torture, medical insurance, infrastructure, the environment, gay rights, abortion, the death penalty -- then you claim that the imaginary person who disagrees with you on every topic is mistaken in his/her religious observances -- then you take on the role of a prophet and claim to know how God feels about your adversary's behavior.
Deal with one thing at a time and listen carefully to what is being said and why. You might discover a full spectrum of responses to a full spectrum of issues.
smk22 said...
The House Republicans offered a lot more than tax cuts.
OK, start giving examples of what the GOOPers proposed other than tax cuts.
Name them.
List them.
If you can't, you're blowing hot air, just like the GOOPers who say 'we were shut out, it was not bipartisan, because all of our proposals to cut taxes were swept off the table.'
Cugel said...
the Obama administration just decided to hand out the 2nd half of the $700 Bad-Bank Bailout WITHOUT REQUIRING BANKS TO INCREASE LENDING!
Cugel,
You might want to check your facts on that one. The administration now has the authorization from Congress to hand out the remainder of the TARP funds, but hasn't handed out any yet. Treasury will be making some announcements early this week on ground rules, AND the announcement last week about compensation not exceeding $500,000 was part of the TARP rules for the second half of those funds.
smk22 said...
The downside of the federal contract is that the industry becomes dependent on federal deficit spending, which is finite, for business, whereas a rebate (hopefully) gives them the cash to make payroll in the short term while the private sector economy recovers in the medium term.
Do you think that a federal contract is not paid until some time in the future, or is paid (ala California right now) by IOUs?
As one who worked in federal contracting, there are many different ways in which contract payments can be made, from advance payment for some money that will be eventually due; regularly scheduled payments (weekly, monthly, etc.); progress payments - you get paid when X amount of the work is done, again when Y amount of the work is done, etc.; and payment on delivery.
The federal government can also assist a company in getting finance if that is needed.
If a company needs orders for a year until the general economy might be able to pick up the placing of orders, and the company can get a federal contract for a year for the goods and/or services that it produces, it doesn't have to become dependent on government orders. In fact, about the ONLY corporations that have become totally dependent on government orders are those in the economic sector that Eisenhower warned us about: the military-industrial complex - Lockheed Martin Corp.; Northrup-Gumman Corp.; Raytheon Co.; Bechtel Group Inc.; etc.
So your comment implying that once on a government contract, always on a government contract is full of male bovine droppings.
Oh, and smk22, are you a supporter of President Obama, A REAL SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA, or are you just a run of the mill concern troll? Right now, I'm betting on the latter.
Paul,
Bullshit. You Repugnant bastards have tried to push and angry, vengeful Moloch masquerading as God down our throats for eight years. All you malevolent bastards do is declare war and kill people.
That's all you have done for the past eight years. Which President tried to pass the FMA? Bush. Which one declared war on a country that had no capability to pose a threat to the US? Bush. Which President executed more prisoners while Governor of Texas, including a retarded guy who wasn't able to understand what he had done? Bush Which President claimed he was guided by the Christian God, and that God was the basis for his every decision? Bush.
The God of Bush is a God of Death. And all of you GOP bastards that worship death and despise love are responsible for the murders and suffering you caused.
the question we need to ask at this point is simple: Do Republicans have souls, or are they more like robots? You see, a creature with a sould would be able to think for itself and make individual decisions not pre-programmed into it. I'm not convinced that republicans are able to do that, since they vote as a block against things like women's rights, children's health care, compassionate social programs, equality for all persons regardless of sexuality or race or religion, they just sort of act instinctively and not intuitively.
I'm not really sure you're human. You certainly don't act humanely.
Where to begin?
Ah yes--
Sen. Obama's approval rating on 4th November: 52.9%
Pres. Obama's mean approval rating on 7th February: 64.3%
I could go on, but why bother? In fact, I'm in the middle of 60 hours' vacation from demagoguery, meme-spouting and bully pulpiteering packaged up and regurgitated as "news."
The republic endures. Cheers for the numbers, Nate.
Why is it that those here who are so vociferous in accusing others of bigotry so quick to show themselves to be the real bigots?
Statler,
Maybe it was because I grew up in a Protestant denomination (the Church of the Brethren, although I've stopped going to ANY church for some time now), but I will at the very least quibble with one of your comments above:
why are these religions symbolized by a dead corpse hanging on a cross?
The Roman Catholics are the one who go around with a crucifix, with a dead Christ on the cross. In the Protestant denominations, it is the empty cross that is displayed, signifying (according to their philosophy) of the triumph of life over death.
The above is not to defend the Southern Baptists and other such scum who preach (so-called) 'pro-life' for the fetus, but as soon as it leaves the womb, they could give a shit about that individual, including full support for the death penalty, and used to (maybe still do) have a slogan, something on the lines of God, flag and guns, which if you think about it, is totally UNAMERICAN and goes against their (supposed) 'pro-life' religious philosophy.
The Founders of the US, and those who wrote the Constitution wanted to keep religion out of the government, and as Thomas Jefferson CLEARLY stated, intended to build a wall of separation between church and state, so why the God and flag in that saying?
And if they are the followers of the 'Prince of Peace', why are they advocates for guns, whose only purpose is to kill? The incongruous dichotomy of mixing guns and 'Prince of Peace' has always amazed, amused, and confused me.
