NationStates Jolt Archive

And people wonder why I wish Pelosi would fall off the planet.

Full Article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/navarrette.stimulus/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

When ABC's George Stephanopolous asked Pelosi to explain how birth control helps the economy, here's what the speaker said: "The family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

...

When you make the argument that contraception is a cost-saving measure for state and federal government, some might think what you're implying is that the babies who would otherwise have been born were destined to become dependent on welfare and other public services.

And for those who think wrongly that welfare dependents only come in two colors -- black and brown -- it's easy to see which births need to be controlled. That's how you connect the dots.

Now, maybe that isn't where Pelosi was headed with her comments. It doesn't matter. She shouldn't have said what she said. Imagine if these remarks had come from a conservative Republican from a red state instead of a liberal Democrat from a blue state. The left-leaning media would have gone nuts.

Either way, Pelosi's comments apparently didn't go over splendidly at the White House. After the interview, Obama urged congressional leaders to pull the plug on the funding for birth control, which they did.

Dumbass overinterpretations FTW!

Apparently, you have not been keeping up with the news. The condoms are out. Have been for days.

And people wonder why I wish Pelosi would fall off the planet.
Your misunderstanding of gravity aside, could you tell us in your own words what is ridiculous about that item?

Dumbass overinterpretations FTW!

Worthless flamebait replies FTW!

Apparently, you have not been keeping up with the news. The condoms are out. Have been for days.

No shit. It actually says that in the article.

Your misunderstanding of gravity aside, could you tell us in your own words what is ridiculous about that item?

Are you asking because you disagree with the comments in the article, or because you haven't bothered to read it?

75 million for smoking cessation - tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short term.

Democrats want to include a new car crushing plan in the "stimulus" bill where the government would buy new cars and trucks that obtain less than 18 mpg and crush them.

Tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and save the economy.

We could go on and on...

More idiocy from our friends on The Hill:

P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.

P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.

Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+

Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

Page 32: $1.5 billion for a “carbon-capturing contest”

Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.

$200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.

Worthless flamebait replies FTW!

Hey, you were the one who couldn't be bothered to do more than post someone else's shallow commentary. I was responding on the same level. I've seen you care enough to write your own thoughts before, but not this time, I guess.

Here's Robert Reich's shallow commentary. No stimulus spending on any white people, period.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1411081/robert_reich_excludes_white_male_construction.html

And people wonder why I wish Pelosi would fall off the planet.

Full Article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/navarrette.stimulus/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Didn't Obama promise that there would be NO pork in the stimulus bills? But then what would one expect from a President that would also say, "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses, now is not that time."

Aren't we in a recession? Wouldn't profits be good? As far as bonuses, he clearly doesn't understand free enterprise. But we knew that when, during the campaign, he promised to raise taxes on capital gains.

Didn't Obama promise that there would be NO pork in the stimulus bills? But then what would one expect from a President that would also say, "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses, now is not that time."

Aren't we in a recession? Wouldn't profits be good? As far as bonuses, he clearly doesn't understand free enterprise. But we knew that when, during the campaign, he promised to raise taxes on capital gains.

What about his promise of a tax cut for "95% of Americans"?

That certainly isn't in the stimulus package.

P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.
It's a jobs and infrastructure program. A very narrowly targeted program, I'll grant you, but there is demand from taxpayers. I might like it better if they paid for it via fees and permits, but then I'm not an ATV owner.

P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
Again, a jobs program for medical and lab people. There's always a huge amount of work for those folks, so maybe this is training. I haven't read the bill, just guessing. It still puts spending money in people's pockets, which is the goal of this bill as I understand it.

Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+
Staggering if they were all make-work jobs. I believe the Coast Guard has responsibilities for thinks like the IntraCoastal Waterways and such, which always need work. There's also the anti-terror responsibilities in the major ports. I'm betting they could easily spend $572 million making improvements to safety and anti-terror measures for the Port of Los Angeles alone. There's plenty of needs in our waterways.

I'm not disagreeing that there's pork in the bill, just the way you cherry-pick it. Bring a real argument to the table, and leave the soundbites for the news channels.

What about his promise of a tax cut for "95% of Americans"?

That certainly isn't in the stimulus package.

Anyone who expected it to be... Well, he's a politician.

It's a jobs and infrastructure program. A very narrowly targeted program, I'll grant you, but there is demand from taxpayers. I might like it better if they paid for it via fees and permits, but then I'm not an ATV owner.


Again, a jobs program for medical and lab people. There's always a huge amount of work for those folks, so maybe this is training. I haven't read the bill, just guessing. It still puts spending money in people's pockets, which is the goal of this bill as I understand it.


Staggering if they were all make-work jobs. I believe the Coast Guard has responsibilities for thinks like the IntraCoastal Waterways and such, which always need work. There's also the anti-terror responsibilities in the major ports. I'm betting they could easily spend $572 million making improvements to safety and anti-terror measures for the Port of Los Angeles alone. There's plenty of needs in our waterways.

I'm not disagreeing that there's pork in the bill, just the way you cherry-pick it. Bring a real argument to the table, and leave the soundbites for the news channels.

The whole thing is pork. Pure, unadulterated pork.

I don't see how this "stimulates" the economy - and more to the point, I see no cogent argument presented as to how this exact combination of pork is supposed to magically restore faith and confidence in the economy - it does no such thing.

All it does is add debt to an already floundering government.

What about his promise of a tax cut for "95% of Americans"?

That certainly isn't in the stimulus package.
I'm more concerned that 95% of all Americans don't pay taxes. The refundable tax credit is just a sham that is perpetuated by legislators to buy votes. If one doesn't pay taxes, one CANNOT get a tax refund or tax credit.

Want to stimulate the economy?
1. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
2. Declare a three month tax holiday from all income and payroll taxes.

The first may be enough, but the second will put the icing on the cake -- and will make folks realize, for the first time in may cases, how much the government really does take.

I'm more concerned that 95% of all Americans don't pay taxes. The refundable tax credit is just a sham that is perpetuated by legislators to buy votes. If one doesn't pay taxes, one CANNOT get a tax refund or tax credit.

Want to stimulate the economy?
1. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
2. Declare a three month tax holiday from all income and payroll taxes.

The first may be enough, but the second will put the icing on the cake -- and will make folks realize, for the first time in may cases, how much the government really does take.

I was wondering how the 1 out of 3 who pay zero federal income tax were supposed to get a "refund". You only get a refund if you've paid in.

Hey, you were the one who couldn't be bothered to do more than post someone else's shallow commentary. I was responding on the same level. I've seen you care enough to write your own thoughts before, but not this time, I guess.

You could have said so, because that's a reasonable point. As it was, that was a pretty useless reply. Unfortunately, no cookie for you.:p

I'd like to hear some thoughts on the issue of Pelosi apparently linking population control with saving money. Isn't a higher population, ideally, a good thing because individual people PRODUCE more than they consume when growing an economy?

I was wondering how the 1 out of 3 who pay zero federal income tax were supposed to get a "refund". You only get a refund if you've paid in.

That's not true. You could get EIC or additional child tax credit, or many other refundable tax credits, including the new homeowner's credit this year.

Reich's use of nutball Berkeley language obscures the fact that he has half a point: if government spending ends up directed mainly toward people who are already poised to be the first people back to work when the economy rebounds, then it doesn't address the larger economic problem of having large blocks of less-employable people around. This should not be a focus of an immediate economic stimulus, but it's not the sort of thing that sensible economists should ignore.

So, nutty, yes, shallow, no.

I was wondering how the 1 out of 3 who pay zero federal income tax were supposed to get a "refund". You only get a refund if you've paid in.

That's how it ought to be, but the way they figure it you get certain credits which turn into real dollars in the balance.

Reich's use of nutball Berkeley language obscures the fact that he has half a point: if government spending ends up directed mainly toward people who are already poised to be the first people back to work when the economy rebounds, then it doesn't address the larger economic problem of having large blocks of less-employable people around. This should not be a focus of an immediate economic stimulus, but it's not the sort of thing that sensible economists should ignore.

So, nutty, yes, shallow, no.

Racist, yes. Douchebaggery, yes.

Here's Robert Reich's shallow commentary. No stimulus spending on any white people, period.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1411081/robert_reich_excludes_white_male_construction.html

Dude, we've already pointed out in your stupid thread on the subject how much of a mischaracterization that is, let's not try and pretend that never happened.

The man has been president for two weeks. The stimulus package is a lot of money thrown at a situation hoping that a good amount of it will stick and jobs will be created, but none of us will be able to know if that's going to happen for some time. As for the 95% tax cut that Hotwife is looking for, I don't see how that belongs in a stimulus package that is aimed at job creation.

As for the original topic of this thread, the stange comments of Nancy Pelosi, I don't understand any logic that can defend her reasoning. I think any rational personal can see the logic behind the intentions of providing contraception, but it did come across quite shallow in predicting that many of these babies would be doomed for economic trouble before they were even conceived. But it was ridiculous and Obama rightfully had it removed. Enough said.

Here's Robert Reich's shallow commentary. No stimulus spending on any white people, period.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1411081/robert_reich_excludes_white_male_construction.html
That was already debunked as a lie created and promulgated by Michelle Malkin pulling words out of context.

Are you asking because you disagree with the comments in the article, or because you haven't bothered to read it?
I'm asking because I didn't see anything in the article (or your post) that actually addresses why any of the items are "ridiculous". It reads like a right-wing nut-bar rant with no substance.

Again, in your own words, what specifically is "ridiculous" about birth-control on military bases, prevention of STDs, etc.

Added by edit: Oops. Make that "child care on military bases".

I'm asking because I didn't see anything in the article (or your post) that actually addresses why any of the items are "ridiculous". It reads like a right-wing nut-bar rant with no substance.


Ok so you didn't read it through. Gotcha. And now you want me to give you some ammo. Got it.


Again, in your own words, what specifically is "ridiculous" about birth-control on military bases, prevention of STDs, etc.

And this question right here is the dead giveaway that you haven't read it. If you had, you'd have known that the author of the article is not only mocking those items as being silly in what's supposed to be an economic stimulus package (aka pork spending) but also that he zeroed in on comments by Pelosi that reveal some very questionable motives on her part as they relate to birth control and the growth of what segment of the population is to be slowed for the sake of easing pressure on state and federal budgets. Why you want me to repeat that in the OP by paraphrasing is beyond me.

The man has been president for two weeks. The stimulus package is a lot of money thrown at a situation hoping that a good amount of it will stick and jobs will be created, but none of us will be able to know if that's going to happen for some time. As for the 95% tax cut that Hotwife is looking for, I don't see how that belongs in a stimulus package that is aimed at job creation.

As for the original topic of this thread, the stange comments of Nancy Pelosi, I don't understand any logic that can defend her reasoning. I think any rational personal can see the logic behind the intentions of providing contraception, but it did come across quite shallow in predicting that many of these babies would be doomed for economic trouble before they were even conceived. But it was ridiculous and Obama rightfully had it removed. Enough said.

Welcome to the forum. :)

And this question right here is the dead giveaway that you haven't read it. If you had, you'd have known that the author of the article is not only mocking those items as being silly in what's supposed to be an economic stimulus package (aka pork spending) but also that he zeroed in on comments by Pelosi that reveal some very questionable motives on her part as they relate to birth control and the growth of what segment of the population is to be slowed for the sake of easing pressure on state and federal budgets. Why you want me to repeat that in the OP by paraphrasing is beyond me.

That's a bullshit assessment, that tries desperately to put something in Pelosi's words that just wasn't there.

State budgets are bankrupt. Reducing state budgets would help the economy. Reducing spending on social programs would be one way to cut that, but it means cutting back on services that someone already needs.

By increasing access to contraception, etc - you can actually get BETTER 'bang for your buck'. You can get the same reduction in social program costs, for the lower expenditure.

It's basic economics.

This 'Ruben Navarrette Jr' creates a spectre. The real shame here is - you following him.

And this question right here is the dead giveaway that you haven't read it. If you had, you'd have known that the author of the article is not only mocking those items as being silly in what's supposed to be an economic stimulus package (aka pork spending)...
That's exactly what I'm getting at (and you're studiously avoiding addressing). He does mock, yes. What he doesn't do is say anything substantial about why those items are problematic. He isn't saying, "I disagree with the policy and here's why...." He's saying, essentially, "Here's something I can ridicule and a lot of people will jump on the bandwagon without bothering to think about it."

... but also that he zeroed in on comments by Pelosi that reveal some very questionable motives on her part as they relate to birth control and the growth of what segment of the population is to be slowed for the sake of easing pressure on state and federal budgets.
And he admits openly that "maybe that isn't where Pelosi was headed with her comments" - i.e. that it might just be a figment of his imagination that a lot of people will swallow without bothering to think about it.

