While some of the projects in the [stimulus] bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes ... $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC.-- Bobby Jindal
Before the cataclysmic eruption, roughly one million people lived in the region around Mount Pinatubo, including about 30,000 American military personnel and their dependents at the two largest U.S. military bases in the Philippines--Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Station. The slopes of the volcano and the adjacent hills and valleys were home to thousands of villagers. Despite the great number of people at risk, there were few casualties in the June 15 eruption. This was the result of intensive monitoring of Mount Pinatubo by scientists with the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) and the USGS.-- The United States Geological Survey
The first recognized signs that Pinatubo was reawakening after a 500-year slumber were a series of small steam-blast explosions in early April 1991. Scientists from PHIVOLCS immediately began on-site monitoring and soon declared a 6-mile-radius danger zone around the volcano. They were joined in a few weeks by USGS scientists from the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program, a cooperative effort with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
[...]
The USGS and PHIVOLCS estimate that their forecasts saved at least 5,000 lives and perhaps as many as 20,000. The people living in the lowlands around Mount Pinatubo were alerted to the impending eruption by the forecasts, and many fled to towns at safer distances from the volcano or took shelter in buildings with strong roofs. Additionally, more than 18,000 American servicemen and their dependents were evacuated from Clark Air Base prior to the June 15 eruption. In the eruption, thousands of weaker roofs, including some on Clark, collapsed under the weight of ash made wet by heavy rains, yet only about 250 lowland residents were killed. Of the 20,000 indigenous Aeta highlanders who lived on the slopes of Mount Pinatubo, all but about 120 were safely evacuated before the eruption completely devastated their villages.
In addition to the many lives saved, property worth hundreds of millions of dollars was protected from damage or destruction in the eruption. When aircraft and other equipment at the U.S. bases were flown to safe areas or covered, losses of at least $200 to 275 million were averted. Philippine and other commercial airlines prevented at least another $50 to 100 million in damage to aircraft by taking similar actions. By heeding warnings of hazardous volcanic ash clouds from Pinatubo, commercial and military pilots avoided severe damage to their aircraft and potentially saved hundreds of lives.
Such a strange thing for Jindal to say, especially since he hails from the state that was ravaged by Katrina. (Which, ironically, was the subject of its own equally awkward moment). The volcano monitoring program was on a list of Republican talking points at one stage, but virtually none of them ran with it, apparently figuring that there were much better scabs to pick at.
And I know: I'm piling on a little. This was going to be an awfully tough speech to deliver, almost no matter what its content. With the possible exception of Jim Webb in 2007, the minority party reaction speeches have always tended toward extreme lameness.
I just want to know who wrote the speech and who vetted it. Because it was manifestly at odds with the talents of the guy who delivered it.

119 comments
Heckuva job, Bobbie.
Now is the time to promote him as the Republican party's candidate for President for 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2024.
More evidence that any legitimate scientific endeavor can be made to sound stupid when it serves a political purpose.
Dear Governor Jindal,
I must disagree with the remarks you made tonight.
First, why do you say the compassionate heart of Americans got you through the hurricanes? Governor Jindal, that compassion was a beautiful thing, but the $300 billion dollars the federal government gave you got you through the hurricanes. Isn't the whole economy of Louisiana only $168 billion dollars? How then, Governor Jindal, could your state have possibly made it through Hurricane Katrina without government intervention?
Second, I believe you when you say that incompetent government bureaucrats impeded your efforts to save lives during Hurricane Katrina. But, Governor Jindal, weren't those Republican incompetent bureaucrats overseen by a horse manager? Wasn't it your party's incompetent former president who deemed said horse manager qualified to direct crucial government activities such as major disaster rescue efforts?
Governor Jindal, isn't this what you later alluded to when you said that Republicans lost the trust of the American people "and rightly so"? Governor Jindal, all the examples you cite as why the American people shouldn't trust government only proves that the American people shouldn't trust government when it's run by Republicans like you.
So please, Governor Jindal, don't forget that President Obama hasn't lost the trust of the American people.
Please remember that President Obama has been hailed by liberals and conservatives alike for choosing his Cabinet and institutional leadership based on merit alone. Remember also that President Obama included in those choices the best, brightest, and most qualified of Republican candidates. With such a huge change from the Republican corruption and cronyism of the past eight years, I'm actually quite eager to see what government can do when it's run by President Obama's talented and bipartisan administration.
Finally Governor Jindal, I must echo others and voice disgust with your patently false claims about spending projects which have never been proposed by advocates of the stimulus, nor their bureaucratic underlings, nor the stimulus legislation itself. Such misleading and manipulative falsehoods, Governor Jindal, are exactly the sort of shameful acts got Republicans in trouble last time. Please, Governor Jindal, do not repeat George Bush's mistakes. These lies are an insult to the intelligence of the American people whom you claim to respect so deeply.
Governor Jindal the only person who thought up the economic recovery ideas that you say are terrible is you. What does it say about you, Mr. Jindal, as a new leader in the Republican party, that you spend your time thinking up terrible ideas?
Sincerely,
Greg Allen
Well I don't doubt Jindal is talented but the problem was not only the lameness of the speech but the TERRIBLE delivery.
In this case, even a good speech would not have changed the reception.
Jindal may be smart but he ain't a good speaker as far as we can tell. And expect the Kenneth the Page thing to get as much play as the idiotic volcano thing.
I must again shamelessly promote the "Bobby Jindal is Kenneth the Page" facebook group, found here. 400 members in three hours!
Thanks for the shoutout, Sean!
How can you NOT pile on to that truckload of drivel? I mean, I'm more than willing to listen to what *anyone* has to say, but that was one of the most tone-deaf speeches I've ever heard, even discounting the patronizing tone of it. Jindal either didn't listen to Obama's address, or he was unable to come up with any off-the-cuff rebuttal to it. And, of course, Obama's knocking out of the fucking park didn't help any...
Assuming Jindal didn't write it himself, he either a) agreed with the content or b) disagree and didn't have the stones to get it changed.
Either way, "talent" isn't the word that comes to mind.
What talents have you discerned with this guy? First he's trying to screw his constituents by not taking a part of the stimulus, and now he's tone-deaf about Katrina and continues to recite the Republican mantra of tax cuts in this speech.
If he's a rising star in that party they're going to be wandering in the desert for a long time to come unless Obama fails completely.
OMIGOD!!!!
I nearly dropped my remote control when he said the volcano line. I live in Washington state where many people still remember Mount St Helens. I think that was a really big mistake.
$140 million is less than the Yankees pay A-Rod. I think most Americans would agree that a little bit of volcano monitoring is a damn good expenditure of money.
What gets me most about the Katrina thing is that Jindal is basically saying "the government did an awful job with Katrina, and now we're supposed to trust them with the economic recovery?" Which makes sense until you remember that he is arguing that the government should not interfere with the economy. If the government had not interfered with Katrina -- even as half-assed a job as they did with that catastrophe -- the fallout would have been far, far worse. It seems to me that the Katrina comparison makes the opposite of the point Governor Jindal is trying to make. Katrina proved that in times of crisis, government must respond swiftly and decisively.
As Nate says these "response" speeches always come off as less than stellar—I remember a particularly cringe inducing one from Nancy Pelosi a few years back—but this one was notably awful.
Jindal's delivery was quite bad and the text itself was worse. I'm actually amazed at how disconnected from political reality the GOP seems to be right now. They apparently think that a rehash of the core arguments of Reagan's 1981 inaugural is pitch perfect for the current crisis, which to me suggests that they are truly out of ideas at the moment.
Obama did very well (better than he has in quite some time), but perhaps the bigger story is the absolute whiff by the GOP generally and their big young star in particular. Jindal's a lot less ready for prime time than I would have expected.
This is like Palin with the slam against fruit fly research. They belittle what they don't understand.
These people embrace ignorance. We tried that; it didn't work. The public has moved on.
Republicans need to understand that not all government spending is "pork."
Government spending on VA hospitals - not pork
Government spending on natural-disaster monitoring - not pork
Government spending on bridges so they don't collapse like in Minnesota - not pork
Etc.