Mike,
I agree, perhaps I was a little excessive in my description of christians. I have met some very nice Unitarians, Episcopals and people who belonged to other denominations such as Quakers, Church of Christ and the like, who have been very clear that they do not endorse hate.
i guess I just wanted to dish back a little of the crap that has been shoved at us for the last eight years. A sort of, "here, let,s see how you enjoy the taste of your own medicine".
I do still question the humanity of the Religious Right, which isn't really either. No true follower of any God that claims to be a God of Love would believe that murder bears a divine mandate. And yet, so many of them do. Bush honestly thinks God commanded him to invade Iraq. he also thinks he was given the special right to decide who lives and who dies among the prison population.
And that si what disturbs me so much about them. The minute you say, "Okay, it's wrong to kill people, but that only applies to everyone else-I have special rights to take human life that nobody else enjoys" you have ceased to see yourself as human and believe yourself to be divine-all the while, behaving diabolically.
The christians like to believe in thsi story I read in a book by Melville once, that the sin the Devil committed that got him thrown out of Heaven was that he mistook himself for God and forgot that he was not God. So what am I to think when they mistake themselves for Gods and start passing judgments on who gets to live and who has to die? Aren't they doing the exact same thing that Lucifer did in that book? Mistaking themselves for God?
And who are they to condemn people for falling in love? Who are they to decide that low-income minorities in our inner cities should not have access to condoms that can save their lives? What God of Life would want them to promote Death like that? And why are they so quick to declare war-isn't that another case of mistaking yourself for God, whom is supposed to reserve the right of vengeance for Herself/Himself alone?
It's just monstrous, they behave like monsters, like devils, and then claim they alone know the will of God. They show no respect for the environment, and destroy ecosystems with the zeal of someone who thinks s/he is somehow separate from their environment and even superior to it. Which si blatantly impossible. If you poison the air you breathe, you will inhale poison. The water you drink, and you will drink poison. Man cannot exist independently of his environment. It would not be so bad if the rest of us did not have to suffer for their arrogance.
How can you call yourself pro-life and yet worship death? And what Prince of Peace would suffer worshipers that declare war? Who should be expected to receive tolerance and acceptance when they are incapable of tolerance?
No, I say to them, it is time you experienced the same bigotry you dole out to others. We should not allow Republicans to reproduce. period. the minute they get a GOP membership card, we tie their tubes. No child should be subject tot he abuse of being forced to accept such a religion as Republicanism, which is unnatural and does not respect life.
All GOP marriages should be null and void. They want religious ceremonies, fine, but the state should not endorse such a cult.
They should be barred from promoting Republicanism as an acceptable lifestyle in schools. Our children do not need to be brainwashed into these perverted politco-religious societies.
Mike,
A troll? In your last post you made my point:
If a company needs orders for a year until the general economy might be able to pick up the placing of orders, and the company can get a federal contract for a year for the goods and/or services that it produces, it doesn't have to become dependent on government orders
I agree completely. My only point was that if the "general economy" doesn't pick up in a year, at the time the government contract runs out, you would have to go back the government well to keep those jobs, and the well may be dry. I really don't see where we disagree. Maybe you're just looking for a fight.
On House amendments, I'm not doing your homework for you. You can go to thomas.loc.gov and do the research yourself. Like I said, several Dem staffer friends in the House have admitted to me that they were determined not to allow Republicans to do anything significant to the bill. This fact is apparent to anyone who watched at least five minutes of CSPAN1 this week. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it and I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your point of view.
MIm,
By the way, I still don't get the 'eating Jesus' thing. I mean, come on- even in a symbolic sense, eating something described as a body and drinking blood is pretty disgusting.
I'm not really sure you're human. You certainly don't act humanely.
Who are you talking to?
I'm not sure why you call me a "Repugnant". I voted against Bush in '00 and '04 and voted for Obama in '08. I came out against the Iraq war in '02 and I'm opposed to the Death Penalty (which puts me at odds with Obama).
I suggested, in my earlier post, that you ought to exhibit more curiosity about what other people believe and why they believe what they believe. I told you then that if you make too many assumptions you'll find yourself arguing with a straw man. Nothing in the post you addressed to me has caused me to want to modify my advice to you.
As hard as it may be for you to believe, I actually am human and have the full component of human feelings. I found myself feeling both attacked and misunderstood while I was reading your post.
I will elaborate on something I said earlier, "Better to address one issue at a time and stay on topic". What I meant by 'address an issue' is to give your own unique 'take' on a matter of national concern and to give the people you communicate with the chance to return with a unique take of their own. It's impossible to do this if you bundle everything together and paint matters with too broad a brush.
Since you were the one to bring up the matter of being human and acting humanely I will share with you my belief that we dehumanize ourselves and each other when we oversimplify. One of my favorite slogans is this: "For every complex problem there's a simple solution ... and it's wrong."
I hope you will stop demonizing the people who disagree with you. I certainly hope you will stop demonizing the people who AGREE with you on several issues.
Paul,
Okay, fine I had you mistaken for a Repugnant. You get your soul back, here, take the thing.
Sheeeszh!
smk22,
Can you get it through your tiny little, pea-sized brain that the stimulus bill is for a limited time only, to stimulate the economy gets back up and running? The bill is intended to keep businesses open, so they can keep producing goods and/or services, buying from other businesses, etc., UNTIL the general economy gets back up and running.
Read what you said, then read what I said, and you should be able to figure out that you are talking out of at least two sides of your mouth (that is if your pea-sized brain actually has more than one synapse, which at this point, I doubt very much that it does).
Do you even know what the definition of an economic stimulus package is?