Why you want me to repeat that in the OP by paraphrasing is beyond me.
You're not paying attention. I don't want you to keep parroting the same thing over and over again. I want to to explain what isn't explained. What is the rationale behind the idea that child-care on military bases and prevention of STD's will not stimulate the economy? I don't care about the ridicule. Show me the logic.

Why is it wrong to suggest contraception would cut back on babies born into welfare? I understand a politician would never want to say it (gotta stay away from race and class), but why can't we?

That's a bullshit assessment, that tries desperately to put something in Pelosi's words that just wasn't there.

State budgets are bankrupt. Reducing state budgets would help the economy. Reducing spending on social programs would be one way to cut that, but it means cutting back on services that someone already needs.

By increasing access to contraception, etc - you can actually get BETTER 'bang for your buck'. You can get the same reduction in social program costs, for the lower expenditure.

It's basic economics.

This 'Ruben Navarrette Jr' creates a spectre. The real shame here is - you following him.

Ah, but if increasing access to contraception gives you more bang for your buck based on the idea that fewer people will require these social programs, then it's implicit in there that the babies that would have been produced would NECESSARILY have made use of those services. That means we're assuming those babies wouldn't have been self-sufficient, as self-sufficient people produce wealth and pay INTO the state coffers rather than consuming those resources through programs like welfare, unemployment, etc.

And statistically speaking, what demographics do those tend to be? More on this below.

That's exactly what I'm getting at (and you're studiously avoiding addressing). He does mock, yes. What he doesn't do is say anything substantial about why those items are problematic. He isn't saying, "I disagree with the policy and here's why...." He's saying, essentially, "Here's something I can ridicule and a lot of people will jump on the bandwagon without bothering to think about it."


And he admits openly that "maybe that isn't where Pelosi was headed with her comments" - i.e. that it might just be a figment of his imagination that a lot of people will swallow without bothering to think about it.


You're not paying attention. I don't want you to keep parroting the same thing over and over again. I want to to explain what isn't explained. What is the rationale behind the idea that child-care on military bases and prevention of STD's will not stimulate the economy? I don't care about the ridicule. Show me the logic.

I'm not addressing your demands precisely because you have yet to say much more than bitch and moan about how I presented my OP. In this post you've finally said something substantive about the topic. Good job! You finally managed to do, after 3 posts, what most of the others did right off the bat.

As for those substantive comments, I'm replying to them in this post anyway, so enjoy.

Why is it wrong to suggest contraception would cut back on babies born into welfare? I understand a politician would never want to say it (gotta stay away from race and class), but why can't we?

Ideally if we could somehow be absolutely certain that such babies would be born into the welfare system and leech off of it indefinitely, then from a strictly financial perspective that's fine.

The problem is that first, there's no such guarantee. Even a child who is born into welfare has the potential to become productive and generate wealth rather than perpetually consume it. It's a risk, financially speaking, but nevertheless it's there.

Second, there are examples in the past of people who have used that argument to justify racism and population control of specific minorities for racist agendas. That means we'd have to tread VERY carefully.

And finally, the human factor. We don't want to get into the habit of playing God to the point of saying that some people just wouldn't be worth the trouble of allowing to be conceived/born. This is the very thing that makes the previous point so insidious. Is a low income family's right to have another child less important than a rich family's?

Very sticky territory. Ideally we'd be focusing more on taking those who consume resources and get them into the producer category. Education, job opportunities, rehabilitation programs, etc can bring those goals about, and that actually WOULD have a legitimate claim on being an economic stimulus.

You could have said so, because that's a reasonable point. As it was, that was a pretty useless reply. Unfortunately, no cookie for you.:p

I'm going to cry now.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on the issue of Pelosi apparently linking population control with saving money. Isn't a higher population, ideally, a good thing because individual people PRODUCE more than they consume when growing an economy?

What the Speaker actually said was that funding for contraception would reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. The columnist is making the unsupported leap that she is in favor of a eugenics program. There are two far more likely explanations, which are closely related to each other but worth separate consideration.

1) The funding will help fill a hole in the states' budgets. Many states have mandates to provide contraception as part of their public health programs and/or as part of their publicly subsidized healthcare for poor people. Since the states are in such perilous financial condition, they could use any budgetary help they can get. (And while this may or may not be "pork" depending on whether one likes it or not, state healthcare spending involves a lot of private-sector vendors -- vendors who, in many cases, are facing bankruptcy because states haven't paid their bills.) So in this case it's federal spending to help the states pay for something that they need to do anyway by law, thus keeping local healthcare companies' doors open. Note that Pelosi specifically referenced state budgets and heathcare mandates in her answer.

2) While even considering this may be morally abhorrent to some people, the fact is that poor women and girls (note that Pelosi referenced "children's health" in her answer) who become pregnant are more likely to need state-provided healthcare services than poor women and girls who do not become pregnant. They are also more likely to leave the workforce, because childcare in this country is expensive. Some of these pregnancies come about because the woman or girl does not have access to contraception. Providing access to contraception is a lot cheaper than running orphanages.

Given the language that Pelosi actually used, I'd go with 1) as an explanation of what she meant. 2) is far less likely but possible. If you're convinced a priori that she's some raving ZPG advocate who's never talked to a public health official then I suppose you could go with that. But to conclude that she wants to destroy the darker peoples of America is to run right off the evidence-cliff.

In theory, having more babies is better for the economy -- a generation from now, and provided said babies are healthy and well-educated. Neither of which will be the case if we insist on trying to tax-cut our way to health and wisdom.

(Please excuse the disjointedness of the above as I'm typing one-handed with the baby in the other arm.)

As much as I agree that people generally should stop having children, I do admit that including efforts to that effect in a bill designed to improve short-term economic prospects is a little far-fetched. Still, can't knock him for trying!

Look, I have no problem with funding for Contraception.....

But, honestly, what the hell is it doing in a supposed "Stimulus Package"...It pisses me off to no end when lawmakers do this crap...

Only put things directly associated with the Economy in your stimulus bill...

Do your Contraception bill separately and see if it stands up...or leave it to the States...

But, regardless, stop trying to get your own agenda in the Economics bills and stop hindering our efforts to get off the ground....

EDIT: and that goes both ways, for Conservatives too, You know that your never going to quickly get a cut in the Capital Gains Tax through, why hinder the process by trying to put it in a bill we really need...Obama needs a Line Item Veto...so he can just reject the ridiculous portions of bills end this idiotic shit...

I'm going to cry now.



What the Speaker actually said was that funding for contraception would reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. The columnist is making the unsupported leap that she is in favor of a eugenics program. There are two far more likely explanations, which are closely related to each other but worth separate consideration.

1) The funding will help fill a hole in the states' budgets. Many states have mandates to provide contraception as part of their public health programs and/or as part of their publicly subsidized healthcare for poor people. Since the states are in such perilous financial condition, they could use any budgetary help they can get. (And while this may or may not be "pork" depending on whether one likes it or not, state healthcare spending involves a lot of private-sector vendors -- vendors who, in many cases, are facing bankruptcy because states haven't paid their bills.) So in this case it's federal spending to help the states pay for something that they need to do anyway by law, thus keeping local healthcare companies' doors open. Note that Pelosi specifically referenced state budgets and heathcare mandates in her answer.

2) While even considering this may be morally abhorrent to some people, the fact is that poor women and girls (note that Pelosi referenced "children's health" in her answer) who become pregnant are more likely to need state-provided healthcare services than poor women and girls who do not become pregnant. They are also more likely to leave the workforce, because childcare in this country is expensive. Some of these pregnancies come about because the woman or girl does not have access to contraception. Providing access to contraception is a lot cheaper than running orphanages.

Given the language that Pelosi actually used, I'd go with 1) as an explanation of what she meant. 2) is far less likely but possible. If you're convinced a priori that she's some raving ZPG advocate who's never talked to a public health official then I suppose you could go with that. But to conclude that she wants to destroy the darker peoples of America is to run right off the evidence-cliff.

In theory, having more babies is better for the economy -- a generation from now, and provided said babies are healthy and well-educated. Neither of which will be the case if we insist on trying to tax-cut our way to health and wisdom.

Dammit... That was a pretty good answer. I'm gonna have to think that over...


(Please excuse the disjointedness of the above as I'm typing one-handed with the baby in the other arm.)

I feel your pain ;)

Look, I have no problem with funding for Contraception.....

But, honestly, what the hell is it doing in a supposed "Stimulus Package"...It pisses me off to no end when lawmakers do this crap...

Only put things directly associated with the Economy in your stimulus bill...

Do your Contraception bill separately and see if it stands up...or leave it to the States...

But, regardless, stop trying to get your own agenda in the Economics bills and stop hindering our efforts to get off the ground....

Methinks it's time to bring back the line item veto.

Do your Contraception bill separately and see if it stands up...or leave it to the States...

I don't think you quite understand. Many states have comprehensive contraceptive programs. Programs that are currently bankrupt.

This simply allows states to fund those programs, freeing up OTHER state funds for other activities.

Methinks it's time to bring back the line item veto.

you mean the unconstitutional line item veto?

Methinks it's time to bring back the line item veto.

you mean the unconstitutional line item veto?

lol, I was editing the post with my rants and missed these comments...

And, yes, Exactly....and its not Unconstitutional, many State Governors have them, and they would not be able too if it was Unconstitutional...

I don't think you quite understand. Many states have comprehensive contraceptive programs. Programs that are currently bankrupt.

This simply allows states to fund those programs, freeing up OTHER state funds for other activities.

And, i dont have a problem with that...Put it through Congress on its own and see if it gets through...

But, why slow down a Stimulus Package with it when we're in a crisis?

The problem is that first, there's no such guarantee. Even a child who is born into welfare has the potential to become productive and generate wealth rather than perpetually consume it. It's a risk, financially speaking, but nevertheless it's there.

Second, there are examples in the past of people who have used that argument to justify racism and population control of specific minorities for racist agendas. That means we'd have to tread VERY carefully.

And finally, the human factor. We don't want to get into the habit of playing God to the point of saying that some people just wouldn't be worth the trouble of allowing to be conceived/born. This is the very thing that makes the previous point so insidious. Is a low income family's right to have another child less important than a rich family's?

I agree completely that in the past it has been used to justify some awful things. And I'm not even going to suggest we're past that as a society. Which is why I don't think any politician should address it from this angle - it would be immediately suspect. I do not considering myself that much of a racist however, so when I suggest something like this its pretty safe for you to assume that I'm not racially motivated.

The plan isn't to prevent minorities from having babies, just to educate them about their options when it comes to contraceptives. I don't speak from personal experience, but statistically poor people have more children than wealthier families, and are less able to take care of them. I don't want to euthanize poor babies, just ensure that the families having them (who perhaps don't want to or aren't aware of other options) know of the contraception available to them and have the ability to make purchases that would take those (cute) burdens off society.

Again, strictly speaking statistically, there is a strong correlation between poverty and education (a negative relationship) so its not a stretch to say most of the children born into poor families will not in fact become very productive members of society.

Ah, but if increasing access to contraception gives you more bang for your buck based on the idea that fewer people will require these social programs, then it's implicit in there that the babies that would have been produced would NECESSARILY have made use of those services. That means we're assuming those babies wouldn't have been self-sufficient, as self-sufficient people produce wealth and pay INTO the state coffers rather than consuming those resources through programs like welfare, unemployment, etc.


Bullshit again.

If you increase access to contraception - both rich AND poor people will have better access.

If both rich AND poor people have better access, BOTH groups are less likely to be having unwanted children.

If both groups are less likely to have children they don't want, or can't support, then both groups have a reduced burden. And the part of that burden that is supoported by the state is alleviated.

Not ALL of the babies produced have to be welfare babies for the use of contraception to help reduce social program expenditure.

And, yes, Exactly....and its not Unconstitutional, many State Governors have them, and they would not be able too if it was Unconstitutional...

Until the Supreme Court reverses its 1996 ruling, the line item veto is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Many governors have the line item veto because it's allowed under their state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from having line item veto powers, but it doesn't allow it at the federal level.

As for those substantive comments, I'm replying to them in this post anyway, so enjoy.
Was that so hard? Instead of wasting posts with your "you didn't read the article" schtick, you could have presented the substance right away.

Substance was all I ever asked for. Empty-headed rhetoric I can get anywhere.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from having line item veto powers, but it doesn't allow it at the federal level.
I don't mean to sound contrary, but could you show me where this is true? It doesn't feel right.

Until the Supreme Court reverses its 1996 ruling, the line item veto is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Many governors have the line item veto because it's allowed under their state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from having line item veto powers, but it doesn't allow it at the federal level.

well, I think this situation highlights the need to bring it up again in Court...

Although, on a more academic note...I was under the impression that anything that wasnt allowed by the US Constitution also wasnt allowed in State Constitutions, and therefore the ruling would mean those are illegal as well..

I don't mean to sound contrary, but could you show me where this is true? It doesn't feel right.

How so? Legislation gets passed through congress. Let the president form the laws as he deems it and congress is pointless.