This reminds me of when McCain used air-quotes to dismiss concerns about "the health of the mother." I understood McCain's point about how that clause in abortion restrictions is used to justify many abortions, but it's just really really bad politics/ethics/morality to use derisive air-quotes around the phrase "health of the mother." Likewise, it's really bad politics to dismiss government spending on worthy endeavors as "wasteful pork."
Tonight was the night that many Americans got their first real look at Jindal. While maybe not the 'real' Bobby, its definitely the version that many will choose to remember. Sad too, because he's previously shown to be more polished (speaking-wise) than his performance tonight would suggest. I'm curious how his response will be remembered in the years ahead. This can't cause more than a minor hit to his future chances...or can it?
If Jindal is the best the GOP can muster than Obama can pencil in four more years right now. Just shockingly awful and it didn't help that he followed up such a strong effort by Obama.
This can't cause more than a minor hit to his future chances...or can it?
I tend to think not, first because 2012 is quite a ways away, and second, the MSNBC dials showed that "McCain voters" were reacting generally favorably to Jindal's speech. When it comes to the primaries, he doesn't have to appeal to very many Democrats. The general election is of course an entirely different story.
That he felt to explicitly say magnetic levitation train screamed "I'm pandering to the stupidest common denominator."
Alright, thats it!
I'm calling it, nurse. At 10:40 PM EST the Republican party's ideas have officially died. There is no resuscitating that will work. Pass the memo to Mr. Steele, baby.
I'm not looking at a Republican party in chaos, I'm witnessing it self-destruct. This is really the end of the party.
From Jindal's speech:
[The] legislation is larded with wasteful spending. . . $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland.
First, he's just jealous because he has nothing remotely as interesting as Disneyland or Las Vegas in his state (sorry New Orleans, erect a replica of the Eiffel Tower above Pat O'Brien's, serve hurricanes and Skylabs at the top, and then you can bitch). Second, if you've ever spent Thanksgiving Day sitting in 1 mph traffic on Interstate 5 next to a cattle feedlot in fucking COALINGA, you fully understand the need for high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
soozzie said...
I'm not looking at a Republican party in chaos, I'm witnessing it self-destruct. This is really the end of the party.
If the Republicans decide their current track is somehow the right one or the only one then I'll agree with you with on caveat. The Democrats can still pull defeat from the jaws of victory if they aren't careful.
Namely, if the Democratic party as a whole feels too assured of Republican destruction and try to lurch to the far left they could very well leave the independants in the center behind. So long as Obama and Congress charts a course leftish of center that isn't scary to the folks center right that are still looking at the far, far right wingers and scratching their heads, then those folks will continue to support the Democrats in general.
Right now things are in a precarious position in my view point. Come 2010 midterms the Republicans are going to be stressing the need to get more disenting votes into the Senate and the House to help hinder the more far left reaching initiatives. If the Democrats try to use their current voting block power to force through things without Republican input or support this may well convince many folks center and center right that the Reps have a point and they may wish to put in a few more folks to "keep the Dems in check". On the other hand, if the Dems show the ability to moderate themselves and not go too far too fast, the Repubs just look like obstructionist fools and the general populace should be more interested in taking away the filibuster threat so that they becomes completely and utterly incapable of hindering the progress of goverment. Basically it comes down to if a significant enough majority of Americans feel that the Democrats need to be more or less hindered to fix things. And achieving this depends upon the perspective of alot of folks in the middle ground of the Conservative/Liberal war.
Yes the Democrats have the numbers at the moment to push through most anything they want, particularly in the House. But trying to do so could well trigger the backlash that helps the Republicans get a foot back out of the grave. Guiding the public slowly towards the left with smart plans that work, fixing the immediate problems and educating folks as to why more steps are needed on the other hand while continuing to make the attempt to reach out to the Conservatives (at least in public opinion if nothing else) will keep the Dems in power longer and allow them to truly get down what they want to.
That was painful to listen to. Painful to watch.
We've seen Jindal do far, far better speeches. The delivery was bad. The speech was bad. The ideas were bad.
Pretty much everything about it was bad, and not at all what I expected from him given what I've heard in the past.
This was green backdrop bad.
Rick,
Well stated.
Now if we can get one of the one-issue posters on this site to read, and comprehend, what you wrote, we might start to make some progress.
Nate:
After tonight, I think you need to revisit your planetary model and reduce the size of Mr. Roger's sphere.
Mike in Maryland said...
Rick,
Well stated.
Now if we can get one of the one-issue posters on this site to read, and comprehend, what you wrote, we might start to make some progress.
I was just watching MSNBC and there was a comment from Chris Mathews that I thought was relevant. To paraphrase him, he pointed out that throughout the election and early Stimulus bill discussion he heavily criticized how Obama handled things. He felt that Obama should have gone harder hitting against McCain, should have not reached out the Republicans on the Stimulus, etc. He stated that he was wrong on it all, or at least that Obama proved that he knew what he was doing. He beat McCain without having to join him in the mud. He not only got his stimulus package but also came out of it looking like he made serious bipartisan efforts and essentially forced the Republicans to look obstructionist.
The question then is, would the public opinion have been the same if he'd started off with a massively left leaning bill as some on these boards have suggested and just compromised a little if at all? I think that his efforts would have looked every bit as false as the Republican claims they were voting no in the merits of the bill rather than political pressure from their party to send a message. He'd have looked like his outstretched hand had a joy buzzer and the Republicans would have potentially looked justified to slap it away. But with his approach he looked to have taken the high road and his opponents look like they are against everything he stands for and just want to vote no because its the "cool" thing to do.
As I said before, this route, if done consitantly and with purpose might not get you everything you want done today, but it ensures you have a much better chance of doing it tomorrow. Stick to this route and the general public will likely be wanting to get the Dems to a filibuster proof super majority with room to spare. Make a sharp left turn and while they won't want to put Republicans in power, they may well want to make it closer to 55/45 instead. And if you let the Republican party regain some of their lost ground they regain their validation in their own minds and they'll not only feel the public wants them to stand in the way of Obama but they'll make that an essential mandate that kills all hope of rational progress between then and the 2012 elections.
Um, that link to Congresswoman (her website calls her a congressman but I thought that's not really correct, but that's for her to decide) Blackburn includes a very embarrassing error.
It says, "high speed rail line from Los Vegas to Las Angeles."
Really???
Did the staff member who wrote this really not know the names for two large cities? I get that this could be a typo but that's just an unacceptable mistake in my book. If you are going to criticize the high speed rail line, your statement should not have misspellings that make you look quite that incompetent.
What was that in President Obama's speech about people needing to take education seriously?
It's one thing to disagree with someone but it's another to be offended by it. Jindal knows how much money was put into New Orleans after Katrina where the toll was high, in part, to poor preparation. Now he's objecting to volcano monitoring.
I live 150 miles from Mt. St. Helens. When it exploded, I heard and felt it go. It was loud and the ground shook. We have volcanoes that are closer to me than St. Helens and they're due to erupt some time this century. I would rather spend the money to prepare for disaster than to recover from it.
Jindal has learned nothing from the problems of being unprepared for disaster and he seems to care little for the problems of others outside of his little district. I don't care who wrote or vetted that speech. Jindal delivered it and he's either responsible for what he says or he truly stands for nothing but being a mouthpiece for some pretty nasty concerns.
In about six months I have watched both Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal make fools of themselves. Jim Bunning made incredibly tasteless remarks about Judge Ginsburg's health. It seems as though the Republican Party seems intent on transforming itself from the loyal opposition to being the Court Jesters. Our current problems are too serious for us to be paying any attention to this pack of jokers who seem more intent on disrupting the government than to negotiating with the majority to find ways of helping us succeed.
Jindal's speech, as heard on the radio, showed all the fine elocution and polished delivery of a high-school forensic contest.
In other words, not quite ready for prime time.
From Jindal: [The] legislation is larded with wasteful spending. . . $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland.
For the umpteenth time... Las Vegas isn't even on the high speed rail corridor map yet. The thing about "magnetic levitation" is made up of whole cloth.
Jindal knows this, he also knows what he said is easily debunkable, why he's repeating this (other than to score more points with the "base"?) I don't know.
wv: riera. Didn't he try to open Al Capones vault once?