IT IS A TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT AIMS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY TO START PRODUCING AGAIN.
Where in that definition does it state that once a company gets a federal contract that it will NEVER get a non-government contract?
Where in that definition does it state that the government requires a business getting a government contract to turn down all non-government contracts?
You keep posting that if a company gets a government contract, it will be FORCED to keep getting government contracts to stay in business.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
And that is why I think you are a concern troll.
smk22 said...
On House amendments, I'm not doing your homework for you.
Idiot,
If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up.
YOU asserted that the GOOPers introduced lots of amendments that were not 'cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes'. Since YOU asserted that there were other amendments, list them.
If you can't, you prove my point.
And Paul, you should know that i took very good care of it the few minutes I had it. I even polished it up all nice for you, and got rid of that smudge in the upper left hand corner... look, over by the thing... yeah, over there. Maybe you didn't notice it was there, it was kinda small. Still, I gave it a good waxing, so it should stay shiny for a while now.
What, you're not even gonna thank me????
Man, what kinda appreciation is this?
I gotta get a new hobby.
2. Obama has to do the heavy lifting himself. Support for the stimulus dwindled when the Congressional Demorcats, who are not much more popular than their Republican colleagues, were charged with the job of selling it. The more Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the faces of the Democratic Party, the more Barack Obama's approval ratings will come to resemble those of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
What have you been watching?
There have been VERY FEW DEMOCRATS out defending this bill on the talk shows -- not Pelosi, Reid or others. Barney Franks was the only one I know of that even gave a decent defense of the bill -- and he only appeared on 1 show to do that.
IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO SIT ON THEIR ASSES, THEY DESERVE TO GO DOWN IN DEFEAT.
Unfortunately, our economy doesn't deserve to go down w/'em -- but it will.
But the blame where it's due, the dumbass Democrats who won't counter any of the ludicrous Republican arguments.
We should not allow Republicans to reproduce. period. the minute they get a GOP membership card, we tie their tubes.
Statler,
I have long believed that it's possible to be anti-Choice without being pro-Life. You prove my point.
Statler N Waldorf said...
MIm,
By the way, I still don't get the 'eating Jesus' thing. I mean, come on- even in a symbolic sense, eating something described as a body and drinking blood is pretty disgusting.
Again, the ones who literally believe they are eating the flesh and drinking the blood are the Roman Catholics (and Catholics light). Most Protestant denominations speak of it as 'representing', not the actual, flesh and blood. In fact, many, if not most, Protestant denominations (mostly to distance themselves FROM the RC church) do not even serve the wine - it's unfermented grape juice that is served.
Loomis,
Look, I have no desire to go down because the Democrats are lazy bastards, so I'm going to do my part to pick up their slack. It,s not fair, but life is pretty unfair, so we gotta step into the breach as citizens and active participants in our democracy and do what our leaders refuse to do - lead.
That means getting on the phone and harassing your Senators till they get sick of you. Write letters to the editor of any paper that will publish you. Bring it up in conversation with friends. It sucks because it's not our job, but someone has to.
Barney Frank has shown that while breeders will let this country go to shit, it's up to us fags to do the hard work and put it all back together again. So come on all you queens and leather daddies, all you bears and twinks-let,s storm the fucking Bastille like it was a fashion bar dispensing free drinks on a Saturday night.
Let them eat Flake!
I am hoping President Obama is just the man to get the Democrats fired up again.
That speech he made on Thursday was a$$kicking, and that's exactly what is needed in both legislative branches. The Republicans have shown that, even when given a chance to act like grownups, they will throw tantrums and endorse the exact same policies that created the problem.
I'm reminded of the famous quote by Will Rogers: "Stupidity got us into this, why can't it get us out?"
The fact that, at this late date, we still have people going around pushing tax cuts and deregulation, after this has been pushed for thirty years without any positive benefit, is conclusive proof that some people have severe reality gaps in what passes for their minds.
Paul,
I am bound and determined to lighten the mood here, with or without your cooperation. You WILL laugh, dammit-and that's an ORDER!
loomisnews said...
There have been VERY FEW DEMOCRATS out defending this bill on the talk shows -- not Pelosi, Reid or others.
Maybe, to be on a talk show, you have to be invited, and they haven't been invited?
Even if they ask to be on the show, but want certain conditions (such as live, not taped so it can be edited [to remove certain points???]), they still have to be invited. Listen to the 'hosts' and they will state "our guest(s) today are . . .'. Guest means invited. Invited by the host of the show. If the 'host' has an agenda in mind, do you think he/she/it will invite people who might upset that agenda?
IF we had a 'librul' media, they WOULD be invited. But with CNN just as troglodyte reactionary far-right now as Faux News, how many invites do you think the leadership of the House and Senate have received?
Remember, it was Rupert Murdoch, who just two days ago, stated "We have never been a company that tolerates facts."
MIM,
again, I realize it's symbolic-but it's pretty gruesome to symbolize eating a corpse or drinking blood. Like, why can't it be,
"here, this bread and wine/grape juice represents the compassionate act of sharing food and drink with each other in a common meal where everyone is an equal and we all provide for each other's basic needs because God wants you to take care of each other and have a nice time together"?
MIM,
News Corps is loosing buckets of cash. Rupe's still got plenty to burn through, but it is a finite amount. Given time, Faux News will not be an influence on politics anymore.
Statler,
I'm not a theologian, so I will not even attempt to answer your question about the bread and the wine/flesh and blood.