I am sorry. I can only think of bush with a line item veto....*shudder*

I am sorry. I can only think of bush with a line item veto....*shudder*

I dont think he couldve done much damage with it, He flat out Vetoed anything with Liberal views in it...It wouldnt do him much good to take out one or two liberal points and still let an overall liberal bill pass...

However in this situation, it would be getting specific Liberal and Conservative items out a of an actually needed Bill...

I don't mean to sound contrary, but could you show me where this is true? It doesn't feel right.

Clinton was actually granted the line item veto by Congress, and the Supreme Court ruled that this violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. (The Presentment Clause is the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law part of Article I.) That's all I remember.

(OK, here's more: while trying to write this post I found the Wiki page for Clinton v. City of New York, which explains waaay better than I can what the decision was. Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York), for your perusal. As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) the majority ruled that because the Presentment Clause gives the President exactly three choices with a bill -- sign, veto, or ignore -- Congress doesn't have the power to give the Prez a fourth option without amending the Constitution.)

Congress doesn't have the power to give the Prez a fourth option without amending the Constitution.

Perhaps a new Amendment should be in order? Id say that avoiding situations like this in the future, certainly merits it...

7
Democrats want to include a new car crushing plan in the "stimulus" bill where the government would buy new cars and trucks that obtain less than 18 mpg and crush them.

Tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and save the economy.


That puts cash in people's pockets.


P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.

Useless; take it out.


P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.


Totally unrelated to anything on this bill; take it out.


Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+

It will create 1,235 new jobs; the rest of that money is going to be used on :eek: construction and acquisition!



Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

On second thought: That's money that goes to private contractors.


Page 32: $1.5 billion for a “carbon-capturing contest”


Whats that even mean?



Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.


People with higher educational levels in theory get better jobs and get more money. Economic Stimulus!


$200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.


Now that I have realized what a car plug in station is: That gives people incentives to buy and build more cars that run on hybrid/electric engines.

Although, on a more academic note...I was under the impression that anything that wasnt allowed by the US Constitution also wasnt allowed in State Constitutions, and therefore the ruling would mean those are illegal as well..

That is more for certain rights that are protected(religion, speech, etc.), the states get to decide how the state government is run.

I assume "tax cuts" are number 1 on the list of ridiculous items in the stimulus plan.


Whats that even mean?
We put up a $10 million dollar prize and 5 teams each spend $20 million dollars to develop new tech to win it. Make anything a prize contest and you will be making out like a bandit in the bidding process.

We put up a $10 million dollar prize and 5 teams each spend $20 million dollars to develop new tech to win it. Make anything a prize contest and you will be making out like a bandit in the bidding process.


Ahhh.. you don't know just ask.

That is more for certain rights that are protected(religion, speech, etc.), the states get to decide how the state government is run.

So.....If MS suddenly replaced the whole state government with an all encompassing Dictator Governor....It wouldnt be a problem?

well, I think this situation highlights the need to bring it up again in Court...

Although, on a more academic note...I was under the impression that anything that wasnt allowed by the US Constitution also wasnt allowed in State Constitutions, and therefore the ruling would mean those are illegal as well..

No, as I understand it, it's that states cannot deprive people of any rights that the federal government can't. They can still run things differently.

since i'm sure there must be some, did anyone find any actual ridiculous items in the stimulus plan?

since i'm sure there must be some, did anyone find any actual ridiculous items in the stimulus plan?

I think Hotwife has a list of several.....

I think Hotwife has a list of several.....

no, he doesn't

Ahhh.. you don't know just ask.

Since your sentence makes as much sense as a tastebud being an advertising figure, I will assume you think I am kidding.

http://www.xprize.org/

I think Hotwife has a list of several.....
If by "list of several," you mean the standard pissing and moaning of the right-wing, then yes, technically he does.

More idiocy from our friends on The Hill:

P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.

P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.

Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+

Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

Page 32: $1.5 billion for a “carbon-capturing contest”

Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.

$200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.

no, he doesn't

Here it is....

While arguably not ridiculous on their own....Putting them in a supposed "Stimulus Package" that was supposed to be passed quickly, seems a little retarded...

Here it is....

While arguably not ridiculous on their own....Putting them in a supposed "Stimulus Package" that was supposed to be passed quickly, seems a little retarded...
It will pass plenty quickly. There are enough Democrats to tell the right-wing loons to fuck off in the House and hopefully we only need to convince 2 in the Senate.

It will pass plenty quickly. There are enough Democrats to tell the right-wing loons to fuck off in the House and hopefully we only need to convince 2 in the Senate.

You say that now....Then some idiot decides he wants to Filibuster it to no tomorrow.....And it falls flat on its face...

Since your sentence makes as much sense as a tastebud being an advertising figure, I will assume you think I am kidding.


You know what they say about assumptions? In this case they were right.

I meant that as an "Oh, now I get it" thing. If I didn't understand your explanation I would have asked for a better one.

and its not Unconstitutional, many State Governors have them, and they would not be able too if it was Unconstitutional...

Um...wow.

You have no idea how our country works..like...at all, do you?

since i'm sure there must be some, did anyone find any actual ridiculous items in the stimulus plan?

The recreation maintenance one seems like it doesn't belong there, as well as the AIDS one. But as for stupid... no.

Um...wow.

You have no idea how our country works..like...at all, do you?

I don't and I'm curious.

You say that now....Then some idiot decides he wants to Filibuster it to no tomorrow.....And it falls flat on its face...

snowe and collins have said they are in. as in actually voting for the bill, not just opposing a filibuster. you'd need filibuster defections from the dems to pull it off, and even the public waverers don't strike me as all that likely to join a filibuster against a ridiculously popular president of their own party on a stimulus bill that is proving quite popular.

Although, on a more academic note...I was under the impression that anything that wasnt allowed by the US Constitution also wasnt allowed in State Constitutions, and therefore the ruling would mean those are illegal as well..

you were wrong.

The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights and the limitations it places on the federal government, on the states.

It does not say "whatever the federal government can't do, the states can't do". That's utterly nonsensical, to the point where I am amazed you managed to pass a highschool civics class.

Um...wow.

You have no idea how our country works..like...at all, do you?

I have no idea because I didnt know about a Supreme Court decision in 1996?


Your definition of "having an Idea of" might need a little reworking...

The recreation maintenance one seems like it doesn't belong there, as well as the AIDS one.

why not? does doing them not actually cost money or require labor?

I assume "tax cuts" are number 1 on the list of ridiculous items in the stimulus plan.
Ya know, I'm having a hard time understanding this idea. I mean the GOP, the party of small government and fiscal responsibility (Yeah, I know, I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face too, but bare with me) wants to remove all the 'pork' from this bill and add in a lot of tax cuts, pretty much making President Bush's cuts permanent. Now from what I can tell, this pork that they are objecting to amounts to just a few percentage points of the total cost while the tax cuts being asked for will end up costing the government some major money. So it would seem that the GOP plan is to present a bill that costs slightly less than the original in spending, but make it so it will take a lot longer to actually pay for.

How is this making sense?

why not? does doing them not actually cost money or require labor?

I said seems like; I don't have enough details to know otherwise.

snowe and collins have said they are in. as in actually voting for the bill, not just opposing a filibuster. you'd need filibuster defections from the dems to pull it off, and even the public waverers don't strike me as all that likely to join a filibuster against a ridiculously popular president of their own party on a stimulus bill that is proving quite popular.

I could see that, Have to see how it plays out....Im just saying that if they had left those things out, then the process couldve been much quicker, and more efficient...

And might have had the added benefit of maintaining the Bi-Partisan feeling which I fear has been destroyed by this bill...

I don't and I'm curious.

it's...basically this. The constitution allows the president to sign, or veto a law. That's it. It's a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system. The president may either accept the bill, in its entirety, in which case it becomes law, or reject it, in its entirety in which case congress may attempt to override the veto.

Giving a president a "line item veto" means essentially allowing him to cross out the parts he doesn't like, and sign the rest. For instance, if Congress gave a president a law that had 10 parts, he could cross out parts 9 and 10, and sign into law parts 1-8. This is unconstitutional.

The reason is this. Under the constitution, it is the job of Congress, and only congress, to pass bills. If the president strikes out pages 9 and 10, then the law he signs contains only parts 1-8.

That's not the bill congress passed. They passed a bill containing parts 1-10, not 1-8. The president's ONLY authority when it comes to passing laws is to sign it, in its entirety, or reject it, in its entirety. if he is allowed to cross out parts he doesn't like, and pass into law the rest, it gives him power to, essentially, create law (IE creating a law that has parts 1-8. Congress didn't create that law, they created a bill with parts 1-10, bill with parts 1-8 is fundamentally different, it's not the same thing congress gave him).

The president can only accept in full, or reject in full. Allowing him to accept in part and reject in part creates a situation in which he creates law out of a source other than what congress gave him. And it is the job of congress AND ONLY CONGRESS to create law.

Ya know, I'm having a hard time understanding this idea. I mean the GOP, the party of small government and fiscal responsibility (Yeah, I know, I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face too, but bare with me) wants to remove all the 'pork' from this bill and add in a lot of tax cuts, pretty much making President Bush's cuts permanent. Now from what I can tell, this pork that they are objecting to amounts to just a few percentage points of the total cost while the tax cuts being asked for will end up costing the government some major money. So it would seem that the GOP plan is to present a bill that costs slightly less than the original in spending, but make it so it will take a lot longer to actually pay for.

How is this making sense?
I know it's tough for a card carrying liberal such as yourself to understand, but history shows us that tax cuts yield increased tax revenue because the economy grows. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And it worked for GWB. Congress is hell-bent on spending every dime of revenue, so an increased GDP was probably the only benefit.

And wasn't it Obama that promised to keep the pork out of the stimulus packages?

I have no idea because I didnt know about a Supreme Court decision in 1996?

It has nothing to do with the supreme court, it has to do with the generally misguided belief of "if it's unconstitutional for the federal government, it's unconstitutional for the state government".

That has to do with the bill of rights only. There's a whole lot more of the constitution than that, most of it involving the structure of the federal government.

States are free to structure themselves more or less however they want, and grant different branches different powers as they wish. Some states allow their governors line item vetos. What power to vest in their governor is the decision of that state.

The constitution however defines the power of the Congress, and the President, and the delineation of powers is clear.

It has nothing to do with the supreme court, it has to do with the generally misguided belief of "if it's unconstitutional for the federal government, it's unconstitutional for the state government".

That has to do with the bill of rights only. There's a whole lot more of the constitution than that, most of it involving the structure of the federal government.

States are free to structure themselves more or less however they want, and grant different branches different powers as they wish. Some states allow their governors line item vetos. What power to vest in their governor is the decision of that state.

The constitution however defines the power of the Congress, and the President, and the delineation of powers is clear.

I know that, I was simply asking If that in fact contradicted other parts of the Constitution, thats all, it was a semantics question...

That's not true. You could get EIC or additional child tax credit, or many other refundable tax credits, including the new homeowner's credit this year.
I know, I know, but they are not real refunds, nor are they credits. One must actually pay something to get it refunded or credited. These are welfare payments without being called so.

it's...basically this. The constitution allows the president to sign, or veto a law. That's it. It's a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system. The president may either accept the bill, in its entirety, in which case it becomes law, or reject it, in its entirety in which case congress may attempt to override the veto.

Giving a president a "line item veto" means essentially allowing him to cross out the parts he doesn't like, and sign the rest. For instance, if Congress gave a president a law that had 10 parts, he could cross out parts 9 and 10, and sign into law parts 1-8. This is unconstitutional.

The reason is this. Under the constitution, it is the job of Congress, and only congress, to pass bills. If the president strikes out pages 9 and 10, then the law he signs contains only parts 1-8.

That's not the bill congress passed. They passed a bill containing parts 1-10, not 1-8. The president's ONLY authority when it comes to passing laws is to sign it, in its entirety, or reject it, in its entirety. if he is allowed to cross out parts he doesn't like, and pass into law the rest, it gives him power to, essentially, create law (IE creating a law that has parts 1-8. Congress didn't create that law, they created a bill with parts 1-10, bill with parts 1-8 is fundamentally different, it's not the same thing congress gave him).

The president can only accept in full, or reject in full. Allowing him to accept in part and reject in part creates a situation in which he creates law out of a source other than what congress gave him. And it is the job of congress AND ONLY CONGRESS to create law.

While I've got you I'm going to use you.

Why isn't the same thing applicable to governors? As far as I know the governmental set up of the states is very similar to the federal set up except the governor is "president"?

And wasn't it Obama that promised to keep the pork out of the stimulus packages?

The only real pork I see on the bill is the AIDS testing thing, I don't see that doing much for jobs.

While I've got you I'm going to use you.

Why isn't the same thing applicable to governors? As far as I know the governmental set up of the states is very similar to the federal set up except the governor is "president"?

because as a general rule, the Constitution (by which I mean the FEDERAL constitution) only defines how the FEDERAL government it set up. It articulates the powers of the Congress, the President and the Federal Judiciary.