TubeZone said...
"Jindal knows this, he also knows what he said is easily debunkable, why he's repeating this (other than to score more points with the "base"?) I don't know."
I'd have to go with the only reason being scoring points with the base. Concider, if it resonates with the base and is critical of the Democratic establishment then it won't get fact checked. Also, if you view him as one of many potential 2012 candidates then he may very well be trying to establish his "bona fides" right now with the base to get the nomination.
He likely knows he's going up against at least Palin so it could be argued there is no point that is too early to start campaigning when it costs you nothing. The air time and location didn't cost him anything and it was high profile. Anything critical of the Obama admin is almost certain to get favorable Rush mention at least in theory.
Of course the problem with this theory is something I believe Nate pointed out earlier. Short of a massive slip in popularity by President Obama, he pretty much has the 2012 Dem nomination locked up. This means a great deal of independant and even some Democratic attention on the Republican primary which means a multitude of people appealing purely to the base could leave the floor wide open to a few moderates to get sufficient votes from the middle to lock them all out. And it most certainly looks to be a continuation of a bad plan to actually win the general election afterwards. Time will tell.
booby jindal apparently even made up the katrina story (surprise!)
according to dailykos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/24/23132/9395/253/701495 he wasnt even in NO.
would Mr. rogers or Captain Kangaroo lie to us?
What we are seing here is not about 2012. That is already lost for the Republicans, barring a miracle.
Chances are that 2016 and 2020 is lost too.
From Jindal's point of view the Presidency is a far off dream. The battle is for control of the republican rump and no more. From that perspective he did well.
As for the rest of us, the situation is interesting. All the signs are that the reps are going the ant-intelectual, funamentalist rout. They seem to have decided that they can't compete with Obama on his own terms, and so shouldn't try.
The posibility that the Rep's are doomed, and that the next oposition will come from a breakup of the Dem's is increasing.
Blame said...
What we are seing here is not about 2012. That is already lost for the Republicans, barring a miracle.
Okay....but has anyone actually told THEM that? I can't really say that I've seen them being overly well connected to reality or public opinion of late.
I don`t understand the republican party, same old out of date Reagan speech that played well in the 80`s, now he gives a speech that plays with 30% of the population.
If they keep this up we really will have a one party country.
Jindel is not ready for prime time, he better wait to run until at least 2016, or he will be destroyed in 2012 by obama.
My guess is all the conservatives will cancel each other out in 2012 and if a moderate runs he/she could end up the nominee.
BoJi is a hack. If the GOP want a shot in 2012, they should beg Jon Huntsman Jr. to run. That guy is the real rising star of the party, not this mopey loser.
@Nate: "Because it was manifestly at odds with the talents of the guy who delivered it."
It's consensus wisdom that Jindal is a smart guy, the new face of Republicanism, etc but, watching him last night, I thought otherwise. The ideas and construction were no stronger than standard Sarah Palin stuff, and the delivery much weaker. At least Palin can push the same old same old with conviction and panache.
Jindal was way over his head. The GOP needs to look elsewhere for the next generation of leadership.
At the 1988 Democratic National Convention, a young southern governor gave what was thought to be the worst keynote address in recent memory, and the consensus was that Bill Clinton would not be heard from again on the national stage anytime soon. We know how that turned out.
If Jindal decides to run for president in 2012, most of us won't remember the fine details of his response last night. He seemed to treat the address as a test run for a possible presidential bid; if so, he has a lot of work to do on both his message and delivery, but he also has three years to work on it.
Rick
You are right. The Republican party as a whole hasn't twigged to how much shit they are in. They still think it is about Reps & Dems taking turns. That the Reps may never get another turn clearly hasn't sunk in.
However there must be inteligence out there somewhere. Stupid people do get elected, but only because there is brains in their campaign team.
Right now there is a rep making plans. Plans based on reality. I just wish we could see who.
@RufusRules:
FYI, Jindal (like most of the press) had a copy of Obama's speech hours before Obama read it; Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were talking about this in their talk-show run up to the speech.
So Jindal did not have to have an off-the-cuff remark, he had plenty of time to think about it. Probably his speech was a collaboration of the Republicans and mostly written before they received Obama's speech, it is supposed to be the Republican Party response, not just the Jindal response.
But they also probably had three hours or so to do something about it; not to mention Obama's time itself. Jindal and crew didn't have to listen to Obama's speech, they could have had one guy watch it for any surprises while they rehearsed.
They are just incompetent.
Please, everyone join the Volcano Monitoring facebook group. Because no one wants to be surprised by a volcano!
The Republican Party is making the same mistakes the British Labour Party made after finding themselves out of government in the early 1980s, only from the other side of the political spectrum. Hardliners have taken control of the party apparatus; party leaders are convinced their losses stem from not being ideological enough; and the party platform has doubled down on the same deficient policies that ignore real-world problems and led voters to kick them out of majority status to be begin with.
For the Labour Party, rock bottom hit when moderates defected to form an alliance that ultimately became the Liberal Democrats prior to the 1983 general election, meaning even heavier Labour losses in Parliament despite a Conservative government with only lukewarm popular support. It took 18 years in the wilderness before Labour regained a majority, and it took a huge shift to the center to achieve that.
I know that conservatives like to deny the existence of democratically-oriented socialism, but they would be well served to study that period of British political history and discover exactly what Labour did wrong, and realize the relevance it has to them now.
@Rick, soozzie:
Jindal just proved the R's are the walking dead. No matter how many times they whine about the results or claim they would work, 75% of people are just not that stupid!
The facts are the R's had unprecedented power after 9/11, with Bush and Cheney they crammed down every tax cut and deregulation and spending measure and pro-corporate conservative item on their agenda.
The 2006 Dem win doesn't buy shit if the President can veto and the Senate can filibuster. People know that.
So the entire depression, financial collapse, Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan and fucked up world is squarely in the lap of the R's. They are hypocrites, 75% of people get it that deregulation led to legalized theft, 75% of people get it that tax cuts to the wealthy did not trickle down, 75% of people get it that the R's pro-corporate small government has led directly to devastating job losses, deaths due to natural disasters, shitty roads and collapsing bridges and a total fucking train-wreck on infrastructure, fraud and corruption in the corporate suites to the tune of a trillion dollars or more.
Argue all you want, the "free market" paradigm is dead for at least a generation. The Dems won't be blamed in 2010, the R's will be blamed. Squawk all they want.
Jindal's response is just more denial and lying, he is just like Palin, a say-anything, do-anything hypocrite spouting the party line.
The R's think their route back is fiscal conservatism, but their brand of fiscal conservatism doesn't work and never will! It consists of tax cuts and deregulation, exactly the cause of the current financial crisis.
How stupid can they be? Really. 75% of people know (or at least suspect) that tax cuts and deregulation are responsible for this crisis, and the R's are promising more of the same. I have to say, as a lifelong Dem, I am both delighted and astonished.
You go, Jindal! Demolish the party once and for all!
Obama keeps talking about sacrifices being necessary to move the nation forward, but most of his speech involved promises of further entitlements and more government spending to supposedly benefit the masses.
From whom are these sacrifices expected and what debt of gratitude will they be owed?
I wonder too about the spending commitments involved in the intiatives that Obama plans on healthcare, education and energy.
Where will the money come from?
Are deficits now truly meaningless?
Is Bush's profligacy to be matached and exceeded by Obama's and does it excuse the placing of the crushing burden of debt on future generations?
Bear in mind that Obama has spent in one month more than Bush did in seven years on the two wars and Katrina relief!
Again, who is footing the bill for this?
Uh, folks, please remember that Clark & Subic were in the process of being closed when that volcano was about to blow. I recall the Philippine gov't wanted the US military presence gone, hence the "evacuation" of some 18,000 airmen & dependents from Clark AFB and the removal of aircraft. (Clark was the big story at the time.) BTW, please note that the majority of US govt agencies have been essentially operating under a budget freeze since 10/01/2008. The continuing resolution funding most of the govt froze most agencies' overall budgets at the 2008 amounts.
BTW did anyone else hear this post and Nate Silver mentioned on POTUS this morning? Cool.