I would suggest that you ask it of an open-minded theologian, not one who is so brain-washed in their religion's theology that they can't even conceive of anyone asking such a question. In other words, don't ask it of a Rick Warren-type, but more of a Bishop Gene Robinson-type.
Statler N Waldorf said...
News Corps is loosing buckets of cash. Rupe's still got plenty to burn through, but it is a finite amount. Given time, Faux News will not be an influence on politics anymore.
May they keep losing more and more cash in every quarter. If I remember right, News Corp. lost $6.5 Billion in the fourth quarter of 2008.
The problem is do they have so much, even if it eventually will run out, that the toxicity they have loosed on civil discourse cause civil discourse to disappear forever? My fear is that they have, even if they were to disappear tomorrow.
MIM,
I'm more a fan of dinner parties anyway. My personal view of Heaven would be a huge sprawling dinner party where anyone can come and Zoe Keating is playing with Yo Yo Ma for the guests, who break out in spontaneous conversations and laughter for what seems to go on forever. At various points, people wander in and out and you wind up dishing with people from FDR to Obama to Harvey Milk and Perry Watkins, Martin Luther King and Nina Simone, from Ghandi to Mother Theresa. I also see the big MT playing a piano with a tip jar stuffed with donations for the poor, and she's smoking a huge stogie. Don't ask me to explain the last part, it's from a strange dream I had last night. She's also sauced.
I'm not sure it matches a Heironymous Bosch painting, but it's a hell of a lot more fun than the heaven he tended to paint.
MIM,
His influence will fade pretty quickly once NewsCorpse goes bust. I give it about 6-9 months afterward that people completely forget NewsCorps ever existed, save for a few sentimental Repugnants.
I think maybe Talk Radio will have a more lasting impact
Mike,
I'm not really sure what your problem is or why you're resorting to personal attacks. I understand perfectly well that a stimulus is by definition temporary.
I am only pointing out the risk inherent in this policy that every other economist would point out to you: That it does not guarantee economic recovery and the temporary propping up it does will disappear after a while. If the private economy is not there to pick up the slack in demand, we'll be in the same place we are now.
Please listen to the Vice President's recent comments: We could do everything correctly, and there is still a 30% chance it won't work. Just because some of us choose to be realistic about the risks, don't mistake us for belittling the idea. I'm all for stimulus spending.
On House amendments, forget the Republicans for a second. Just look at what Blue Dogs have been saying since the bill left the House. They were shut out too. Maybe they should've been shut out, that's not my point. All I'm saying is that it is a fact that they were, I don't understand why you won't acknowledge it.
NEW Concept- World FIRST: The generation of unlimited , daily, clean electricity into the national power grid, in volumes that with implementation, will outstrip the combined power yields of wind and solar energy - Concept currently UNKNOWN as alternate energy source.
In the light of the energy problems being experienced across the globe, I would like to be afforded an opportunity to present a solution to lacking energy policy, under the framework
of a direct governmental agreement. I respectfully request such an arrangement due to the urgency of the global meltdown, avoiding the normal protocols of patents.
I would appreciate the opportunity to tender the concept, to be verified by any governmental team of engineers, planners, architects and scientists to directly present their verified findings to the relevant senate committee.
If interested in the proposal, I can more clearly outline the potential for massive job creation, financial stimulation and stabilization of the stock markets, and all related industry, and markets and ultimately the methodology that can be applied to achieving better energy security, helping wean economies from high oil dependance.
Consideration of this proposal may lead you to conclude that less can be invested in wind/solar/biofuels, and still have a more positive energy yield. You might also consider the impacts of substantially lowered carbon emissions and the related effects on climate change that can be more directly addressed.
As you see the nations of the globe deteriorate, in spite of every stimulus effort I would urge you to understand that liquidity, in this instance, can fix nothing.
Some say President Obama 'listens'. It may perhaps be a good time to do just that.
http://sites.google.com/site/newenergyworldfirst/
Statler,
You asked,
I realize it's symbolic-but it's pretty gruesome to symbolize eating a corpse or drinking blood. Like, why can't it be,
"here, this bread and wine/grape juice represents the compassionate act of sharing food and drink with each other in a common meal where everyone is an equal and we all provide for each other's basic needs because God wants you to take care of each other and have a nice time together"?
The simple answer for why the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood is because Jesus said so at the Last Supper, if you believe in the history told in three of the New Testament gospels.
There are many different denominational beliefs about the symbolism of the Eucharist, I'd recommend looking at the Eucharist entry of Wikipedia for a quick rundown. The common thread is that by partaking in the Eucharist, one remembers the mortal sacrifice that Christ made for his disciples.
wsmk,
I'm off to a Mardi Gras ball.
I still prefer the dinner party mentioned above than eating symbolic bodies.
Ta ta!
Understandable Statler,
I attended Washington Mardi Gras here in DC last weekend....great time, although nothing compared to what goes on in NO.
smk22,
No one supporting President Obama's stimulus package has stated that there is 100% certainty that the package will work 100%, and without creating inflation.
Exactly WHAT is it you propose the government do? You seem to have a lot of problems with the package, but you haven't explained in any way, shape or form what those problems are, and how you would do something different.
So do we:
1. Sit back and twiddle thumbs, ala Hoover?
OR
2. Give tax breaks to the rich, and do more deregulating?
OR
3. Spend money in a stimulus, knowing there is SOME possibility that it won't work, OR the package that has been put together might not be big enough, OR that it might not be quite targeted precisely enough, OR some combination of the above?