It does NOT define how the STATES may organize themselves. The states are free, through their own state constitutions or state laws, to set up their internal state governments however they wish.

many states do mimic the federal system, with a state legislature, a state governor, and a state judiciary, but they're not all exact and perfect replicas. In many, the legislative may have more, or less powers, comparatively, than the governor.

Some states may require less to override a governor's veto. Some states don't allow the state legislature from overriding a governor's veto at all. Some states allow the governor to line item veto, others do not.

The Federal Constitution does not define how states may set themselves up, so they are free to do so as they wish, typically by adopting their own state constitutions.

because as a general rule, the Constitution (by which I mean the FEDERAL constitution) only defines how the FEDERAL government it set up. It articulates the powers of the Congress, the President and the Federal Judiciary.

It does NOT define how the STATES may organize themselves. The states are free, through their own state constitutions or state laws, to set up their internal state governments however they wish.

many states do mimic the federal system, with a state legislature, a state governor, and a state judiciary, but they're not all exact and perfect replicas. In many, the legislative may have more, or less powers, comparatively, than the governor.

Some states may require less to override a governor's veto. Some states don't allow the state legislature from overriding a governor's veto at all. Some states allow the governor to line item veto, others do not.

The Federal Constitution does not define how states may set themselves up, so they are free to do so as they wish, typically by adopting their own state constitutions.

Thank you.

Meh. It seems that to Republicans and opponents of the stimulus package that any spending qualifes as ridiculous and/or pork -- doubly so if the poster doesn't happen to like the particular spending objective.

Color me unimpressed.

I know, I know, but they are not real refunds, nor are they credits. One must actually pay something to get it refunded or credited. These are welfare payments without being called so.

OH, NOESS!!! WELFARE !!! Run for the hills!!! :eek::eek:

And this question right here is the dead giveaway that you haven't read it. If you had, you'd have known that the author of the article is not only mocking those items as being silly in what's supposed to be an economic stimulus package (aka pork spending) but also that he zeroed in on comments by Pelosi that reveal some very questionable motives on her part as they relate to birth control and the growth of what segment of the population is to be slowed for the sake of easing pressure on state and federal budgets. Why you want me to repeat that in the OP by paraphrasing is beyond me.

Consevative Republicans playing the "race card" is pretty damn funny.

I know it's tough for a card carrying liberal such as yourself to understand, but history shows us that tax cuts yield increased tax revenue because the economy grows. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And it worked for GWB. Congress is hell-bent on spending every dime of revenue, so an increased GDP was probably the only benefit.

And wasn't it Obama that promised to keep the pork out of the stimulus packages?

All three tax cut plans were keynesian, the Kennedy plan explicitly so. Under Bush and Reagan the deficits ran, and at least under Reagan the savings rate dropped even after tax cuts and the creation of incentives to save like IRA accounts.

you mean the unconstitutional line item veto?

Yep.

I agree completely that in the past it has been used to justify some awful things. And I'm not even going to suggest we're past that as a society. Which is why I don't think any politician should address it from this angle - it would be immediately suspect. I do not considering myself that much of a racist however, so when I suggest something like this its pretty safe for you to assume that I'm not racially motivated.

The plan isn't to prevent minorities from having babies, just to educate them about their options when it comes to contraceptives. I don't speak from personal experience, but statistically poor people have more children than wealthier families, and are less able to take care of them. I don't want to euthanize poor babies, just ensure that the families having them (who perhaps don't want to or aren't aware of other options) know of the contraception available to them and have the ability to make purchases that would take those (cute) burdens off society.

Again, strictly speaking statistically, there is a strong correlation between poverty and education (a negative relationship) so its not a stretch to say most of the children born into poor families will not in fact become very productive members of society.

For the most part that is true, which is why if I were going to include a remedy for that in some kind of stimulus plan, I'd want to focus on ways to change that trend.

I mean, yes people should be educated on their options, but what happens in a lot of cases is people pop out more kids in order to claim a larger check from the Government. They know perfectly well what their options are, but there are rewards in milking the system.

Bullshit again.

If you increase access to contraception - both rich AND poor people will have better access.

If both rich AND poor people have better access, BOTH groups are less likely to be having unwanted children.

If both groups are less likely to have children they don't want, or can't support, then both groups have a reduced burden. And the part of that burden that is supoported by the state is alleviated.

Not ALL of the babies produced have to be welfare babies for the use of contraception to help reduce social program expenditure.

So wait, you call my post bullshit and then shovel on a bunch of your own?

Explain to me how increased social programs for contraception increases access for the wealthy? Because wealthy people who want birth control have -zero- trouble getting it. The only real difference would be made among those who don't generally have the money for it. Social programs that offer free stuff always impact the poor more than the rich.

Was that so hard? Instead of wasting posts with your "you didn't read the article" schtick, you could have presented the substance right away.

Substance was all I ever asked for. Empty-headed rhetoric I can get anywhere.

All that griping you did about me not addressing the issue and this is all you have a reply for? If you want the last word that badly there. You have it. All better?

Consevative Republicans playing the "race card" is pretty damn funny.

Ah yes, because all Conservative Republicans are racists. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, because all Conservative Republicans are racists. :rolleyes:

Not what I said, so nice strawman.

For a long list of reasons, trying to play the "race card" about Pelosi's statements or the earlier version of the stimulus package are ridiculous and hilarious -- especially coming from those who are typically such stalwart fighters of racism. :eek::rolleyes::wink:

Not what I said, so nice strawman.

For a long list of reasons, trying to play the "race card" about Pelosi's statements or the earlier version of the stimulus package are ridiculous and hilarious -- especially coming from those who are typically such stalwart fighters of racism. :eek::rolleyes::wink:

Im not going to disagree with you about Republicans...

But, as far as the Democrats being these racial defenders...The Dixiecrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats) wing of the party begs to differ...

Im not going to disagree with you about Republicans...

But, as far as the Democrats being these racial defenders...The Dixiecrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats) wing of the party begs to differ...

Um. The Dixiecrats became Republicans many decades ago.

Um. The Dixiecrats became Republicans many decades ago.
True, Im just saying the Democrats arent saints either...

Not what I said, so nice strawman.

For a long list of reasons, trying to play the "race card" about Pelosi's statements or the earlier version of the stimulus package are ridiculous and hilarious -- especially coming from those who are typically such stalwart fighters of racism. :eek::rolleyes::wink:

Actually, that's pretty much what you're saying here, unless you're being absolutely sincere when you say "especially coming from those who are typically such stalwart fighters of racism."

It ain't a strawman when it's accurate, brother. You can't just dismiss a Conservative calling someone out for racism just because he's a Conservative.

...unless you have some evidence to show that this individual is a racist. If so, then I'll gladly retract my statement.

True, Im just saying the Democrats arent saints either...

1. I wasn't aware I was nominating anyone for sainthood. :p

2. Things have vastly changed in the last 60 years. It is a little silly to judge the modern Democrats based on what Strom Thurmond did in 1948.

3. Note I didnt' just say "Republicans," but "Conservative Republican." When have conservatives been on the vanguard of civil rights?

1. I wasn't aware I was nominating anyone for sainthood. :p

2. Things have vastly changed in the last 60 years. It is a little silly to judge the modern Democrats based on what Strom Thurmond did in 1948.

3. Note I didnt' just say "Republicans," but "Conservative Republican." When have conservatives been on the vanguard of civil rights?

Id say its a little silly to say that Modern Conservatives are not on the vanguard of Civil Rights based on what Conservatives did in Decades Past...

Actually, that's pretty much what you're saying here, unless you're being absolutely sincere when you say "especially coming from those who are typically such stalwart fighters of racism."

It ain't a strawman when it's accurate, brother. You can't just dismiss a Conservative calling someone out for racism just because he's a Conservative.

...unless you have some evidence to show that this individual is a racist. If so, then I'll gladly retract my statement.

Except the alleged "racism" being called out is nothing of the sort and Navarette knows it.

And, yes, Virginia, there is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to civil rights. One has a better track record over the last 40-50 years than the other. Does "Barack the Magic Negro" ring a bell?

Id say its a little silly to say that Modern Conservatives are not on the vanguard of Civil Rights based on what Conservatives did in Decades Past...

Okey dokey. Can you show how modern Conservatives are currently the vanguard of civil rights?

Or are you just puffing smoke?

EDIT: 1980-88, 1988-92, 2000-2008 is hardly as distant as 1948 or even 1968.

Except the alleged "racism" being called out is nothing of the sort and Navarette knows it.

And, yes, Virginia, there is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to civil rights. One has a better track record over the last 40-50 years than the other. Does "Obama the Magic Negro" ring a bell?

MEh, true....Who's Virginia? Virginia Cooper?

MEh, true....Who's Virginia? Virginia Cooper?

It was a vague and apparently failed reference to "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

It was a vague and apparently failed reference to "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

lol, oh, I thought you were referencing a poster, And I was like that one's not involved in this one...

There is a Santa Claus! I know it!

Clinton was actually granted the line item veto by Congress, and the Supreme Court ruled that this violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. (The Presentment Clause is the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law part of Article I.) That's all I remember.

(OK, here's more: while trying to write this post I found the Wiki page for Clinton v. City of New York, which explains waaay better than I can what the decision was. Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York), for your perusal. As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) the majority ruled that because the Presentment Clause gives the President exactly three choices with a bill -- sign, veto, or ignore -- Congress doesn't have the power to give the Prez a fourth option without amending the Constitution.)

I understand completely now. This also explains how the state governments can have line-item vetos while the President can't. Thank you.

Clinton was actually granted the line item veto by Congress, and the Supreme Court ruled that this violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. (The Presentment Clause is the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law part of Article I.) That's all I remember.

(OK, here's more: while trying to write this post I found the Wiki page for Clinton v. City of New York, which explains waaay better than I can what the decision was. Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York), for your perusal. As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) the majority ruled that because the Presentment Clause gives the President exactly three choices with a bill -- sign, veto, or ignore -- Congress doesn't have the power to give the Prez a fourth option without amending the Constitution.)

I always find that episode interesting. A republican congress gave that power to a democrat president only to have a group of Democrat senators sue to have it ruled unconstitutional. I wish it had been ruled acceptable i think the line item veto was part of the reason we got the deficit under control during Clinton.

I wish it had been ruled acceptable i think the line item veto was part of the reason we got the deficit under control during Clinton.
Can you imagine what Bush would have done with a line-item veto?

I don't at all think Pelosi was deliberately being racist. It is however very clear that she is very much for population control through any means necessary including Plan B and abortion, which for some of us is equally as bad as racism. Furthermore, since abortion overwhelmingly is performed on minorities, it does statistically have a racist/genocidal effect. A better solution would be to use that $400 million to encourage single mothers to bring their babies to term and provide financial assistance.

Now admittedly, $400 million is probably a drop in the bucket towards that goal, but it has the distinct advantage of being the morally right thing to do. Long term, and from a purely pragmatic sense, higher childbirth rates can only help the economy.

The immediate effect is that it forces money to be spent on diapers, clothes, infant formula, medical services, insurance, and social services that would not otherwise be spent.

And the long term effects are that the next generation will be larger and their payroll taxes wil help sustain Social Security.

Can you imagine what Bush would have done with a line-item veto?

I dont think he couldve done much damage with it, He flat out Vetoed anything with Liberal views in it...It wouldnt do him much good to take out one or two liberal points and still let an overall liberal bill pass...

However in this situation, it would be getting specific Liberal and Conservative items out a of an actually needed Bill...

lol...Just to reiterate my opinion on the subject...

Furthermore, since abortion overwhelmingly is performed on minorities, it does statistically have a racist/genocidal effect. .Source(s), please.

Um. The Dixiecrats became Republicans many decades ago.

Wrong they became the boll weevil democrats, then became the blue dog democrats. The entire idea of segregation has pretty much been dropped.
now they are just fiscal conservative state rights leaning democrats.

Furthermore, since abortion overwhelmingly is performed on minorities, it does statistically have a racist/genocidal effect. A better solution would be to use that $400 million to encourage single mothers to bring their babies to term and provide financial assistance.
Why spend money to increase welfare (spend money to spend money) if we can spend money and then not have to spend anymore?

I guess I can see how it would be hard for traditional Republicans to oppose abortion and oppose welfare in the same breath.

Long term, and from a purely pragmatic sense, higher childbirth rates can only help the economy.
Untrue. Children from impoverished families statistically receive inferior educations and in the current economic climate are unlikely to get jobs without a college degree. There's already a surplus of supply in the labor market for minimum wage jobs. And even in better economic times our need for minimum wage earners is not high.

Furthermore, since abortion overwhelmingly is performed on minorities, it does statistically have a racist/genocidal effect.
No.

If abortions were being forced on people, or people were being pressured by the state into getting abortions, you might have an argument, but they're not, so you don't.