@PeteKent:
Let the rich foot the bill. They are the beneficiaries of the Bush agenda that was supposed to produce trickle down economic prosperity for all. It failed. Bush gave them a trillion dollars, literally, so take the fucking money back, and try the opposite approach. If they don't like it, fuck them, if they ship our jobs overseas, tax them as much as it costs us to support the workers they left behind. Make it a losing game for the corporations to screw Americans, make it a losing game for rich individuals to NOT invest in American companies.
Let the rich pay. After they have sucked all the money out of the middle class, they are all that are left to pay anyway; so we might as well take their god damn money right now. Raise taxes on any sum over $250K earned by any method in a year to 45%, that should cover it handily.
PeteKent-
How can you say that? Bush had the entire war off budget, and the current deficit can largely be ties to Bush tax cuts. Sure looks like Obama is more up front about spending than your vaunted repubs...
Where was the repub plan in Jindal's speech? I think I missed it behind all the red meat for the base, that pissed off everyone else....
Yes Pete! I listen to Morning Briefing too!
"it was manifestly at odds with the talents of the guy who delivered it."
Totally disagree.....I've never understood Jindal's appeal outside of Louisiana or the republican party. I think this is Jindal's best. Sure this would've come across better through a loud sound system in front of a cheering crowd but the substance is the same.
He offers nothing different than the same stale standard republican garbage talking points. He's just not an old white man and the narrowminded GOP thinks that's enough to beat Obama in 2012. Pathetic.
Tony C seems to have a French Revolution mentality. And his distribe is a form of envy, I suppose, from a man who does not aspire to much and who is convinced that his progency will also never amount to much.
So, it is "the rich", then, that will have to sacrifice while the rest of us live off their productivity and the wealth they create.
Remember the government never gave them a thing, it simply took less from them than it formerly did. An important perspective. Your money belongs to you, not the government -- until it takes it from you in the form of taxes.
Tony's philosophy of soak the rich to pay for everything seems to be behind the current inablity of the economy to get any lift. In order to see private economic activity take off, folks are going to have to percieve that the risk they are being asked to take (right now a very real thing) will be amply rewarded.
Businesses and investors are willing to be patient and know making any returns on their investments today may take several years to pan out. If they believe that the future prospect is for a 45% tax on their profits, they no doubt will feel the risk is too great and economic activty will likely continue to stall.
You cannot push on a string and taxation is not the way to lift the economy out of the doldrums or pay for the social programs of the many.
We will all become indolents and wait for the handouts. The entrepreneurs and their capital will continue to go to places like Brazil and India where they are welcome and rewarded.
Pete Kent -
I wonder too about the spending commitments involved in the intiatives that Obama plans on healthcare, education and energy.
Where will the money come from?
Initially from borrowing, later from increased revenue due to restoring top bracket federal income tax on the very well off to something like the already very low Clinton era levels (which Bush cut), and economic recovery.
Are deficits now truly meaningless?
The hypocrisy of that statement coming from a Bush supporter is astounding, and the answer is childishly obvious.
When you borrow to do something useful that will pay off in the future, that's intelligent.
When you borrow to do something useless, such as fight a war against a country that posed no threat and did nothing, that's a dead loss.
Is Bush's profligacy to be matached and exceeded by Obama's and does it excuse the placing of the crushing burden of debt on future generations?
Obama is much less profligate, since his spending is of the "investment in the future" variety not the "pure waste" variety, and furthermore, can be expected to be less than that of Bush in the long run.
But if you had a problem with Bush's profligacy, why didn't you say something when Bush was in power, instead of hurling insults and threats at anyone who questioned anything Bush did?
Bear in mind that Obama has spent in one month more than Bush did in seven years on the two wars and Katrina relief!
First of all, this just isn't factually true.
Second of all, it's very dishonest, because it compares isolated compartments of Bush spending to all current federal spending (and then does so inaccurately).
And fred,
I don't get your point.
Off budget or not Obama has now spent more in one month than Bush did in seven years on the Wars and Katrina relief.
That is an astounding thing and represents the worst "generational theft" we have ever seen. Worse Obama seems poised to spend trillions more without any current prospect of paying for it, except tax hikes that will further depress the economy.
Pete, I say the worst generational theft is the Iraq War, which will end up costing more than the stimulus but also cost us thousands of American lives....that's thousands of destroyed American families and tens of thousands of wounded vets. would you rather your money go to investing in America's infrastructure or to the deaths of our brave soldiers in a distant desert?
So he has a problem with volcano monitoring? What would he say if someone in the PNW complained about the money being spend on Hurricane monitoring?
What a moron.
Harold:
I think it is worth debating the usefulness of the spending that being proposed. What troubles me is that we have effectively just spent a trillion dollars without any debate and with few people even knowing what they spent it on.
It seems that it is Obama's way to talk up a crisis and then use the impetus of that crisis to ram through legislation without adequate consideration.
There is no real consensus in this country regarding the direction we should go on healthcare, energy or education. Obama won a bare 0majority of the vote (53%) without revealing to the masses his left of center leanings and famously won on a feel good platform of "hope and change".
He owes it to the people to carefully consider what he is intent on doing and to allow appropriate and thoughtful debate.
Right now the country is in a very weakened condition, more particularly the priovate sector has been rocked back on its heels and seems in no position to argue with the policy prescriptions coming out of the Obama administration. Obama's political opposition has been decimated and he has the whip hand.
Obama commands the attention of the nation and he is very charasmatic. If he takes unfair advantage of his rhetorical and political skills and the dire situation we find ourselves in I fear for the future of the nation.
Those on the left may rejoice at having this power and opportunity to rework society before the people even wake up to what is being done to them, but the vast majority of folks have no idea what is coming at them and may never get a chance to have a say before it is too late.
Jeffrey is of the two wrongs make a right theory. Foolish.
Isn't this really politics as usual as the new guys take over and decide that they will be just as abusive as the scoundrels they replaced? Where's the reform?
You can argue that if Iraq turns into a long term ally in the Mid-East and a counter to our enemies in the Islamic world, then Iraq was a good thing.
Much the same can be said about Obama wanting universal healthcare. Do we really know where that will get us? A nation of shared scarcity and ratioaning of care?
Bush spent untold billions on education and where did it get us? Will Obama's billions on top of that do more?
And energy -- where is the push to find more oil and natural gas here, to move towards clean coal and nuclear fuels? Why does it all have to be about windmills and solar? How is that going to help in a couple of years when gas goes back to $4.00 a gallon imposing the cruelest tax of all on the people?
There is much to debate and consider carefully. Thus far Obama has not shown much trust in the people to be brought along and convinced, and like a benevolent dictator would rather use populist rhetoric and the fear of crisis to get what he wants quickly without debate.
You may think he knows best, but I wonder . . . .
If Jindal thinks a volcano monitoring program ($140 million) is bad, I assume he would immediately discontinue all of the hurricane forecasting and monitoring programs ($ billions - all those weather satellites, you know).
Pete, you seem outraged by the stimulus, but I can only assume you supported the Iraq War.(since most of the opponents were on the left and most of us on the left support the stimulus....if you're in the extreme minority of those who opposed the war and the stimulus, I stand corrected)
I blame the war for much of the economic mess in which we now find ourselves. Obama is trying something to get the economy moving...it's not his fault there's a recession. The stimulus I have no problem with....this should create jobs and in many ways pay for itself in the long run. His mortgage plan is also a good idea. His mistake is the banking bailout.
As far as showing no trust in the people, I'm certainly not the first to make this observation, but he talked to us like adults while Jindal talked to us like kindergartners.
You wonder how is Obama going to pay for everything....well I don't think he really expects to get all of that done, but if he gets half of it done, it will be 10 times as much as anything Bush got done. Bush's education plan sucked. It wasn't going to work no matter how much money he threw at it. Obama is asking us to look toward the future and set our sights high. Bush never ever asked us to do that.
As a longtime debate coach, had this speech occurred at a tournament, I would have dropped Jindal immediately and talked to his coach! This was a "canned" speech. It was not a response to Obama's speech. It was what we called a non-debate debate speech. It was clearly prepared long in advance and the delay was likely Jindal's indecision as to deliver it or not. It was a new low point for Republicans' ability to show their communication skills.