OR
4. Something else?
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE?
Personally, I think the 3rd option is best - the first option led us directly into the Great Depression; and the second option is what we tried since Ray-gun took office and it led directly to the mess our economy is in today.
So tell us, oh wise one, exactly WHAT do you propose if not options one, two or three?
Oh, and we were NOT discussing the Blue Dog Democrats proposals not being included - NAY, I asked you to list specific amendments the GOOPers proposed that were NOT 'tax cut, tax cut, tax cut'. If you insist that they proposed amendments that were not 'tax cut, tax cut, tax cut', you should be able to list them.
Can you?
Otherwise, you just reaffirm my opinion that you are a concern troll.
Mike,
I agree, option three is the best. I never said otherwise. All I said was exactly what you said: "might not be big enough, OR that it might not be quite targeted precisely enough"
Obviously all you want to do is fight. For crying out loud, we completely agree on stimulus and you're calling me a pea-brain, which is why I'm done responding to you. Like I said, if you want to know what kind of amendments were shot down you can find out for yourself. I'm not gonna go through the trouble of compiling a list for you. If you want one off the top of my head, take the McCain two consecutive quarter GDP+ spending phaseout.
smk22,
Just in case you don't know what a 'concern troll' is, the term was [apparently] coined by Ana Marie Cox in a December 2006 Time magazine article titled "Making Mischief on the Web" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570701,00.html). The definition of a concern troll is as follows:
The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.
You keep stating that you agree with A stimulus plan, but not with all the details of this one. You keep stating that you have problems with the stimulus plan, but don't spell out what those problems are. You keep stating that the GOOPers were shut out, but refuse to give even ONE example of a GOOPer amendment that is not 'tax cut, tax cut, tax cut'.
To summarize your posts - "I agree with the need for economic stimulus, but this plan won't work; the GOOPers were shut out; businesses will be given a lifeline, but then can't exist with that lifeline FOREVER; what happens if the stimulus plan doesn't work; etc., etc., etc."
Lots of support, but, but, but, but, but, but . . . .
And then NOTHING to back up your concerns.
Get lost, concern troll, unless you can PROVE you are NOT a concern troll by:
1. Giving specific details of what you would do differently and why those different/alternative provisions would make a difference in the economic recovery;
2. Quit lying about the GOOPers, unless you can provide CONCRETE examples of assertions you make that the GOOPer amendments consisted of something different than 'tax cut, tax cut, tax cut'; and
3. Stop bringing in other factors (such as the Blue Dog Democrats complaints) WITHOUT first backing up your previous assertions.
smk22 said...
I'm not gonna go through the trouble of compiling a list for you. If you want one off the top of my head, take the McCain two consecutive quarter GDP+ spending phaseout.
smk22,
YOU were the one who stated that HOUSE GOOPers were whining that all their amendments were shut out. Since when is SENATOR McCain a member of the House? He has been a Senator since January 3, 1987.
Remember, you stated HOUSE GOOPers were complaining, and I asked you to list HOUSE GOOPer amendments.
All you did with that post was continue to reaffirm and re-enforce my opinion that you are a concern troll. You can't even keep your talking points in order.
Nate, I've been reading fivethirtyeight.com for months now, but haven't yet commented. But I had to take a moment to tell you that your velociraptor/T-Rex analogy was the funniest thing I read all day. Funny because it's true. Keep up the great work.
Reporting from a "red" area of the country. The tax issues of nominees were big issues here. The joke was something about no wonder Democrats don't care about cutting taxes, they don't pay them anyway. Also the numerous "small" parts of the stimulus plan that were targeted like pork--something about a benefit for the film industry, a benefit for Verizon, etc. These may be small parts of the House version of the bill, but they make an easy target.
The bill should aim at the current economic situation only. Health care should be discussed separately, as should education.
And Pelosi/Reid remain idiots who are more harmful than helpful to Obama's mission.
Cugel,
Some evidence that Treasury hasn't passed out any of the second part of the TARP funds, and some of the plans for rules that will accompany the hand-out of funds:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=amPhYlvwpfYw&refer=news#
Diane, I agree that Health care and education are separate topics and I look forward to when those issues come up for debate. One thing is clear after this stimulus package and that is that the Repubs will do nothing but stand in the way of the enactment of any meaningful and helpful legislation. If they are willing to act like this with the Stimulus package, just imagine how they will be when we get to legislation dealing with healthcare and education.
I am confident Pres Obama has learned from this experience. I just hope he fully makes the necessary adjustments to his tactics so that he doesn't get caught up in this BS again.
I'm a little late to this party, so I don't know if anyone's around to read this...
Nate is jumping to conclusions unwarranted by the data when he claims that people want to see a certain leadership style from Obama or that they don't want him to be deferential to the GOP or congress. It may even be true- and there are several issues such as energy, global warming and health care that I'm hoping [and we desperately need] Obama to show such leadership on- but the change in polls could simply be a result of people not liking this particular bill. You're reading in too deeply.
@PorridgeGun:
"President Obama should be studying the presidency... Clinton (Republicans)."
In spite of working miracles on the national deficit, Clinton then managed to get himself replaced by a complete idiot like Shrub, largely because of a freaking *blow job* that Republicans *still* use as a smoke screen. And this is the guy who should serve as a model of "how to fight off Republicans"?
I just hope he fully makes the necessary adjustments to his tactics so that he doesn't get caught up in this BS again.