Source(s), please.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

It has a lot less to do with race and everything to do with poverty.

Wrong they became the boll weevil democrats, then became the blue dog democrats. The entire idea of segregation has pretty much been dropped.
now they are just fiscal conservative state rights leaning democrats.


Wrong. Most, if not all, dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Can you name former Dixiecrats that are Democrats now?

Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and the like all became Republicans. In fact, recruiting such racist former Democrats was a key element of the Republican Party's "Southern Strategy."

I suppose it never occurs to those who are arguing against the contraception and other medical provisions in the earlier versions of the stimulus package that, if fewer women go through pregnancies, that will lower the cost of healthcare to states, since pregnancies are very expensive. Same with reducing the spread of communicable diseases. Prevention is always cheaper than cure.

Aside from helping cash-strapped states maintain such public health programs with federal funds, funding prevention programs will actually reduce pressure on understaffed and underfunded public hospital systems by keeping people out of them.

I do agree that those programs did not belong in the stimulus package, because they are not, strictly speaking, job-stimulus programs -- except for any programs that might support medical research. But that does not mean they are not good programs for government to get into.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

It has a lot less to do with race and everything to do with poverty.That makes more sense.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

It has a lot less to do with race and everything to do with poverty.
Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with genocide, whether of a race or an economic class, as Wuldani would have it.

It is however very clear that she is very much for population control through any means necessary including Plan B and abortion, which for some of us is equally as bad as racism.

For those who have abortions it does not seem to be nearly as bad as racism.

Furthermore, since abortion overwhelmingly is performed on minorities, it does statistically have a racist/genocidal effect.

Those who have abortions do so voluntarily. If financial assistance increased the use of abortion by minorities it would seem to indicate

A better solution would be to use that $400 million to encourage single mothers to bring their babies to term and provide financial assistance.

Why would it be better?

Now admittedly, $400 million is probably a drop in the bucket towards that goal, but it has the distinct advantage of being the morally right thing to do.

Abortion is not immoral. If one wishes to reduce the number of abortions then subsidized birthcontrol and comprehensive sex education works pretty well in Western Europe.

Long term, and from a purely pragmatic sense, higher childbirth rates can only help the economy.

Children that are desired are better off than those who aren't

So wait, you call my post bullshit and then shovel on a bunch of your own?

Explain to me how increased social programs for contraception increases access for the wealthy?

I called your post bullshit only because it resembled the material that heads southwards out of the back of northbound bovines.

If you increase access to contraception, everyone has better access because it's more likely to be present wherever you are... either because of better coverage, or because even the rich are more likely to have a couple of spares if they're subsidised.

I called your post bullshit only because it resembled the material that heads southwards out of the back of northbound bovines.

If you increase access to contraception, everyone has better access because it's more likely to be present wherever you are... either because of better coverage, or because even the rich are more likely to have a couple of spares if they're subsidised.

Thats true...

But, I think the problem...and what makes it ridiculous is....


How does it Stimulate the Economy, and therefore why is it in this Bill?

Wrong. Most, if not all, dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Can you name former Dixiecrats that are Democrats now?

Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and the like all became Republicans. In fact, recruiting such racist former Democrats was a key element of the Republican Party's "Southern Strategy."

1st Trent Lott was never a Dixiecrat(or ever served as a democrat to begin with) he just made the mistake of praising Thurmond in the wrong way on his 100th birthday.

Kinda hard to find Dixiecrat today since most are dead. but of people involved in the 1948 election as Dixiecrat and who served past the civil rights movement as Democrats
let me name a few John Cornelius Stennis, James Oliver Eastland, Allen Joseph Ellender, Russell Billiu Long, John Jackson Sparkman, Spessard Lindsey Holland , John Little McClellan, Richard Russell, Jr, and Herman Eugene Talmadge. And this is only counting those who served as democrats after 1970.

Thats true...

But, I think the problem...and what makes it ridiculous is....


How does it Stimulate the Economy, and therefore why is it in this Bill?

Debt makes debt. If you have a bankrupt department in your government, and it still has to keep spending, it digs deeper, and pulls the whole thing down. If you can reduce the costs to that area, you can stop the digging, and pull out of the spiral.

Which stops your debt increasing, let's you pay forward, and starts freeing up for other projects.

Maybe more importantly, even - if you're no longer throwing money at a moneyfunnel, you can actually start paying people to do other work.

Debt makes debt. If you have a bankrupt department in your government, and it still has to keep spending, it digs deeper, and pulls the whole thing down. If you can reduce the costs to that area, you can stop the digging, and pull out of the spiral.

Which stops your debt increasing, let's you pay forward, and starts freeing up for other projects.

Maybe more importantly, even - if you're no longer throwing money at a moneyfunnel, you can actually start paying people to do other work.

You and your logic...


http://logo.cafepress.com/8/9508186.3494458.jpg

I suppose it never occurs to those who are arguing against the contraception and other medical provisions in the earlier versions of the stimulus package that, if fewer women go through pregnancies, that will lower the cost of healthcare to states, since pregnancies are very expensive. Same with reducing the spread of communicable diseases. Prevention is always cheaper than cure.



Im fairly certian it occured to them. And Im fairly certian they see the logic.

Its just much more fun to scream about teh ebil libruhls.

Im fairly certian it occured to them. And Im fairly certian they see the logic.

Its just much more fun to scream about teh ebil libruhls.
I'm actually fairly certain they did not see the logic and it never occurred them because I'm pretty certain they never gave it any real thought. They just got the new 2009 Rightwing Talking Points Directory, and started posting random entries on the internet.

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with genocide, whether of a race or an economic class, as Wuldani would have it.

Well no, but I never took that statement seriously to begin with, so I wasn't about to address it.

That makes more sense.

Its very difficult to separate the two, since poverty and race are correlated. So its not incorrect to suggest that abortions are performed more often on blacks and Hispanics, but it is disingenuous to suggest this is because of their race. Spurious causation is what that is. The third variable is their class, of course.

Well no, but I never took that statement seriously to begin with, so I wasn't about to address it.


Oh, of course not. I was more throwing it back at Wuldani.

Oh, of course not. I was more throwing it back at Wuldani.

I doubt self-reflection is high enough on his list of priorities that he even checked back in after posting.

Wrong. Most, if not all, dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Can you name former Dixiecrats that are Democrats now?

Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and the like all became Republicans. In fact, recruiting such racist former Democrats was a key element of the Republican Party's "Southern Strategy."

If all the Republicans in GA who used to be Democrats (ie. Dixiecrats) switched back over, GA would be overwhelmingly Democrat.

*nodnod*

I suppose it never occurs to those who are arguing against the contraception and other medical provisions in the earlier versions of the stimulus package that, if fewer women go through pregnancies, that will lower the cost of healthcare to states, since pregnancies are very expensive. Same with reducing the spread of communicable diseases. Prevention is always cheaper than cure.

Well, that's pretty much what Pelosi said.

But then a lot of people took it as, "ZOMG SHE HATES TEH BABIES!!!"

I do agree that those programs did not belong in the stimulus package, because they are not, strictly speaking, job-stimulus programs -- except for any programs that might support medical research. But that does not mean they are not good programs for government to get into.

^This. =)

I notice a lack of bitching about the potential "Buy American" clause...

I notice a lack of bitching about the potential "Buy American" clause...

I thought that was because everyone agreed that that was silly.

If all the Republicans in GA who used to be Democrats (ie. Dixiecrats) switched back over, GA would be overwhelmingly Democrat.

*nodnod*
Likewise, if the Democratic party would switch back to being the party it used to be, we might consider making the switch, too.

Likewise, if the Democratic party would switch back to being the party it used to be, we might consider making the switch, too.

A party of racists, xenophobes, moralists, and wackjobs? IE the current Republican party?

It is a well-known fact that providing affordable health care for low-income individuals will greatly decrease their productivity and will hamper their efforts to maintain economic stability.

Or wait.

Strike that.

Reverse it.

The Republicans released their "waste" list today.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

A few are legit concerns. Most are fucking stupid.

A party of racists, xenophobes, moralists, and wackjobs? IE the current Republican party?
I think you have the current Democratic party confused with what it was in the 60's and in years before that. After McGovern, it never seemed to be a party that really represented everyone, except in the sense that they belonged to some 'minority' faction. It's really not a very inclusive party now.

The Republicans released their "waste" list today.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

A few are legit concerns. Most are fucking stupid.
Stupid in the sense that they don't belong in a stimulus bill. Stupid in the sense that any effect they might have will be years from now. I, for one, hope the economy doesn't suck for years.

Let's just put these in individual spending bills where they belong.

Stupid in the sense that they don't belong in a stimulus bill. Stupid in the sense that any effect they might have will be years from now. I, for one, hope the economy doesn't suck for years.

No, stupid in the sense that anything in the bill that isnt a tax cut for the wealthy or makes corperations accountable, the Republicans call "wasteful".

A lot of these ideas create jobs. But the Republicans think tax cuts would work better. Because the past eight years show they are a resounding success.

Page 32: $1.5 billion for a “carbon-capturing contest”

What's that?

Stupid in the sense that they don't belong in a stimulus bill. Stupid in the sense that any effect they might have will be years from now. I, for one, hope the economy doesn't suck for years.

Let's just put these in individual spending bills where they belong.

Can you name one spending bill that was pure? Even your god the shrub had bills such as this.

Where was your bitching then?

What's that?

It's a greased pig chasing contest. ;)

What's that?
My guess would be giving money to utilities companies that build carbon capture and storage plants or retrofot old ones.

What's that?

You don't know? The UK has one going..... ;)

The Republicans released their "waste" list today.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

A few are legit concerns. Most are fucking stupid.

From the list:



• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
Depending on the details of the programs, all of the above would generate jobs relating to construction, engineering and contracting. It's nice to see that the Republicans are stripping the jobs out of the stimulus package. Exactly how are they expecting to create new jobs without actually creating any jobs?

Where was your bitching then?

But Bush killed Muslims. So he gets a free pass from Myrmi.

The Republicans released their "waste" list today.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

A few are legit concerns. Most are fucking stupid.

How dare the government pay the FBI!

Oh, by the way, for those who don't feel like doing the math, that's about 2% of the actual bill.

75 million for smoking cessation - tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short term.In order for stimulus to be...actually effective...it is necessary to think of both the short term and the long term.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on the issue of Pelosi apparently linking population control with saving money. Isn't a higher population, ideally, a good thing because individual people PRODUCE more than they consume when growing an economy?Children don't. While it is true that their parents will usually produce more to make up for it, it isn't the case always, nor is it the case that the parents who don't would be on welfare.
For instance, parents pay for public schools out of their taxes whether or not children use the services or not.

I'm more concerned that 95% of all Americans don't pay taxes. Uh...what?

I know it's tough for a card carrying liberal such as yourself to understand, but history shows us that tax cuts yield increased tax revenue because the economy grows. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan. And it worked for GWB.Do you mean the same revenues that were predicated mostly upon the housing bubble? Those revenues?

Uh...what?

I'm guessing that he thinks that if you don't pay capital gains tax on amounts over a certain level, then you don't pay any taxes at all. I can't think what else he has in mind with that 95% remark.

Can you name one spending bill that was pure? Even your god the shrub had bills such as this.

Where was your bitching then?
Y'all have a remarkable ability to project what you want others to be...

There are some that might recall me calling GWB a spendthrift with a Congress full of willing accomplices. There are also probably a few that can recall me stating that GWB did only two good things in office -- Fighting terrorists, rather than serving them with subpoenas and cutting taxes early and often in his tenure.

But I don't want to ruin your fantasy, so project away.

Stupid in the sense that they don't belong in a stimulus bill. Stupid in the sense that any effect they might have will be years from now. I, for one, hope the economy doesn't suck for years.

Let's just put these in individual spending bills where they belong.

Hoping won't make it go away.

It's going to suck for years. Get used to it. The best we can hope for is that we can shorten the suckage, and try to minimise the suckitude.

And that might well mean spending money. Personally. As a nation. At every level.

If you don't like that, you shouldn't have supported pissing billions into the desert.

I'm guessing that he thinks that if you don't pay capital gains tax on amounts over a certain level, then you don't pay any taxes at all. I can't think what else he has in mind with that 95% remark.
Are you all stupid? There is no way in hell that 95% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
This makes it appear that, of those filing, only 67% of Americans pay taxes. The rest have zero liability. That means that they don't pay taxes. This is important, so I'll say it again. Only 67% of Americans that file tax forms have any tax liability. One third of all Americans that file tax forms don't pay taxes.

But wait, there's more... Another 15,000,000 don't file because they don't earn enough. That brings the 2004 total to 40% of all Americans that are outside the federal income tax system. 2 in 5 Americans don't pay federal income tax.

How then, can Obama promise a tax cut to 95%? Easy, he counts on your stupidity. And I see his hope is well rewarded. Meaning he can't promise a tax cut for 95% of Americans because only 60% are paying income taxes to the federal government.