Dan, thank you! I have no debate experience but I drew the same conclusions. That was pathetic. Jindal said it with no authority or confidence in what he was saying. I don't know why they planned a response at all. They should've known Jindal or no other politician for that matter could possibly follow Obama under the circumstances. That would've been like some antiwar democrat following Bush's speech a few days after Sept 11. And that was Bush, this is Obama for God's sake.
Even stranger than the volcano reference was the praise of the racial-profiling Sheriff:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Jindal_praises_raceprofiling_lawman.html
This speech was vetted? I doubt it.
Republicans and Christians hate science. Louisiana is the backward shithole of a state that I fled. Glad to know Bobby's keeping it that way.
PeteKent:
Keep the faith. There will be a revolution in the is country because of what's going on.
Obama speaks and the market crashes...again.
@PeteKent:
You are an idiot, and all your political kin are idiots. Tax money might as well have never been yours at all, because it is an unavoidable expense you incur by living in this society. The fallacy that somehow you could avoid taxes and keep that money is much of the cause of our current financial crisis; it cannot be avoided, and the cost of trying to avoid it for eight years has now accumulated and bitten us hard.
Suppose a business pays a worker $10 an hour, and their take home is about $7.50 an hour. Clearly, this worker is willing to work in his current environment for a net pay of $7.50 an hour.
Now, let's engage in a Ron Paul fantasy for a moment. The government never taxes anybody, provides no welfare, no police protection, no roads, water or sewage or electricity, no public transportation, none of that stuff. Businesses are unregulated. Is the worker still willing to work for $7.50/hr? HELL no, because his expenses just went WAY, WAY up.
Suddenly, every road he takes is a toll road, if it exists at all. Suddenly he must join with others to hire a local police force or buy protection against robbery, suddenly, he must find a way to pay for all the things the government currently does, but out of his paycheck. So, at a minimum, he demands from the business $10/hr for work, but more likely, he is demanding $15/hr because in this new environment, everybody is trying to make a profit off their roads, their private police force, their water services, their sewage services, their energy services, their garbage collection services, their food inspection services and everything else. He not only has a lot more insurance premiums to pay, he has to pay to find out if insurance companies are defrauding customers. There is no SEC or any other agency to protect him.
We have a prima facie case that people are willing to work in their current environment for whatever their current take-home pay may be. And because of the way markets and human psychology work (and I am trained at the graduate level in both), if the environment changes and their costs rise they will not try to make more money in such a crisis, they will just demand enough more to stay even.
So their take home pay is still going to be $7.50/hr, and they will only demand enough over that to replicate something close to their current environment.
Either way, the worker must pay for infrastructure. There is no way they can keep the extra money, period.
Taxes are a fee that must be paid, and by requiring all citizens pay for the infrastructure, government is a fuckin' bargain compared to the profit-driven alternative.
It is the job of government to provide the services the majority of citizens do not want run at a profit, and that includes infrastructure, police protection, the military, the court systems, the school system, building and drug and food inspections, professional licensing examinations, and increasingly the medical care systems.
PeteKent is an illiterate, uneducated fool. You can't even spell diatribe, you moron!
HEY GROG -
Keep the faith. There will be a revolution in the is country because of what's going on.
Let me tell you something I am really sick of, Bub.
I AM REALLY SICK OF CHEAP THREATS.
I don't care how pathetic and cowardly they are, after the last eight years, I am just SICK of them.
I see what you wrote, dickhead. You didn't say "we will win the next election".
You posted a vague but definite threat of using violence ("revolution") to impose your own unpopular views on everyone else.
Let me make this clear to you.
You are NOT going to be able to use violence to overthrow American democracy.
You better get that fantasy out of your head, because if you ever act on it, you'll end up ruining or ending your own life.
Harold:
Calm down.
Webster's definition of a revolution is: "a sudden, radical, or complete change." No one said anything about violence. When what's going is fully exposed there will be " a sudden, radical, or complete change" in how people feel about this president, what they think the role of government should be, how they feel about mortgaging their children's future.
Harold and Tony....excellent posts.
Those of you talking revolution...that's treasonous. I'm not the type to go ratting on my fellow Americans, it's a free country with free speech and you can say what you want, but after 8 years of being told I'm a commie traitor for not completely falling in line with everything Bush said, after he left us in our most dire situation since World War II, for you to talk of overthrowing our republic is fucking sick.
Ironically, it's the RED part of Washington & Oregon most vulnerable to volcanos. The ash blows east to Spokane & Wenatchee, not West over Portland & Seattle
But don't worry, we're all in this together, Red and Blue.
According to his communications director, he wrote it himself.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20090221/UPDATES01/90221014
GROG -
Since you clarified, I gladly retract my statement that you, personally, threatened violence.
You could use words like "landslide", that have no violent connotation, for clarity. I concede that "revolution" is sometimes used to describe election results. (Of course I don't think that the next few elections are going to be Repubican landslides, but that's another matter.)
My post still reflects my feelings toward those who do make such threats.
Typically, Republicans give the anti-government pitch to a leading recipient of government largesse.
American taxpayers funded Louisiana's recovery. Arrogantly claiming it was solely Louisianan's "spirit," Jindal scoffs at the national government that flooded - and still floods - his state with cash from the rest of us.
He should have been saying "thank you, thank you, thank you" to Americans for what did for his state through our federal government.
I keep hearing how "talented" Jindal is. Yet everytime I see him he underwhelms me. I think he's toast if he tries to go against Obama.
Between Jindal and Palin, they're focked. I bet the two of them will end up cancelling each other out and we'll end up with Huckabee or Romney. If the economy is still bad, Romney's their best choice. If we're just a little better off in 4 years, Obama wins in a Reaganesque landslide.
PeteKent:
Your money belongs to you, not the government -- until it takes it from you in the form of taxes.
What is this "the government" that "takes" things from us? The government is us, the imperfect process of realizing our collective will. And "the government" doesn't tax us; it's the way we tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. Unfortunately, that identity between us and "the government" got lost when Republicans decided to run against "the government." It was a way to win elections for a while, but it was not a sustainable way to govern.
Remember the government never gave them a thing
Yeah, nothing. Except roads, sewers, an at least somewhat educated workforce, national defense....need I go on?
There's a good article about higher taxes in today's NT Times. The effective tax rate on the top 1% of earners has dropped in the past 30 years from 38% to 31%, even though their incomes have increased dramatically. And raising the rates historically has not impeded economic growth. As I recall, there was a lot of risk-taking and innovation during the 90s when the top marginal tax rate was 39.6%. I'm continually amazed that so many people keep spouting the same ideology when even very recent history seems to contradict it.
taxation is not the way to lift the economy out of the doldrums or pay for the social programs of the many.
I don't know about that. The Swedes seem pretty happy with their higher levels of taxation and their social programs for the many. That's not to say we should adopt their system; it's only to emphasize that we need to recognize that we have to be willing to pay for the things we say we want (including wars and tax cuts), and that there are many other systems that seem to function just fine.
As someone who lives in the state that harbors Mt. St. Helens, me and my (conservative) dad both turned to eachother and that point and said, "That was a dumb thing to have a problem with." There may be some states where they aren't familiar with the necessity of volcano monitoring, but I would think that most people would be smart enough to infer that is isn't wasteful spending.
Ok, so you've made the point that volcano monitoring is important. Now, two things:
1) What does volcano monitoring have to do with economic stimulus?
- and since your inevitable answer is "well, because it's the easiest way to get it passed"
2) If it's so important, then why does it need to be snuck into a bill it has nothing to do with?
My main criticisms of Jindal's response
1. The pale 'I'm just like Obama' start. Naff copy of the Obama 2004 Convention speech.
2. The tone deafness of it all. From moaning about Volcano monitoring (WTF from the Gov of Louisiana??!!??) as a way of complaining about pork, to the Katrina anecdote as a way of moaning about government bureaucracy (wanna try Hurricane response without government?)
The delivery, and the lack of audience reaction really don't come into it much. And its the political tone deafness of the speech that would worry me if I were a GOP type looking to Jindal as the future of the party.