I do too.but I fear that it's inevitable as long as totally inept Harry Eunuch is the Democratic senate leader and floor tactician.
Ah, good ol' Harry. Who would've thunk that the thorn in the side of every good Progressive Dem would be our own Senate Majority Leader?
I guess we're stuck with him until he decides to retire from the Senate 'cause there doesn't seem to be ANY inclination on the part of the Dems that they want to replace him as Majority leader.
smk22,
I recently posted a comment effectively saying that I thought that Obama did not give the appearance of leading the debate on the stimulus package nor offer as much inspiration to the public about its chances of success as I would have liked to see. You responded to my comment with how he should have handled the politics of the stimulus debate. While your response looks quite coherent and moving, it really missed the point of my posting.
The success of FDR in dealing with the challenges of the Great Depression came, in good part, with the feeling that someone was in charge who would make things better. The actual success of the political changes he made came about far more slowly than the confidence of the American public.
When we suffered the massacre of 9/11 both Bush and Giuliani offered strength that inspired many who did not agree with their policies but respected that there was engaged, responsive leadership in command. Whether we believe their policies were successful or not, they did offer inspiration when it was needed.
My point was that Obama needed to make more of a direct connection to the public.
Today's news suggests that he did just that shortly after my post although almost certainly not as a result of it.
While your points of desirable political strategy seem insightful, I cannot spend the time to debate when the topic strays so far from the intent of my original posting. Politics and public relations are distinctly different fields although they may be able to benefit from each other.
With any luck the current administration will, in its earliest days, become more adept at both political strategy and public relations.
... well written people, I enjoy a good, interesting blog!
Every time I hear about Clinton's blow job (and more recently repeated episodes of the bizarre on the part of Ted "Meth Pipe and Denver Escort Lover" Haggard), I hear Joe's Garage in my head... "gimme that blooow job... gimme that gimme that... bloooow job...give me that chromium heeaaad-d."
Point being (for non Zappa fans) the country needs to get out of it's 50's teenage sexual mindset.
This is tangential to the Stimulus question (unless, you're talking Electro-Stim or sex with a cyborg "Give me that CYYYY-Borg") yet apt in that it gives us insight into how Republicans approach the world at large: we wish it was yesteryear, all the time.
Tax online porn= Goodbye Debt!
Banzai!
Me so horny!
Barking Pumpkin!
Ok, enough of the hentai orgy.
Chuck Todd has an interesting perspective here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29062698/
Krugman is already the worst Nobel winner ever. Can they take it back? The guy is now going off half cocked about the stimuklus bill will little or no idea if the highway bill will now be huge and be another stimulus (watch, I bet it is) and screaming about state gov problems. Do we need to help state government? Yes, but they also need a lot more fiscal control. Krugman is really, really bad.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/
Sean and Nate- Check out Obama's weekly address - you have more data to add to your state by state call out analysis-
Ohio
Maine
Louisianna
MN
Indianna
FL
He did not mention PA- I guess he does not need to pressure specter any more and he is working on
1) Voinovich
2) Vitter and Landrieu
3) Lugar and Bayh
4) Coleman/Franken
5) Collins/Snowe
6) Martinez
I think Landrieu will support it. The problem (as always) is Vitter.
Darth Vitter is the poison pill of Louisiana politics. He does not care what we Louisianans think or desire to represent us in the Senate; he represents Mitch McConnell. Like a loyal footsoldier, he has distinguished himself for putting party ideology before the people of his home state consistently. Until recently, he was knownn for staying in the background, emerging occasionally to deliver some sniping homophobic or sexist remark, then disappearing again to who knows where.
Recognizing that most Louisianans now know him only for sex scandals, he has recast himself as the anti-Obama. Viitter's obstructionism borders on the personal grudge, and it remains to be seen whether he will snap out of it long enough to realize that Louisianans support the stimulus and wish he would too.
SnW, guess you have given up on MN then? You no longer appear over on the Uptake. Keep fighting! As for the blood and flesh stuff, Christ said "do this in remembrance of me" and refers explicitly to the wine as his blood and the bread as his body. But he doesn't say they actually ARE his blood and body, just symbolises them. The requirement by some denominations for belief in the literal truth of transubstantiation has got a lot of people killed in the past. Like you, it beats me why.
To return to the topic, the stimulus will probably help rather than hinder, so is better than nothing. Many Republicans are still stuck in ideological purity mode, so won't compromise, but Obama had to try. Now I hope he is going to forge on without them.
This could also be some residuale affects of the move from a position that fundumentally has nothing to blame on it (the transition) to a position where partisanship can easily reassert itself. During the transition there really isn't anything do disapprove of. Even if you don't like the President-elect's choice of nominees, most Americans still fundumentally believe that the President has the privledge to nominate whoever he wants. Given this there really aren't any policy assertions or substantive moves that the president elect can make seeing as he is hamstrung by the fact there there is a sitting president in the White House. With Obama, this effect is further compounded by the fact that there was such an unpopular president in the white house who a majority of the general voting public couldn't wait to chuck out on the street.
But this paradigm fundumentally changes once the President-elect takes office. Instead a sympbolic position that mostly involves tasks to which the general public beleives that the president has a perogative, the president-elect now become a leader who is expected to produce susbtantive effects in the government be it in congress, angencies, or what have you. Once you get in to a postition in which you now must engage in a policy debate, inherentlyl you create an environment where people who were compliacent and approved of you while in transition now have fundumental ideological differences with you now.