...GWB did... good things... cutting taxes

...and increasing spending.

Are you all stupid? There is no way in hell that 95% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
This makes it appear that ...
...you're making stuff up again.

Are you all stupid? There is no way in hell that 95% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
This makes it appear that, of those filing, only 67% of Americans pay taxes. The rest have zero liability. That means that they don't pay taxes. This is important, so I'll say it again. Only 67% of Americans that file tax forms have any tax liability. One third of all Americans that file tax forms don't pay taxes.

But wait, there's more... Another 15,000,000 don't file because they don't earn enough. That brings the 2004 total to 40% of all Americans that are outside the federal income tax system. 2 in 5 Americans don't pay federal income tax.

How then, can Obama promise a tax cut to 95%? Easy, he counts on your stupidity. And I see his hope is well rewarded. Meaning he can't promise a tax cut for 95% of Americans because only 60% are paying income taxes to the federal government.

Maybe it was 95% of all taxpayers?:)

Hoping won't make it go away.

It's going to suck for years. Get used to it. The best we can hope for is that we can shorten the suckage, and try to minimise the suckitude.

And that might well mean spending money. Personally. As a nation. At every level.

If you don't like that, you shouldn't have supported pissing billions into the desert.
The mere act of spending money by the Federal government will not help. It didn't help during the Great Depression and there's no reason to believe that it will help now. All of the supposed 'stimulus' that FDR provided didn't materially improve the employment figures, so why do we think it will work now?

Remember, there is only so much money in a GDP and if the Fed spends it, we cannot. Why is that bad? Well the Fed filters it -- it tries to predict where the money will do the most good. The public is much better suited to decide what it is that they want to buy than is the Federal government, thus they should be the ones deciding where the money goes. Cut taxes, eliminate taxes, whatever, but stop massive spending by the Federal government and let public spending stimulate the economy.

...and increasing spending.

What's with y'all? Did I say that was one of the two good things he did? No. I didn't. Now go fight your imaginary battles somewhere else.

...you're making stuff up again.
Okay, maybe y'all are stupid AND ignorant, but this isn't made up. Find someone that can explain it to you.

Are you all stupid? There is no way in hell that 95% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
This makes it appear that, of those filing, only 67% of Americans pay taxes. The rest have zero liability. That means that they don't pay taxes. This is important, so I'll say it again. Only 67% of Americans that file tax forms have any tax liability. One third of all Americans that file tax forms don't pay taxes.

But wait, there's more... Another 15,000,000 don't file because they don't earn enough. That brings the 2004 total to 40% of all Americans that are outside the federal income tax system. 2 in 5 Americans don't pay federal income tax.

How then, can Obama promise a tax cut to 95%? Easy, he counts on your stupidity. And I see his hope is well rewarded. Meaning he can't promise a tax cut for 95% of Americans because only 60% are paying income taxes to the federal government.

Please tell me you're not a mathematician, don't have to use numbers in your work, and don't teach anything that involves values.

First - let's address the dishonesty in the numbers. 33% 'paid no income taxes...after they took advantage of their credits and deductions'. The same site claims that means the burden has been shifted on to wealthier taxpayers - which is a dishonest conclusion. A wealthy person getting a big enough combination of credits and deductions would end up with the same burden as a poor person in which the same balance was struck - i.e. nothing. I'm not sure what the political leanings of your source are, but I'm betting the name 'tax foundation' hides a tax-cut agenda. Probably for the rich.

Secondly - they seem to be conflating two factors - people not paying taxes, and people without a tax liability. You can pay taxes, have a negative liability, and actually make money back. That doesn't mean you didn't pay first.

What's with y'all? Did I say that was one of the two good things he did? No. I didn't. Now go fight your imaginary battles somewhere else.

Cutting taxes isn't intrinsically a good thing.

In fact, it's downright stupid if you're going to pair it with increased spending. COme on, this isn't hard.

Okay, maybe y'all are stupid AND ignorant, but this isn't made up. Find someone that can explain it to you.
*warms hands over the flames* Let me know when you come up with any legitimate facts, or even a coherent argument, that we can roast over this fire.

The mere act of spending money by the Federal government will not help. It didn't help during the Great Depression and there's no reason to believe that it will help now. All of the supposed 'stimulus' that FDR provided didn't materially improve the employment figures, so why do we think it will work now?

Remember, there is only so much money in a GDP and if the Fed spends it, we cannot. Why is that bad? Well the Fed filters it -- it tries to predict where the money will do the most good. The public is much better suited to decide what it is that they want to buy than is the Federal government, thus they should be the ones deciding where the money goes. Cut taxes, eliminate taxes, whatever, but stop massive spending by the Federal government and let public spending stimulate the economy.

'The public' is just people. And for a lot of them, the place they want money to be, is in their hands.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to imagine that translates to somehow being intrinsically the place where money will do the most good.

The mere act of spending money by the Federal government will not help. It didn't help during the Great Depression and there's no reason to believe that it will help now. All of the supposed 'stimulus' that FDR provided didn't materially improve the employment figures, so why do we think it will work now?

The depression was ended by WWII a huge fiscal stimilus. FDR didn't go far enough beforehand.

Remember, there is only so much money in a GDP and if the Fed spends it, we cannot. Why is that bad? Well the Fed filters it -- it tries to predict where the money will do the most good. The public is much better suited to decide what it is that they want to buy than is the Federal government, thus they should be the ones deciding where the money goes. Cut taxes, eliminate taxes, whatever, but stop massive spending by the Federal government and let public spending stimulate the economy.

If the Fed spends it it will filter through the economy creating income for everyone.

Please tell me you're not a mathematician, don't have to use numbers in your work, and don't teach anything that involves values.

First - let's address the dishonesty in the numbers. 33% 'paid no income taxes...after they took advantage of their credits and deductions'. The same site claims that means the burden has been shifted on to wealthier taxpayers - which is a dishonest conclusion. A wealthy person getting a big enough combination of credits and deductions would end up with the same burden as a poor person in which the same balance was struck - i.e. nothing. I'm not sure what the political leanings of your source are, but I'm betting the name 'tax foundation' hides a tax-cut agenda. Probably for the rich.

Secondly - they seem to be conflating two factors - people not paying taxes, and people without a tax liability. You can pay taxes, have a negative liability, and actually make money back. That doesn't mean you didn't pay first.
The phrase, 'paid no income taxes' means just that. It's very simple. For whatever reason 40% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. If you continue on down the page, your comment about the rich avoiding taxes with huge deductions and credits becomes unfounded. In the top bracket, those that earned $70,000 and above, 0.02% were zero tax payers out of the distribution of 52 million non payers. Those that made less that $19,000 made up more than 90% of that distribution.

'The public' is just people. And for a lot of them, the place they want money to be, is in their hands.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to imagine that translates to somehow being intrinsically the place where money will do the most good.

I'd say you must be incredibly naive, or incredibly ignorant to believe the government knows where money should be spent.

I'd say you must be incredibly naive, or incredibly ignorant to believe the government knows where money should be spent.

Which is cute, but irrelevent.

Let's do a simple experiment, shall we?

Give me your money, and I'll put it where it will do most good.

Agree? Yes or no - that's all I need.

The phrase, 'paid no income taxes' means just that.


Then why do they use it interchangably with the lack of tax liability?

Either they're too dumb to know those things aren't the same (which seems unlikely) or they are dishonest.


It's very simple. For whatever reason 40% of Americans do not pay any income taxes.


Yeah. Like those stay at home moms. Bastards. With their not paying and not getting paid.


In the top bracket, those that earned $70,000 and above, 0.02% were zero tax payers out of the distribution of 52 million non payers. Those that made less that $19,000 made up more than 90% of that distribution.

You're seriously pitching a shit-fit because people earning less than 20k don't have a contribution to the tax burden?

I wonder - do you live on a household budget of less than 20k?

Then why do they use it interchangably with the lack of tax liability?

Either they're too dumb to know those things aren't the same (which seems unlikely) or they are dishonest.



Yeah. Like those stay at home moms. Bastards. With their not paying and not getting paid.



You're seriously pitching a shit-fit because people earning less than 20k don't have a contribution to the tax burden?

I wonder - do you live on a household budget of less than 20k?

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0072.gif

:)

Cutting taxes puts less money into the economy than equal government spending.

Are you all stupid? There is no way in hell that 95% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
This makes it appear that, of those filing, only 67% of Americans pay taxes. The rest have zero liability. That means that they don't pay taxes. This is important, so I'll say it again. Only 67% of Americans that file tax forms have any tax liability. One third of all Americans that file tax forms don't pay taxes.

But wait, there's more... Another 15,000,000 don't file because they don't earn enough. That brings the 2004 total to 40% of all Americans that are outside the federal income tax system. 2 in 5 Americans don't pay federal income tax.

How then, can Obama promise a tax cut to 95%? Easy, he counts on your stupidity. And I see his hope is well rewarded. Meaning he can't promise a tax cut for 95% of Americans because only 60% are paying income taxes to the federal government.

As usual, your source doesnt say what you are claiming it does.

Are you all stupid? There is no way in hell that 95% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
This makes it appear that, of those filing, only 67% of Americans pay taxes. The rest have zero liability. That means that they don't pay taxes. This is important, so I'll say it again. Only 67% of Americans that file tax forms have any tax liability. One third of all Americans that file tax forms don't pay taxes.

But wait, there's more... Another 15,000,000 don't file because they don't earn enough. That brings the 2004 total to 40% of all Americans that are outside the federal income tax system. 2 in 5 Americans don't pay federal income tax.

How then, can Obama promise a tax cut to 95%? Easy, he counts on your stupidity. And I see his hope is well rewarded. Meaning he can't promise a tax cut for 95% of Americans because only 60% are paying income taxes to the federal government.

Okay, maybe y'all are stupid AND ignorant, but this isn't made up. Find someone that can explain it to you.

False premise. Obama's promise was to cut taxes for 95% of working families. See, e.g.,link (http://taxcut.barackobama.com/)

Then why do they use it interchangably with the lack of tax liability?
As far as income taxes in the general vernacular it's pretty much interchangeable...

Either they're too dumb to know those things aren't the same (which seems unlikely) or they are dishonest.
It's possible that they don't count Fica as income taxes.

Yeah. Like those stay at home moms. Bastards. With their not paying and not getting paid.
And retirees and the poverty class and the near poor and the disabled and etc.


You're seriously pitching a shit-fit because people earning less than 20k don't have a contribution to the tax burden?
Actually everyone who has a job is supposed to pay medicare/SS tax if they make less than about $100K and for the most part they do. It's not so much that they aren't taxed it's that they aren't taxed on the exact same things he is, so he's either ignorant or being intellectually dishonest.

Actually everyone who has a job is supposed to pay medicare/SS tax if they make less than about $100K and for the most part they do. It's not so much that they aren't taxed it's that they aren't taxed on the exact same things he is, so he's either ignorant or being intellectually dishonest.

I believe he once said he runs a business so probably the later....

As far as income taxes in the general vernacular it's pretty much interchangeable...

It's possible that they don't count Fica as income taxes.

And retirees and the poverty class and the near poor and the disabled and etc.

Actually everyone who has a job is supposed to pay medicare/SS tax if they make less than about $100K and for the most part they do. It's not so much that they aren't taxed it's that they aren't taxed on the exact same things he is, so he's either ignorant or being intellectually dishonest.

I'm confused by the source, I have to admit. These are supposed to be tax experts... aren't they? Could they really be making mistakes? Are they really being dishonest?

Okay, maybe y'all are stupid AND ignorant, but this isn't made up. Find someone that can explain it to you.

Myrmidonisia, cut it out. If you're out of temper with the general public, write a letter to the editor, blog it, whatever. Don't take it out on other posters.

Likewise, if the Democratic party would switch back to being the party it used to be, we might consider making the switch, too.

I was talking more about the politicians, but you are right that their policy positions haven't really changed. They just switched parties.

Cutting taxes puts less money into the economy than equal government spending.

Not necessarily. It depends on how high the taxes being cut are and how the government is spending the money among other variables. The downside to government spending is that it doesn't hit the economy until months after passage whereas tax cuts can be refunded in a matter of days or weeks after the legislation is enacted. On the other hand, tax cuts don't really address fundamental concerns such as infrastructure or technological development, both of which can have a considerable effect on the economy if allowed to deteriorate due to inadequate funding.

That being said, if government spending were universally equal to tax cuts and the private sector's allocation of funds, the Soviet Union would still be around and it would be one of the strongest economies on Earth.

Myrmidonisia, cut it out. If you're out of temper with the general public, write a letter to the editor, blog it, whatever. Don't take it out on other posters.
Message received.

Didn't Obama promise that there would be NO pork in the stimulus bills? But then what would one expect from a President that would also say, "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses, now is not that time."