On a wider point, given that Obama was going to deliver something that was always going to deliver something of at least a very good standard, why risk letting a new bright young thing of your party blow the response? Why not give it to someone more experienced and less with their eyes on 2012?
Bear in mind that Obama has spent in one month more than Bush did in seven years on the two wars and Katrina relief!
I find it amusing that the right attacks Obama's spending, which is in response to the disaster carefully created and cultivated (see Bush's SEC, Bush's OCC, Bush's OTS, ridiculously low interest rates, etc.), but barely said "boo" when the crisis was in the making. Or as Axelrod called it, "the mess that we inherited."
I think at this point, the GOP should take a big, healthy dose of STFU, and try to come up with some coherent ideas rather than just more of the same.
Pete kent wrote:
What troubles me is that we have effectively just spent a trillion dollars without any debate and with few people even knowing what they spent it on.
No, we have appropriated money. It hasn't been spent (except for the relatively small amounts that Obama mentioned in the speech). There is a great deal of discussion and debate about what to spend it on.
There was not, however, an immense amount of debate over the appropriation because it was crystal clear that the GOP was going to block it in any case. And rather than participate in the discussion of how this should be spent, the GOP has instead chosen to shriek "Porkulus!" and giggle like a flock of witlings at their so-called cleverness.
So your "troubles" are unfounded. Your Party is seriously hosed, however.
Rustjive,
Oh were to begin, firstly Jindal pointed to the Volcano Monitoring thing as wasteful government spending, as something 'unworthy', secondly, when what the economy needs is money spent, as far as stimulus is concerned, whatever you spend it on is fine. And here is an appropriation bill, I believe Obama's first, so its hardly snuck in.
And as far as PK's comment about a lack of debate about how to spend the money, I don;t really remember much in the way of debate about the Iraq War, and I remember that anyone who dared speak up in opposition to it was called an appeaser or worse, by the President of the US. Obama has treated the opponents of the bill with nothing but respect. So shut the hell up about no debate about the money.
Sure, Jindal is talented, but he's also bound up in an ideology that's out of ideas. That kind of limits his options for speechifying - pretty much guarantees he's going to have to deliver a crummy one.
I too wondered where the Disneyland/Vegas train talking point came from. I Googled it and found an interesting story on HuffPost. see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/futuristic-levitating-tra_n_105783.html
The idea of a levitating train from CA to LV has been around for about 20 years. In fact, the president signed a transportation bill that kicked in $45M for the project. It was President Bush on June 6, 2008.
Rustjive:
1) What does volcano monitoring have to do with economic stimulus?
- and since your inevitable answer is "well, because it's the easiest way to get it passed"
2) If it's so important, then why does it need to be snuck into a bill it has nothing to do with?
1)If it expands the present system, then it provides jobs. But even if it doesn't...
2)The Alternative Minimum Tax patch is something like $80 billion, and it's not stimulative. But it was needed to get Republican votes in the Senate. I would have liked a "clean" bill too. Welcome to the wonderful world of legislating; it's not pretty.
markymark said:
"And as far as PK's comment about a lack of debate about how to spend the money, I don;t really remember much in the way of debate about the Iraq War, and I remember that anyone who dared speak up in opposition to it was called an appeaser or worse, by the President of the US. Obama has treated the opponents of the bill with nothing but respect. So shut the hell up about no debate about the money."
The Iraq war passed through the Senate and House with flying colors and with bipartisan support. It was not rushed through by any means. How do you figure there was no debate on it?
BTW, I totally agree with you on Jindal's speech. Yes, he followed on of the great orators of all time, but his delivery was just plain awful. It was embarrasing.
nikip5555 said:
"Sure, Jindal is talented, but he's also bound up in an ideology that's out of ideas"
The Democrats haven't had a new idea in generations. All they have is the same old raise taxes, increase the size of government and cut defense. You can pretty it up with a beautiful sounding speech all you want, but at the end of the day all you have are huge deficits, huge inflation, weaker national defense, and bigger government.
Pete Kent wrote:
Isn't this really politics as usual as the new guys take over and decide that they will be just as abusive as the scoundrels they replaced?
From where I sit it looks like some people who never held "their guy" to any standards whatsoever now feel very strongly that "the other guy" should be held to very stringent standards. So, it's politics as usual from you, I'd say. Your vaunted superior morality seems to surface at very convenient times for your own interests and viewpoints. Isn't that what you criticised the evil, degenerate Democrats for? Where's the reform on your part, Mr. Kent?
In reality, though, it is much simpler than you make it out to be. A huge mess has been handed to Obama, and it will be expensive to fix it. It doesn't even matter who caused the mess; it has to be cleaned up.
You can argue that if Iraq turns into a long term ally in the Mid-East and a counter to our enemies in the Islamic world, then Iraq was a good thing.
Does 'a good thing' equal $1.5 trillion? Maybe to you. Certainly the waste involved in that effort was staggering: $4 billion in one month alone that nobody has any idea where it went. So huge expenditures without oversight are okay with you, as long as someone can eventually label the result as 'a good thing' by some completely subjective measure. I submit to you:
"You can argue that if the stimulus turns into a long term benefit to the economy and increases the economic stability of the entire world, then the stimulus was a good thing. "
By the standards you just laid out for judging Iraq, you should abandon your qualms about the stimulus. But since you seem to merely parrot the current talking points, I do not expect this to happen.
GROG: The Democrats haven't had a new idea in generations. All they have is the same old raise taxes, increase the size of government and cut defense. You can pretty it up with a beautiful sounding speech all you want, but at the end of the day all you have are huge deficits, huge inflation, weaker national defense, and bigger government.
Let's see. That's pretty much what Clinton did--raise taxes, cut defense, etc.--and we wound up with no deficits, low inflation, and sustained economic growth even before the tech bubble. There's nothing wrong with old ideas--if they work.
Also, there are some new ideas. We spend twice as much as our European counterparts on health care only to get the same results. We spend God knows how much on cold war weapons systems when there's no more cold war. There are nonpartisan ideas floating around on accountability in education. So Obama has floated a bunch of new ideas, if people are willing to listen to what he's actually saying.
Plus Obama is at least asking the wealthy to help pay for the things we say we want. Under Bush, tax cuts were free, wars were free, and prescription drug benefits were free. One could argue that the only Republican ideas seem to be tax cuts, more spending, and mammoth deficits (see Reagan and W. Bush).
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090225/NEWS02/902250416
Interesting article on why even a Dem governor is thinking about rejecting the stimulus funds for unemployemnt relief.
That whole "stim-u-less" bill is a fairy tale. It is nothing more than disguised social policy that will do little to improve the economy.
Even the most basic income transfer elements of the bill have been runied.
I dont think anyone would argue with monitoring volcanos. I think its reasonable to argue with funding volcano monitoring out of a stimulus bill meant to build infrastructure and create jobs.
Fund it some other time when the money is there, and through the normal venues. In times like this, it's just one of those things that needs to be put on the backburner...that is if you have a theory of government that involves fiscal responsibility.
Maybe Jindal will support getting rid of NORAD, which failed horribly during the 9/11 attacks. Even with VP Cheney at the helm.
dsimon:
Bill Clinton tried to balance the budget at the price of our national security and it left us with a global terrorist threat and a defense infrastructure in shambles --another way of leaving to future generations the work that needs to be done today.
The economy was already in recession when Clinton left office, btw. Bush and his tax cuts brought us out of it. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their manipulations of Freddie and Fannie threw us back into one.
I really question your arguments concerning the relative efficacy of American healthcare. My anecdotal impression is that we have the most thorough, widely available care in the world. I would be reluctant to trade our system for the European model. I suspect someone is playing with the metrics so as to manipulate the debate.
This was my favorite: "Plus Obama is at least asking the wealthy to help pay for the things we say we want."
Why the fudge should the "wealthy" be the ones to pay for what "we" want? Shouldn't we question our desires and start thinking about sacrifice? True sacrifice for all? Not just the sacrifice of the rich?
What is that you are willing to give up?
Get your hand out of other people's pockets! Your attitude is disgraceful and should it become the norm will be the reason why America's greatest days are behind us.
@PeteKent:
houldn't we question our desires and start thinking about sacrifice? True sacrifice for all? Not just the sacrifice of the rich?