I don't have imperical data to back up this hypothesis, but it would be very easy to go back through +/- rating for the last 5 presidents or so and create a trend line. Little Help Nate?
RNC Headquarters
Obama should educate as he campaigns.
As is, the stimulus bill sucks.
Too many tax breaks, not enough infrastructure or state aid, and a huge opportunity missed to green up the grid and transportation to help save the planet.
negative campaigning works
it affects public opinion of the other guy
GOP mounted a systematic negative attack campaign on obama's promised good thing - the stimulus bill
this attack began in the media with limbaugh, beck, hanratty, fox in general, then the house, and the attack intensified in the senate, with mccain doing his angry man, his buddy grahm,
cheney joined in with terrorism fear and andy card chimed in with his "shirtsleeves in the oval office are ddisrespectful"
Glad to see the negative politics of the Rethugs are back in full swing. Offer nothing but that which destroys and then complain about it like cry babies. Reminds me of when they lost those seats and said that community organizes (like ACORN) stole the election. LOL.
Obama needs to speak in plain and simple terms that the Repubes got what they wanted--a shitload of tax cuts for individuals and small businesses.
Spending on what America needs--roads, electric grids, schools, energy conservation, etc.--creates jobs in the private sector.
The economy is flatlining and this is the crash cart to revive it until the private sector can sustain it. The jobs created will last due to the reviving of the economy. The republicans know that, and that is why they don't want the money in the economy, because it will work.
Talk to plain old Americans Obama and not the stupid republicans that dont want it to work and are not thinking about anything other that stopping you. Dont spend your capital on them.
In the end the economy will revive and the republicans will have side with obstructionism, and they will lose seats in 2010, but Obama man dont try and help them out.
The Republicans are terrified of this stimulus bill for one simple reason.
They secretly fear it will have some beneficial effects.
It probably will. It's a timid start, but it's a step in the right direction.
The right wing ideology of inadequate revenue, regressive taxation, destruction/prevention of beneficial government spending, and massively useless military spending, is a straightforward recipe for disaster. And disaster is what it produced.
Childish repetition of simplistic slogans about "lower taxes" (lower than what; lower for who?), "less regulations" (which regulations? Why were they there in the first place?), and infantile labeling of almost everything as "socialist", won't help any more.
Right wingers live in desperate fear that someone will "look over there" and see that things are working much better in every other developed economy.
And you're right - they will.
The first steps of the Obama administration are small snowballs, but they are about to roll down a very long hill.
Your day is over wingnuts. And the funny thing is, most of you will be major beneficiaries of your own defeat. But you won't see it that way.
I think the fact is that what the Republicans are about is trying to wear down some of the gloss of Obama straight away. They did exactly the same with Clinton, the only difference is that this time the GOP are playing with more serious chips.
Look noone, noone, knows what affect the stimulus will have. Republicans tearing down no just as little as Democrats building it up. But its what there is. Its going to pass, its going to happen. Any Republican tearing it down now is doing that for political reasons. They have no ideas if a huge tax cut would be as or more effective. My guess is that history shows that a huge tax cut is never helpful. Clinton may not have left the economy as buoyant as it seemed, but Bush's tax cuts are,in my view, one of the biggest reasons we are in the current mess, especially given the expense of the Iraq war.
Nate, think about this. All politicans in this moment have a bad reputation. And republicans more than democrats, see the Congress.
So more than 60% of approval rating in this context is not bad.
Interesting article (if they still call them articles) by Chuck Todd.
I'm glad to see that Pres Obama is finally beginning to remember the strategy that got him into the White House to begin with. Hopefully he will get back to this going forward and he'll be able to steamroll any repubs whose goal is nothing more than to simply stop anything and everything that anyone with a D behind their name wants to do for the country.
I like how the congressional Democrats are screaming, hysterically, that WE MUST, RIGHT NOW pass a $1 trillion dollar stimulus than that 1) might not work, and 2) is not perfect.
There is truly very little stimulus in this plan and instead it is a bloated, wish list of leftist clap-trap.
The public is starting to take notice too. Just 51% of unaffiliated voters saying that they doubt it will work.
Smart Republican are standing firm against it.
Bravo.
In 2010, when inflation is in double-digits and unemployment is worse, they will scoop up 30+ seats in the House, even reinstating a bit of vitality in even the NE with wins in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts.
Walker,
Nobody can guarantee that ANY bill, regardless of how it is written and what is in it, will work. Furthermore, to claim that people should oppose a bill because it is not perfect implies that you would never support any bill at all, because the "perfect bill" does not exist.
Once again, we have another repug who jumps in and claims the bill is "bloated" with a "wish list of leftist clap-trap", but fails to provide any examples of what he/she believes is such "clap-trap". I guess when you are simply shouting from the sidelines (like most repubs in Congress right now), you don't need any specifics.
The repubs that you refer to as "smart" have done nothing but scream, complain, whine, and grand stand. The only "alternative" they have come up with is nothing more than the tired old "tax cuts are the path to economic recovery" which have failed to work in nearly 30 years of attempts.
And yes, WE MUST, RIGHT NOW, pass a stimulus package that will create jobs and jump start this economy. Because, while you may be fat and happy right now, with the option of "waiting it out", there are tens of millions of Americans who do not have such a luxury.
fred said...
Nothing at all except that "Krugman is bad. Krugman is bad."
What do YOU propose fred? More tax cuts? The same formula that got us here in this economic mess we now find ourselves in?