Aren't we in a recession? Wouldn't profits be good? As far as bonuses, he clearly doesn't understand free enterprise. But we knew that when, during the campaign, he promised to raise taxes on capital gains.

Ironies: 1)Most of the original bailout money was handed out in bonuses. 2)Obama has, in the past four years, given out easily at least one hundred million in earmarks of his own. So, that aside,with congress being, well, congress...do you really expect that there wouldn't be any pork attached to any kind of bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101573.html?hpid=topnews

all this talk about what the effect of promoting contraception to poor people reminded me about Steven Levitt's theory about how abortion and Roe vs Wade positively affected the drop in crime rate, much to the chagrin of the anti-abortion, anti-crime Conservatives:

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

And if we don't do something, Nancy Pelosi says we're losing 500 million American jobs per month...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

Ironies: 1)Most of the original bailout money was handed out in bonuses. 2)Obama has, in the past four years, given out easily at least one hundred million in earmarks of his own. So, that aside,with congress being, well, congress...do you really expect that there wouldn't be any pork attached to any kind of bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101573.html?hpid=topnews
I EXPECT business to go on as usual. My HOPE is that Obama would at least pay lip service to some of the things that he promised and presumably was elected to carry out.

Incidentally, if you divide a trillion dollars by the 3 million jobs that it's supposed to create/save, that's about a third of a million dollars per job. Why don't we just give $50,000 to 20 million unemployed people and call it good?

Incidentally, if you divide a trillion dollars by the 3 million jobs that it's supposed to create/save, that's about a third of a million dollars per job. Why don't we just give $50,000 to 20 million unemployed people and call it good?

because the other part of the point is to make use of productive capacity and maybe wind up with some worthwhile stuff while we're at it?

because the other part of the point is to make use of productive capacity and maybe wind up with some worthwhile stuff while we're at it?

Yeah, like building a Mob Museum in Vegas.

You'd be jumping to conclusions to think she's referring to race. Obviously those who would be born to people who don't want to have children would have it harder than those born to people who DO want to have children; well, as a generalized assumption, but I still think it's a fairly reasonable one.

Your misunderstanding of gravity aside, could you tell us in your own words what is ridiculous about that item?

Here are my thoughts on how birth control saves the country money even if the families are not on welfare.

1. The obvious savings in welfare for children born to indigant mothers

2. Tax credits for children not having to be paid.

3. Cost of educating these children

4. Savings on SCHIP

5. No lost productivity at work for mothers who would have to take time off

6. Less money spent on healthcare and other costs by employers for their workers' families.

7. Reducing the burdens on all forms of social services: Hospital ER's DYFS, etc. public water, sewage, electricity, etc.

Those are just the first to pop into my mind. We already have overcrowding problems and really don't need a massive influx on new citizens.

because the other part of the point is to make use of productive capacity and maybe wind up with some worthwhile stuff while we're at it?
Like a new statue by a NEA grant recipient... Sure. I'd rather have the $50K, if I were unemployed.

Like a new statue by a NEA grant recipient... Sure. I'd rather have the $50K, if I were unemployed.

But if we don't vote for the stimulus (half the money won't be spent in it until 2 years from now), we'll lose 500 million jobs a month!

So says Pelosi!

But if we don't vote for the stimulus (half the money won't be spent in it until 2 years from now), we'll lose 500 million jobs a month!

So says Pelosi!

Run the numbers yourself -- $333,333 for each one of the 3,000,000 jobs that they promise to save or to create. That's a lot of overhead, no matter who you are!

Of course, 99% of all posters here have no idea of what I mean by overhead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

Looks like support for the stimulus package is evaporating quickly.

Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Related survey data shows that half the nation’s voters say the plan that finally emerges from Congress may end up doing more harm than good.

Like a new statue by a NEA grant recipient... Sure. I'd rather have the $50K, if I were unemployed.

Well, that explains a whole lot.

You know, speaking as someone who has actually been unemployed, I'd rather be paid 50 thousand dollars to do something than just be given 50 thousand dollars.

You know, speaking as someone who has actually been unemployed, I'd rather be paid 50 thousand dollars to do something than just be given 50 thousand dollars.
The point is that it's costing US over $300,000 for each job that Pelosi and crew want to create or save. In what way does that make sense?

You know, speaking as someone who has actually been unemployed, I'd rather be paid 50 thousand dollars to do something than just be given 50 thousand dollars.

Go write a book. Here's your 50,000 dollars.

Or better - go to school and we'll pay you 50,000 a year to do it.

You know, speaking as someone who has actually been unemployed, I'd rather be paid 50 thousand dollars to do something than just be given 50 thousand dollars.
Same here. But apparently, it seems that putting people to work is a waste of money.

The point is that it's costing US over $300,000 for each job that Pelosi and crew want to create or save. In what way does that make sense?

How much does your job cost? How much do you get paid?

Not necessarily. It depends on how high the taxes being cut are and how the government is spending the money among other variables.
Incorrect. Just like I said, equal government spending puts more money into the economy than tax cuts. Its a multiplier effect.

How much does your job cost? How much do you get paid?
When you factor in all the overhead, it's not anywhere near $300,000. We bill my time at $127 per hour, but that includes a hefty GM markup.

How much do you suppose a $50,000 per year job _should_ cost? Or are we planning to create/protect mid-level executive jobs with this trillion dollar package?

When you factor in all the overhead, it's not anywhere near $300,000. We bill my time at $127 per hour, but that includes a hefty GM markup.

How much do you suppose a $50,000 per year job _should_ cost? Or are we planning to create/protect mid-level executive jobs with this trillion dollar package?

I think the plan is to create jobs for blacks who have been generationally poor who have no education or job skills (so says Robert Reich). The plan is to fuck everyone else.

I think the plan is to create jobs for blacks who have been generationally poor who have no education or job skills (so says Robert Reich). The plan is to fuck everyone else.
You're still trying to push that lie made up by Michelle Malkin?

You're still trying to push that lie made up by Michelle Malkin?

It's not a lie. Why didn't you watch Robert Reich say it in the video?

Didn't have to read Malkin at all. Everything was on Youtube.

Next thing, Muravyets, you'll deny that Pelosi said we're losing 500 million jobs per month...

You're still trying to push that lie made up by Michelle Malkin?
I have slept through this one. Is the argument that Reich didn't say jobs shouldn't go to white, male construction workers?

When you factor in all the overhead, it's not anywhere near $300,000.
But do you manufacture anything?

We bill my time at $127 per hour, but that includes a hefty GM markup.
How much of that is overhead?

How much do you suppose a $50,000 per year job _should_ cost?
Depends on the job I would suppose.

Or are we planning to create/protect mid-level executive jobs with this trillion dollar package?
I would hope they aren't creating more minimum wage jobs, well, some, but not all of them would be that.

It's not a lie. Why didn't you watch Robert Reich say it in the video?

Didn't have to read Malkin at all. Everything was on Youtube.
I did watch it when you made that thread about it. Reisch said nothing even remotely racist. The evaulation of it that claimed he did was written by Michelle Malkin, who is notorious for making false reports about political figures she doesn't like. The only people who picked it up are, as far as google could tell me, one rightwing group who don't seem to have much other presence beyond youtube clips, and you. No reputable news organization or political analysts have said that Reisch's comments were racist or were advocating keeping stimulus money away from whites. That's just you, Michelle, and those guys on youtube.

I have slept through this one. Is the argument that Reich didn't say jobs shouldn't go to white, male construction workers?

That's the one. He obviously said it, and repeated it in his own defense.

I did watch it when you made that thread about it. Reisch said nothing even remotely racist. The evaulation of it that claimed he did was written by Michelle Malkin, who is notorious for making false reports about political figures she doesn't like. The only people who picked it up are, as far as google could tell me, one rightwing group who don't seem to have much other presence beyond youtube clips, and you. No reputable news organization or political analysts have said that Reisch's comments were racist or were advocating keeping stimulus money away from whites. That's just you, Michelle, and those guys on youtube.

Watch the clip yourself. It requires no special interpretation. Other than Reich's, where he repeats himself.

Next thing, Muravyets, you'll deny that Pelosi said we're losing 500 million jobs per month...
DK, if you said that water was wet, I'd seek a second opinion and an investigation, but I won't bother even looking at anything Pelosi said for two reasons:

1) She's an idiot who never spoke but to mispeak. At least half her career has been spent trying to explain what she said in the other half.

And

2) You're the one criticizing her, and you're also the one promoting Michelle Malkin's lies. You are not a reliable source for anything, so I am confident in assuming that whatever Pelosi said, you failed to understand it.

Someone else in this thread already addressed how you and Myrmi are screwing up the reports of the numbers in this deal. I have no interest in dog piling on showing you how your wrong on the same point.

But do you manufacture anything?


How much of that is overhead?


Depends on the job I would suppose.


I would hope they aren't creating more minimum wage jobs, well, some, but not all of them would be that.
Make your point. Why is it acceptable to pay $300,000 to create or protect a job?

DK, if you said that water was wet, I'd seek a second opinion and an investigation, but I won't bother even looking at anything Pelosi said for two reasons:

1) She's an idiot who never spoke but to mispeak. At least half her career has been spent trying to explain what she said in the other half.

And

2) You're the one criticizing her, and you're also the one promoting Michelle Malkin's lies. You are not a reliable source for anything, so I am confident in assuming that whatever Pelosi said, you failed to understand it.

Someone else in this thread already addressed how you and Myrmi are screwing up the reports of the numbers in this deal. I have no interest in dog piling on showing you how your wrong on the same point.

You have no interest in watching videos of the truth. She's said the 500 million jobs thing twice now.

If Bush had done such a Bushism, you would have been all over it. So it's going to be in my sig forever now.

I have slept through this one. Is the argument that Reich didn't say jobs shouldn't go to white, male construction workers?
Yes, only those words were taken out of context and turned into a slanderous accusation of racism against him. Reisch is a text-book bleeding heart liberal, and I say that as a liberal myself. He often says shit that I'm sure, inside his brain, sounds clear and reasonable -- such as the assumption that if he mentions race at all, people are going to understand he is talking about asking the government to maintain awareness of racial and ethnic balance in handing out contracts, and not just fall back on the same old list of contractors/friends. He is one of those people whose personal slant you have to be aware of, take his whole remark together as a whole, adjust for his slant and then decide what it is he is actually saying.

DK is not doing that. DK isn't even making his own argument. DK is just repeating some vicious piece of gossip that was started by Michelle Malkin, a fact of which I don't think he was even aware before he decided to make a thread about it a while ago. He just found an accusation against someone on the Obama team, and he pounced on it without even checking to see where it had come from. And now he defends it like its his favorite-est puppy ever and it's no fair to say mean things about it.

DK is not doing that. DK isn't even making his own argument. DK is just repeating some vicious piece of gossip that was started by Michelle Malkin, a fact of which I don't think he was even aware before he decided to make a thread about it a while ago.

No, I have a direct link to his stupid comment on video.

Are you saying that the video is fake? Because it isn't.

Watch the clip yourself. It requires no special interpretation. Other than Reich's, where he repeats himself.
What part of "I did watch it" did you not understand. What you are saying is a lie, and it's a lie you didn't even make up. You just keep repeating it.

No, I have a direct link to his stupid comment on video.

Are you saying that the video is fake? Because it isn't.
Pretending to have reading comprehension problems now? Did I SAY the video was false? Or did I say that Michelle Malkin pulled a phrase out of context from it to make up a false accusation about it?

What part of "I did watch it" did you not understand. What you are saying is a lie, and it's a lie you didn't even make up. You just keep repeating it.

You think it's a lie, because you want to defend his idea.

It's pretty clear exactly what he's saying. He even repeated himself in his "rebuttal" where he makes it clear that he believes no part of the stimulus should go to whites of any kind.

Oh, and Nancy saying 500 million jobs lost per month - that's in my sig.

You're going to say that was fake? False? A lie? She's done it twice now.

Make your point. Why is it acceptable to pay $300,000 to create or protect a job?
Because we need the jobs?

You think it's a lie, because you want to defend his idea.

It's pretty clear exactly what he's saying. He even repeated himself in his "rebuttal" where he makes it clear that he believes no part of the stimulus should go to whites of any kind.

Oh, and Nancy saying 500 million jobs lost per month - that's in my sig.

You're going to say that was fake? False? A lie? She's done it twice now.
Are you flamebaiting me again? Trying to start another fight with me because you can't carry your point on the topic?

I'm going to say this again and for the last time. Any further attacks on me on these points will be answered by a copy of this post:

1) I'm not bothering with what Pelosi says because I assume she said something stupid and wrong.

2) What you and Michelle Malkin are saying about Robert Reisch making racist comments and wanting screw white workers is a lie. I base that on what he actually said in the video that you posted.

The end.