Hell no. Look at the stats, the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer, and since the bulk of taxes are paid by the middle class, we are now saddled with about $30,000 more per household of national debt.
So screw the rich, we already sacrificed and it is their turn to do the same; rich individuals and rich corporations are the only beneficiaries of the Bush Administration, and it turns out it was all a fraud perpetrated on the middle class with the loot going to them. We should now take it all back, from them, with higher taxes.
Besides the moral issue of balancing the books between the rich and the poor, let us discuss this whole question of "sacrifice."
Sacrifice is relative. Me giving up an extra 10% of my income to taxes would cause far larger pain than a multi-millionaire giving up an extra 10% of his income. For him it just changes a number in some account. For me it changes my discretionary income so drastically I have to modify my lifestyle.
So I say sure, let us all sacrifice equally. Let us equalize the relative pain of taxes. The percentages are meaningless. My taxes should cause exactly as much inconvenience to me as his do to him, and that puts my tax rate at about 10% and his at about 25%.
The day the rich have to buy a cheaper car or a smaller house because their taxes prohibit more expensive tastes is the day their taxes are about right.
It was the rich that siphoned off the trillions of dollars from our economy and saddled us with the bill; it should be the rich alone that foot the bill for the bailout. Maybe it will teach them a lesson about their free lunch.
@Chuck P- You haven't been studying up much on macroeconomic and the meaning of 'stimulus', I guess. It's worth responding to you because many people say similar things.
The whole point of stimulus spending in a downturn is that its effective cost to society is lower than during boom times, because it uses otherwise underutilized resources. In extreme cases, the cost can go negative because the spending helps avoid a spiral into a minimally productive high-unemployment depression. So various programs that would be useful but perhaps marginally cost-effective in normal times become very highly cost- effective in a downturn.
In saying that these programs should be delayed until 'normal' times, you have the economics exactly backwards. This is not some creative thought on my part but rather the standard view of most economists and mathematically-minded people, regardless of ideology.
GROG Said
The Iraq war passed through the Senate and House with flying colors and with bipartisan support. It was not rushed through by any means. How do you figure there was no debate on it?
-------------------------
Don't get me wrong here, most of the Dems were completely gutless on the Iraq War vote (and notice how so many of them have tried to walk back there votes on it) BUT that is sort of my point, that the Bush White House put so much pressure on the Democrats to back the war, through its rhetoric, through its exaggerated evidence, through its actions in the congress (really actually not allowing any meaningful DEBATE of the issue, beyond a few speeches) that there really wasn't any debate of the Iraq War. Actually in many ways the huge majorities the war got was a sign of the lack of debate. IMHO bipartisanship isn't marked out by how many people from the other side have supported your bill, but with how much respect have you treated the opposition, and IMO Obama beats Bush hands down on that score. And the Dems still beat the GOP ion that score as well, after all in Michael Steele threatening the GOP backers of the bill.
@Chuck:
Monitoring volcanos is part of infrastructure; if you have a theory of government that involves not leaving citizens to be burned alive and suffocated because you want to save 0.014% of a budget, or about 48 cents per citizen. It's a frikkin' round-off error.
Stop beating around the bush, Silver. With the electoral college having swelled to 539 votes, the name of your blog is a thing of the past, like the mastodon and AMC. How will you deal with this stunning blow????
PeteKent: Bill Clinton tried to balance the budget at the price of our national security and it left us with a global terrorist threat and a defense infrastructure in shambles
The reason our government didn't catch the 9/11 hijackers ahead of time has nothing to do with reduced defense spending. It was an intelligence failure. Do we really think that another aircraft carrier or air force strike group would have helped? And do we think that these things are still needed to combat terrorism today?
And the fact that the US military overran Iraq so quickly belies the claim that our defense infrastructure was in "shambles." Or did W manage to bring it all up to par in his first year in office when it wasn't even his budget that year?
The economy was already in recession when Clinton left office, btw. Bush and his tax cuts brought us out of it. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their manipulations of Freddie and Fannie threw us back into one.
If you read what I wrote, I said that the Clinton tax code did not seem to inhibit strong and sustained growth even if one discounts the tech bubble in the last two years of his term. You don't seem to dispute that.
The idea that W's tax cuts brought us out of recession is unsubstantiated. Recessions can end of their own accord. W's tax cuts also left us with massive debt. And I find it a bit incongruous to argue that Clinton left our military in shambles, while Bush got us into two wars and asked us to pay for--how much of it? Not only did he not ask us to pay, we got more tax cuts. So much for "support the troops."
And the claim that Fannie and Freddie, along with government intervention, caused our present economic woes is just wrong. Government didn't tell mortgage brokers to sell loans to people without checking their incomes. Government didn't tell investment banks to leverage themselves 30 or 40 to one. Government didn't tell investors that housing prices can only go up. If you're interested in facts and not talking points, you might want to reconsider your claims.
I really question your arguments concerning the relative efficacy of American healthcare. My anecdotal impression is that we have the most thorough, widely available care in the world. I would be reluctant to trade our system for the European model. I suspect someone is playing with the metrics so as to manipulate the debate.
Well, how about doing some research so that you're not relying on anecdotes? Our care is certainly not the most widely available. We obviously don't cover everyone while our peer nations do. Illness is our #1 cause of personal bankruptcy, while such occurrences are unheard of in Europe.
For starters, here's a chart on what we spend versus our peer countries:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/03/health/03nice.graph.1.html
And from what I've read, our overall health outcomes are no better than our peer countries.
Why the fudge should the "wealthy" be the ones to pay for what "we" want?...Get your hand out of other people's pockets! Your attitude is disgraceful and should it become the norm will be the reason why America's greatest days are behind us.
First, the wealthy have been the biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. The vast majority of the tax cuts went to the top few percent of earners. I don't see why it's so unfair to ask those of us in that category (and I'm one of them) to at least go back to what we were paying under Clinton. Those rates didn't break the bank, and everyone wound up doing pretty darn well as I recall.
But I agree with you that everyone should be asked to help out. Right now is not the time when so many people are having trouble just putting food on the table, so only the wealthy are really in a position to help. But our long term fiscal problems will not be solved by marginally higher tax rates on the wealthy alone. When the economy has recovered, then I'd be perfectly willing to ask everyone to kick in a little more for the programs we say we want.
As far as hands in other people's pockets, with that attitude we wouldn't have any government at all, not even defense. We don't get to pick and choose which government services we want to pay for. There are plenty of spending programs I object to, but if a majority of others think they're a national function then I wind up paying for them too. If I don't want to pay for them, I need to convince more people to tell their representatives to take it out of the budget. But until then, the majority has their hands in my pockets. Welcome to majority rule. It's far from perfect, but if there's a better system, no one has figured it out yet.
PeteKent: The economy was already in recession when Clinton left office, btw. Bush and his tax cuts brought us out of it.
Sorry for the double post, but it has to be mentioned that the growth coming out of the recession was extremely weak. Job creation was historically low for an economy in supposed recovery. And except for the wealthy, wages remained stagnant. I don't think these results are a ringing endorsement for tax cuts as a recession cure.
Seattle and Portland are both located near active volcanoes. If Mt. Rainier or Mt. Hood were going to erupt, we would want to know about it. Mt. St. Helens, which is further from major population centers than Rainier or Hood, still managed to kill 57 people in 1980 and do a billion dollars in damage. Those from flatter parts of the country may think of volcanoes as exotic and strange, but in the Pacific Northwest, people respect their destructive power.
Regarding Jindal's comments re: volcanoes, on their face I think there may actually be something to the idea of allowing private business groups to work in concert with the federal and state government to do things like volcano monitoring, deliver the mail (if UPS can deliver packages, why shouldn't they be allowed to ship stuff first class?), space exploration (you know that if Google and NASA were in a race to put a man on Mars, Google would win HANDS DOWN), etc.
The problem that Jindal seems to be unaware of or unconcerned with is that at present, there ARE no such private businesses with the resources, funds or people to do such a thing. As a result, we have to "settle" for the "necessary evil" that is the government because, like it or hate it, they're the only game in town at present.