As to the state governments finding themselves in a fiscal problem - don't you think that the national economic mess caused by little shrub might be a big cause of the states' problems? Fewer people working means less taxes they pay, which means less money to the state, at the same time the states are needing to spend MORE money on unemployment benefits because fewer people are working; the states are spending more money on MediCare and MediAid because fewer people are working; the states are spending more money on welfare and other aid to people who are not able to find a job, who wouldn't need the aid if they were working and paying taxes?
fred can bend over and stuff his head where the sun don't shine, if you ask me. On second thought, that's probably what he did when he wrote the rant against Krugman.
Seems to me that the real problem is the gutless tit-for-tat actions on both sides of the aisle. Suring the W years, Dems used every parliamentary move and threat thereof to ge their way on numerous nominations, pushed for investigations of political appointments that didn't reflect their viewpoints, e.g. the DOJ attorney firings and staff appointments, and in gereal adopted a "wait the b*****ds out" policy. When the Dems came into power, the "progressive" agenda suddenly vanished in a haze of politcal manuvering and hunting the "high on the hog" pork. Now the Repubs have adopted the Dem playbook of '01 through '07. What a big surprise. The thing is this, absolutely no elected official in DC appears to be genuinely interested in a reasoned, informed debate on what may be best for the country. It's all about "what can I get for my district in this bill?" Too much posturing, too much judging on politcal litmus tests, too much greed, too much of innate corruption that seems to follow political power. That said, please remember that the current administration is incomplete and has only been in office two weeks.
Hey, I am certainly for helping people, but I do not think that adding mountains of government debt and provoking inflation are the ways to do it.
Much of this plan is typical, pocky-barrel crap written by Reid and Pelosi, items added specifically for the benefit of congressional Dems.
Listen, the Japanese passed a very similar peice of stimulus in the mid 90's when they encountered a joint banking/credit crisis. Massive bail-outs and odd, porky spending for highly-connected LDP legislatures. It was rammed down the throat of the Diet. Sound familiar?
The end result? A greatly prolonged recession...
I do not think that the Dem leaders have a monopoly on compassion and concenr for those strugging right now.
Repeblicans are standing firm right now and will be in a position to hang this bill around Reid/Pelosi/Obama's colelctive necks in 2010 and reap rewards for doing so... The public is NOT behind this attack on our nation's fiscal health...
Walker, you still have yet to state what it is you would do instead. But don't worry, I'm not really expecting you to.
Oh, and just so you know, 52% of Americans support the Stimulus Bill. So a majority of the public actually IS behind what you call an attack on our nation's fiscal health.
Its too bad you weren't as vocal from 2001-2008, when GW and those repubs that you laud for "standing firm right now" really put a hurtin' on our fiscal health.
Walker said...
As PeixeGato said, a bunch of male bovine droppings.
What do you suggest, Walker? Specifics, please.
Otherwise, STFU.
@ Mike in Maryland
Mike,you're wasting your time communicating with the brain-dead Fred.It is he who wrote the infamous "it's not the prosecutor's job" post.
Hey, I will be the first to criticise Bush's spending politicies. They were, largely, horrible.
We as a nation have lived too long on the hog, way beyond our means, for too long, and we are only now starting to see the results of what will be a very painful period...way too much of our economy is over-leveraged and are debt is killing us. We should pray that China doesn't call in their chips.
What would I do? In a nutshell, aid to families struggling to preserve their homes, increased jobless benefits, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25%, a stringent documentation check system kicked into high gear to protect American workers, zero tolerance for any pork in the plan, expanded free trade negotiation and protection of existing agreements, and, lastly, to encourage investment, a capital gains tax cut.
You guys can sniff that tax cuts are a typical Republican rallying cry, but tax policy is the second most effective tool in a nation's economic arsenal, the first being monetary policy.
newview,
You speak of hunting the "high on the hog" pork.
Specifically, what 'pork' do you see in the stimulus? If you can't specify it, then it must not exist.
The difference between Democrats and GOOPers is that Democrats CAN specifically name policies that they disagree with, policies that they've studied and thought out. GOOPers, on the other hand, get their 'marching orders' from people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Lielly and Faux News, with the 'talking points' but no specifics.
Pork? What is the pork in the stimulus package?
If you can't name anything, then you are nothing but a moronic mouthpiece for the lunatic fringe of the GOOPer party, one who isn't capable of thinking for themself. God gave you brain cells to use to think for yourself, not parrot the clap-trap of the lunatic talking heads of the fringe, reactionary right-wing.
Walker said...
Hey, I will be the first to criticise Bush's spending politicies.
First, Walker - learn to spell. For one thing, it's 'criticize'. For another, it's 'policies'.
Second - What was your opinion of the little shrub tax cuts? Were they correct? Did they go to the right segments of the population?
What was your opinion of going into Eye-rak? Did it save us from seeing one of those 'mush roooom clouds'? Did it help decrease the influence of al-Qaida, especially in the Islamic world?
What was your opinion of No Child Left Behind? Did the little shrub administration provide enough funding to the states for the program that was forced on the states?
Do you think global climate change is a bunch of 'hooey' and 'clap-trap' made up by 'leftists', Walker? Do you believe in [so-called] Creationism (ooooops, I guess the Reich-wing term now is 'Intelligent Design' - my bad < snark >)?
In other words, Walker, most of your responses to the above will determine if you are a Troglodyte or a human being. My suspicions are that you are a Troglodyte.
Post a Comment