Yes, only those words were taken out of context and turned into a slanderous accusation of racism against him. Reisch is a text-book bleeding heart liberal, and I say that as a liberal myself. He often says shit that I'm sure, inside his brain, sounds clear and reasonable -- such as the assumption that if he mentions race at all, people are going to understand he is talking about asking the government to maintain awareness of racial and ethnic balance in handing out contracts, and not just fall back on the same old list of contractors/friends. He is one of those people whose personal slant you have to be aware of, take his whole remark together as a whole, adjust for his slant and then decide what it is he is actually saying.

DK is not doing that. DK isn't even making his own argument. DK is just repeating some vicious piece of gossip that was started by Michelle Malkin, a fact of which I don't think he was even aware before he decided to make a thread about it a while ago. He just found an accusation against someone on the Obama team, and he pounced on it without even checking to see where it had come from. And now he defends it like its his favorite-est puppy ever and it's no fair to say mean things about it.
So what did he say? I heard that quote, followed by something like "I don't have anything against construction workers...". But wasn't the point, however clumsily made, that he wanted the stimulus money to go to the long term unemployed, minorities, women, etc, rather than to anyone with some skills?

So what did he say? I heard that quote, followed by something like "I don't have anything against construction workers...". But wasn't the point, however clumsily made, that he wanted the stimulus money to go to the long term unemployed, minorities, women, etc, rather than to anyone with some skills?

Yes. He thought that directing any recovery money to white people with skills would be a waste of the stimulus. Pretty clear on that.

Are you flamebaiting me again? Trying to start another fight with me because you can't carry your point on the topic?

Repeating my point is not flamebaiting.

Your histrionic response to my posts most certainly is flaming.

You haven't proven anything in regard to Reich's statement, other than your assertion that it's a lie, when the video proves otherwise.

Your only arguments have been histrionics.

Because we need the jobs?

No. That's not the answer. A typical job 'costs' about the same amount that's paid to the employee. Those are the costs to the employer for benefits, insurance, taxes, etc. With a total cost of $300,000 for each of 3,000,000 jobs, that's $150,000 per employee. I know they won't get that much and that's even worse. The government takes its cut and that's what you're afraid to call waste.

Let's just give the $50K to 20,000,000 of our unemployed and let them figure out how to use it.

So what did he say? I heard that quote, followed by something like "I don't have anything against construction workers...". But wasn't the point, however clumsily made, that he wanted the stimulus money to go to the long term unemployed, minorities, women, etc, rather than to anyone with some skills?
Yes, more or less, that was exactly his point.

He wanted those in charge of dispensing stimulus money in form of government contracts to see to it that money also went to companies owned by or hiring the long term unemployed, minorities and women AND NOT JUST to companies owned by or hiring "white construction workers." That was his phrase, and that is what got him into trouble. Even as he said it, he must have realized the gaffe because then he followed that up with the remark about he doesn't "have anything against white construction workers."

Then Michelle Malkin, in her blog, pulled those two phrases in quotes out and claimed that Reisch was racist and trying to deny stimulus money to white workers. She and everyone who has repeated her accusations completely ignore the whole rest of his testimony before Congress in which he clearly is making a plea for inclusiveness, not for excluding whites.

Repeating my point is not flamebaiting.

Your histrionic response to my posts most certainly is flaming.

You haven't proven anything in regard to Reich's statement, other than your assertion that it's a lie, when the video proves otherwise.

Your only arguments have been histrionics.
Then go ahead and report me to the mods. Your statements are still false.

No. That's not the answer. A typical job 'costs' about the same amount that's paid to the employee. Those are the costs to the employer for benefits, insurance, taxes, etc. With a total cost of $300,000 for each of 3,000,000 jobs, that's $150,000 per employee. I know they won't get that much and that's even worse. The government takes its cut and that's what you're afraid to call waste.

Let's just give the $50K to 20,000,000 of our unemployed and let them figure out how to use it.
First of all, do not start projecting me into roles I am not playing. I'm not afraid to call anything waste. I have serious issues with this stimulus package.

However, I happen to believe the government should be creating projects that will generate jobs. I would like the bulk of such projects to be in infrastructure repair and improvement and programs for new energy and other technology development and implementation. But if they also include a few fluff projects like a new museum roof or a new $50,000 NEA sculpture grant, I'll happily accept that. Putting a roof on a museum is a big undertaking that can give business to several kinds of companies, all of whom employ people. A public sculpture in metal or stone not only benefits the artist, but also the quarry or foundry that provide the materials, the sculptor's assistants (who need to get paid), and the shippers and installers who move the thing, as well as the staff who will maintain it once it's installed (job security for the park workers).

However, I know that any project run by the government is going to be more expensive than it strictly needs to be. That is a failing of government. It should be kept to a minimum as much as possible, but when we are in a crisis, we may need to keep counting the pennies, but it would be appropriate to start rounding them up a bit.

It's pretty clear exactly what he's saying. He even repeated himself in his "rebuttal" where he makes it clear that he believes no part of the stimulus should go to whites of any kind.
Lies.

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin

In a time like this, when tempers are riding high and many Americans are close to panic about their jobs and finances, you have a special responsibility to consider the accuracy of what you say and the consequences of inflammatory and erroneous statements. In the last few days, manifestly distorting my words and pulling them out of context, you have accused me of wanting to exclude white males from jobs generated by the stimulus package. Anyone who takes a moment to examine what I actually said and wrote knows this to be an absurd misrepresentation of my position (see this). My goal is and has always been to create as many opportunities for as wide a group as possible, and not exclude anyone from access. There is and has never been any ambiguity about this. The hate mail I have received since your broadcast suggests that the mischievous consequences of your demagoguery are potentially dangerous, in addition to being destructive of rational and constructive political discourse. I urge you to take responsibility for your words. Words and ideas have real world consequences, and you have demonstrated a cavalier disregard for both.


So what did he say? I heard that quote, followed by something like "I don't have anything against construction workers...". But wasn't the point, however clumsily made, that he wanted the stimulus money to go to the long term unemployed, minorities, women, etc, rather than to anyone with some skills?
The transcript reads:
"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."

On his blog he said:
The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers

The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation's roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools. And it will kick-start alternative, non-fossil based sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and so on); new health-care information systems; and universal broadband Internet access.

It's a two-fer: lots of new jobs, and investments in the nation's future productivity.

But if there aren't enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out.

What to do? There's no easy solution to either dilemma. But there's no reason to think about "green jobs" as simply high-tech. Many low-income and low-skilled workers -- women as well as men -- could be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient and renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic systems; rehabilitating and renovating old properties, and improving recycling systems. "Green Jobs Corps" teams could be trained to evaluate and advise homeowners and businesses on these and other means of conserving energy.

People can be trained relatively quickly for these sorts of jobs, as well as many infrastructure j0bs generated by the stimulus -- installing new pipes for water and sewage systems, repairing and upgrading equipment, basic construction -- but contractors have to be nudged both to provide the training and to do the hiring.

I'd suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people withincomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships -- wich must be fully available to women and minorities.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

Sorry, it sounds like you're just trying to cover Reich's ass. When he most definitely wanted to fuck whites out of any stimulus.

Sorry, it sounds like you're just trying to cover Reich's ass. When he most definitely wanted to fuck whites out of any stimulus.

Sure, sure.

*Pats*

Sorry, it sounds like you're just trying to cover Reich's ass. When he most definitely wanted to fuck whites out of any stimulus.
*compares this to what Gravlen posted* I rest my case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece

Gee, I thought Obama had all kinds of foreign policy experience to know that protectionism causes financial depressions....

so if he was so experienced, why did he put that Buy American in there in the first place?

Or was he really that stupid?

And we'll ignore the American people, who no longer support the stimulus package...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

Yeah, like building a Mob Museum in Vegas.

That does sound like construction jobs.....

Like a new statue by a NEA grant recipient... Sure. I'd rather have the $50K, if I were unemployed.

And I would like to see the office of Religious affairs closed down. That would save money as well. So what's your point?

OH, NOESS!!! WELFARE !!! Run for the hills!!! :eek::eek:

Unless it's for failing corporations that spend money on vacation perks and pay raises for their executives after getting it of course. Then it's Necessary Economic Investment.

Unless it's for failing corporations that spend money on vacation perks and pay raises for their executives after getting it of course. Then it's Necessary Economic Investment.

That's a waste of money as well.

Woo hoo! Let's invest money in banks and companies that have already lost trillions through stupidity... what a great idea...

Woo hoo! Since we're already wasting trillions, let's get every Democratic entitlement program we can think of on a single bill, and half of the money in the bill won't be spent for two whole years (even though we'll tell people we really need that stimulus by next week).

No one has proven that either is going to save, or turn around, the economy.

Not one bit of proof other than, "we'll all be sorry if we don't do this".

I EXPECT business to go on as usual. My HOPE is that Obama would at least pay lip service to some of the things that he promised and presumably was elected to carry out.


Considering the last president couldn't even manage to keep to the Constitution, why hold the next to such an exacting standard?


Incidentally, if you divide a trillion dollars by the 3 million jobs that it's supposed to create/save, that's about a third of a million dollars per job. Why don't we just give $50,000 to 20 million unemployed people and call it good?

Which trillion dollars is being devoted entirely to job creation, again?

When you factor in all the overhead, it's not anywhere near $300,000. We bill my time at $127 per hour, but that includes a hefty GM markup.


About $126 an hour?

Let's just give the $50K to 20,000,000 of our unemployed and let them figure out how to use it.

Ok........remembering a previous tirade about welfare so you are now for welfare?

That does sound like construction jobs.....

It's also an economic stimulus for the cement industry.

;)

Make your point. Why is it acceptable to pay $300,000 to create or protect a job?

I have to hope this isn't a serious question.

If you really don't understand the principles of investment, you're basically wasting your time in a thread like this.

Sorry, it sounds like you're just trying to cover Reich's ass. When he most definitely wanted to fuck whites out of any stimulus.

No, reading the transcript, it's quite clear that he's saying that care needs to be taken to make sure that the job creation doesn't pass over the long term unemployed, etc.

The phrase: "...that these jobs not simply go to ..." shows that he's not EXCLUDING white construction workers, and is arguing for the stimulus to be more effectively spread around.

Incidentally - even if he WAS saying what you say he was (which he wasn't)... it wouldn't men he was 'trying to fuck whites out of any stimulus'... unless you are now going to argue that EVERY white is a construction worker?

Regardless. It doesn't say what you said. And you'd have to REALLY want to see something there, to make the genuine mistake that it did. But then - you're not claiming it as a mistake, are you?

Gee, I thought Obama had all kinds of foreign policy experience

What gigantic, massive strawman. No one has made any such claim now or in the election.

I know you cant defeat real arguements DK, but setting up such obvious phantoms is disgraceful.

What gigantic, massive strawman. No one has made any such claim now or in the election.

I know you cant defeat real arguements DK, but setting up such obvious phantoms is disgraceful.

His campaign said he was full of foreign policy knowhow - much more than Bush, for example.

Still don't see it...

His campaign said he was full of foreign policy knowhow - much more than Bush, for example.


Without comparing whether him and Bush had more, why dont you prove the first part of your claim?

Since his campaign said it, Im sure it will be easy to find.

Without comparing whether him and Bush had more, why dont you prove the first part of your claim?

Since his campaign said it, Im sure it will be easy to find.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

"I'm so much better on foreign policy than the Republicans".

He said his POSITIONS were better: which they clearly are. There was never any claim that he had experience.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

"I'm so much better on foreign policy than the Republicans".

Gee, DK's soruce doesnt say what he thinks it says.

Its comparing the two stances and saying Obama's ideas are better. Its not claiming he has more experiance.


This has been another episode of debunking DK's outragous claims.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

"I'm so much better on foreign policy than the Republicans".

He is.

Do you EVER read your sources?

He is.

Do you EVER read your sources?

Then explain the protectionist idiocy he put in the bill. Obama looks less like a leader and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the legislation before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like the leader of the free world, Obama looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to govern or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when America can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

Then explain the protectionist idiocy he put in the bill. Obama looks less like a leader and more like a man reacting to events. He should have foreseen the consequences of the legislation before pushing it. Now, instead of looking like the leader of the free world, Obama looks like a man flailing in the water, looking for lifelines, without a clue as to how to govern or an understanding of trade or foreign relations. He projects weakness, uncertainty, and inexperience at a time when America can ill afford any of those three, let alone the hat trick.

Yeah, this is crap.

I notice youve also dropped your "OMG OBAMA CLAIMED TO BE THE MORE EXPERIANCED ONE!" strawman.

Then explain the protectionist idiocy he put in the bill.
We would ask you for a source showing that "he" put it into the bill, except that we would just expect you to come back with a source saying exactly the opposite, and as usual not notice that your source is contradicting you.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

"I'm so much better on foreign policy than the Republicans".

You forgot Poland.

Then explain...

That's a hell of a lot of words to just say "No, I don't read my sources".

Indeed, given the phrasing of the question - just saying "no" would have been enough.