If I was to look at this and some other comments of Jindal's from a religious viewpoint, I would sum this up as another classic example of the "faith vs. works" debate that goes on in biblical circles. Jindal, based on his speech last night, would seem to come down squarely on the faith side.
The Republican party is not dead, nor will it be, but won't be a force for a while. 2012 appears to be Obama in a landslide. The question is who's on the bench for the Dems for 2016 (probably a governor) and can the Republicans muster anyone to compete by then. It might be a bit dangerous to have a dominant party along with a fringe anti-reality Limbaugh fueled crackpot minority. We might have to worry more about OK city type terrorism than any Islamic stuff...
@Matt:
The problem with having private enterprise deliver something as important as the mail is that, like UPS, there are places it is not profitable to deliver, so either they refuse to deliver there, or they charge $2 per letter.
There is nothing wrong if FedEx or somebody wants to make a profit delivering packages or letters reliably, but the US Post Office is the only service you can count on to deliver virtually everywhere, even if it may take a week to get there.
The post office may not be the most efficient operation in the world, but it is important to keep in mind it is not a profit center for a corporation: If it were, like UPS or FedEx, it might be run more efficiently, but would cost us five times as much, because it would have some corporate suite sucking a quarter billion a year out of it in bonuses, salaries and perks. Think how loud the screaming would be if the Post Office suddenly started charging an extra dollar in tax for every letter mailed, or if first class stamps went to $2.00 apiece overnight.
It is the job of the government to do the jobs that we do not want done at a profit. To me, routine mail is one of those infrastructure services like good roads and highways that can aid commerce without any favoritism.
Matt said...
deliver the mail (if UPS can deliver packages, why shouldn't they be allowed to ship stuff first class?)
Would UPS deliver a letter from Key West, Florida to Nome, Alaska for the same cost as a letter from St. Louis, Missouri to Kansas City, Missouri?
Would UPS even pick up a letter FROM, or deliver a letter TO, any address outside of any municipality of less than 500 population?
This 'let private interests deliver the mail, for cheaper' mantra is pure BS when it comes to those who live outside metropolitan areas.
Along that same line: The 'let private schools educate the children for less and better' - the day that a private school is required to enroll and educate ANY AND ALL children who show up at the door, no matter what their education needs are, no matter what their medical needs are, AND the private schools agree to do that, is the day that I MIGHT start to consider allowing private schools to receive government money. Until that day, the private schools can shove their selective enrollment policies up their bank accounts.
Let's drop Bobby Jindal into Alaska's Redoubt Volcano and see how hot his ass gets. That might be the best volcano monitoring system the Republithugs have. When Jindal's ass melts off that means the volcano is ready to erupt.
Like MSNBC's Chris Matthews, I also said "Oh God" when I saw BoJi slump around the corner. He looked horrible and walked like he had a broomstick shoved were the Sun never shines. He was the quintessential, nervous high school dork making his first speech before the student body as to why he and not the smart, cool, popular kid should be student body president.
Sorry, dork boy. You can be a Rhodes Scholar 'til you're blue in the face, but if you don't have the sense God gave a goose, you're not going to be anything more that the girlfriendless president of the chess club.
Forget the Philippines. What about Hawaii. The whole is a giant military base. And a giant volcano. Talk about dumb, almost every place that has significant volcanic activity PLUS American citizens is military, and Bobby J wants to mock the measures that keep them safe. Nice one, BJ. Keep up the good work.
At the moment, there is a volcano that the USGS is examining very closely in Alaska going by the name from Mt. Redoubt
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2123
It's true that Redoubt is over a hundred miles from the nearest large town (Anchorage), but it's also true that the last time it went off, a whole plane full of people nearly plummeted to their deaths. Now, thanks to the USGS, the State Government of Alaska knows that a volcano is coming, and has a radar station watching it for any sign of an ash plume. Ted Stevens Airport (what a name!) can close in a moment's notice, and all planes in the area can be diverted.
Now, I wonder what Palin thinks about volcano research?
GOP only cares about lining there pockets with Big Oil Money!Obama was right on target about Green Energy.
However we really need to think out of the box here as well.We need new ideas and forward thinking.. I just read an article about creating star power here on earth. Plus I recently discovered a company called Energetics Technologies. They have a process called SuperWaveFusion, which could be a possible break through in cold fusion. I recently read that 2 independent labs have replicated this process, this is the type of new thinking we need!
@digbonr:
My job is high tech but I don't think we need any high tech solutions to the energy problem. For starters, read the MIT report on geothermal energy; it is huge, detailed, and very encouraging. There is enough geothermal energy to power the USA 200 times over indefinitely at costs comparable to what we pay now.
The concept of geothermal is simple: Wherever you stand, drill down about five miles and the bottom of the hole is so hot you can use it as a firebox for a steam engine. Implementation is helped by some high tech stuff; such as closed system down-hole devices that use (safe) liquids with low boiling points, but the idea of a steam engine is the same and over a century old. People get it, and hysterical fringe opposition is nearly zero and easily dismissed.
On the west and east coasts, in Texas and Oklahoma, we have wind power that comes cheap. Those big turbines pay for themselves 100% in less than three years and will last for twenty to thirty years; operations and maintenance cost like 10% of otherwise free revenue. I am glad T. Boone Pickens is involved, but he is involved primarily because they are lucrative investments.
Although solar panels will probably never be a scalable reality, thermal solar is definitely scalable and also cheap: An aluminum mirror can be made as thin as the aluminum in a soda can and is cheap to polish.
All these are electric options, but remember the primary cost of hydrogen as a fuel is electrolysis of water, with oxygen as an emission (or separately captured as a fuel in its own right). Electricity is also the primary cost of compressing hydrogen or oxygen to liquid form in tanks. An electric generating field doesn't need batteries for storing energy, it can break down water and store liquid hydrogen and oxygen, which we know how to transport and use as fuel. "Burning hydrogen" consists of, you know, oxidizing it.
Could we please stop hearing that his speech was bad because he had to follow Obama, who is a great orator? Does anyone think Jindal's speech would have been any better received or any more relevant if it had been a stand alone speech?
Worse than the Kenneth delivery style, which might be a consequence of bad coaching, is that the content was devoid of any real ideas--which is what really reflects most badly on Jindal and the rest of the GOP. It's the same old tired "government is the problem" talking point that is ludicrous to be making when the situation is one that cries out for government action.
They have no new ideas geared to helping the country. Paul Krugman nailed it, it was just Beavis & Butthead-snarking at things that sound silly when you don't understand what they mean. While that might make for a funny cartoon series, it's a lousy way to make policy or convince people you're serious about their welfare.
免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 視訊交友網 美女視訊 視訊交友 視訊交友90739 成人聊天室 視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 情色視訊 情人視訊網 視訊美女
一葉情貼圖片區 免費視訊聊天室 免費視訊 ut聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 影音視訊聊天室
辣妹視訊 美女視訊 視訊交友網 視訊聊天室 視訊交友 視訊美女 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天室 成人聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室 辣妺視訊 A片 色情A片 視訊 080視訊聊天室 視訊美女34c 視訊情人高雄網 視訊交友高雄網 0204貼圖區 sex520免費影片 情色貼圖 視訊ukiss 視訊ggoo 視訊美女ggoo
080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室ut ut影音視訊聊天室13077 視訊做愛 kk777視訊俱樂部 上班族聊天室 聊天室找一夜 情色交友 情色貼片 小瓢蟲情色論壇 aio交友愛情館
哈拉聊天室 洪爺影城
情趣用品 情趣用品 情趣用品 情趣 情趣用品 情趣
dfsdfds
借金返済に特化した弁護士が作成した、知っておくと役に立つキャッシングの知識を習得できるページです。キャッシングの種類、基礎知識、トラブル予防・解決策、金利をめぐる法改正と支払金額、過払い金・ブラックリストなどのキーワード解説から構成しています。
As a Libertarian minded Conservative, I'm not much on big government. I am also in the Army and love my country. Didn't vote for the man, (McCain either) but if we are going to spend a lot of money, I would rather it be this stuff. I am old enough to have watched them land on the the moon, and all of the wonderful things that came out of that. No this is money better spent than to send me and my son to Iraq to kill people and tear up their country.
chevy volt review
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment