NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow... President Obama, just had a 55 minute press conference, to talk about the stimulus package in which, I didn't have any of my questions answered. The are?

1.Why is nancy paloski loading it up with Global warming? This question fairly answered by other sources. Hybrids fleet for the government? Saves gas, will save tons of money in the long run. Turbines and Solar power? save money on gas, create jobs and maybe not right this seccond will save money. Now the only problem I have is, this is fine for his budget but not in the Economic bail out package. The only redeaming factor is the job creation. The cars can wait, Government Works will suffice for now.


2. Why are the Republicans being forced out by the Democrats? Not one Republican in Congress voted for the bill, because they were kept out of the decision process. For all Obama's talk about bipartisan politics he's not putting the reigns on the Democrats and making them play ball with the Republicans. His responses to the Republican Challanges of the bill were basically, I won the election so you do it my way. Sorry Barak, we have a thing called checks and ballances.

3.Take out the pork please? Funding for Sex ed and condum distribution does not stimulate the economy what it does do is satisfy the Democrat pitbuls, most notoriously Nancy Paloski. Government funding for Acorn voter registration? WTF mate, not needed at this time. You just got elected. Now these two things are not inherintly bad, quite the opposite, I support them, but these also fall under Government Budget, not for stimulous package.

4.Now why is the Census being changed. The Census is conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to ensure non partisan influence in the drawing up Districts used to determine Seats in Congress. However there is a proccess called Gerrymandering, where Districts are reformated to include a certain voter base and ensuring political dominance over seats, however it is really only done on the State Level. Barak Obama had originally said the Census will stay under the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, back when Bill Richardson, was the Secretary, however now that Judd Gregg (a republican) is the New Secretary of Commerce, Obama has now personally decreed that the Census would be handled by the white house. Suspicious much? Maybe I'm just a paranoid Republican but it sounds like he's trying to Gerrymander the whole country, so that the Democrats stay in power. Who in my personal opinion, since they have controlled the Congress for 2 years, have contributed more to our current "Crisis" then King George Bush the II.

None of these questions were answered. It technically wasnt even a conference. He had a prechosen list of questions he was going to answer. The conferance was set up so that he could grandstand, not actually answer to the people. Im sure some disagree but thats what the forum is for.

Before this goes to a flame war, (someone get the hose ready please), please understand that while I didn't vote for O'bama, I want him to succeed. As a Marine I will support the President, for better or for worse, thats the Oath I took, one I don't take lightly, his politics are my politics whether I agree with them or not.


Edit: oh and what was with that dude from the Washington Post....Who gives a damn about A-Rod. Not important to the discussion, way to go softball player. But it plays into the Press rigging thing. THe people he asked?

The washington Post
THe newyork Times
CBS
ABC
NBC
THe huffington Post
Roughters
Fox News.

Only one news source that people would expect to be critical of him. Now people did ask tough questions, but not horrbile ones. THe only person who asked a question that was tough, was the Fox News reporter. Asking something along the lines of, "You and Joe Biden had a converstaion where Joe Biden said, even if we do everything right theres still a 30% chance for failure. What was this you were talking about." Obama's answer, was basically. I dont remember. Uh huh.

Obama personally met with Republicans and bowed to the majority of their demands...

and then they backstabbed him by refusing to vote for the Bill...

At this point, id be okay with him breaking his promise for Bipartisanship due to Republicans not bothering to cooperate....

you probably need to look at the current bill being voted on tomorrow. most of what you wrote is incorrect.

but i did enjoy a press conference with full answers (no "economics is hard" kind of answers) who never snickers or even smiles inappropriately.

They liked the original plans, before it was hijacked by Palosi and CO, and are being forced out not by Obama, but by the Democrats in Congress. Now when they are revising the bill, the Democrats are telling the republicans that because they won they are gonna do it their way. My question was why wont Obama put the Leash on Palosi

you probably need to look at the current bill being voted on tomorrow. most of what you wrote is incorrect.

but i did enjoy a press conference with full answers (no "economics is hard" kind of answers) who never snickers or even smile inappropriately.

Just because you talk alot, doesn't mean you answer the question.

Just because you talk alot, doesn't mean you answer the question.
he answered every question he was asked. what more do you want?

the house republicans didnt like the original plan because it didnt include tax cuts (tax cuts are a poor economic stimulus compared to direct government spending). the president LED by putting in tax cuts that the republicans wanted but the democrats didnt. i guess it pissed off the repubs because they didnt get to fight for them.

obama personally met with republicans and bowed to the majority of their demands...

absolutely not true!

absolutely not true!

Thank you, for a seccond I thought I was dislexic.

original post edited.

original post edited.
im not reading it again to see what you might have changed.

and there is no W in forthright.

Wow... President Obama, just had a 55 minute press conference, to talk about the stimulus package in which, I didn't have any of my questions answered. The are?

1.Why is nancy paloski loading it up with Global warming? This question fairly answered by other sources. Hybrids fleet for the government? Saves gas, will save tons of money in the long run. Turbines and Solar power? save money on gas, create jobs and maybe not right this seccond will save money. Now the only problem I have is, this is fine for his budget but not in the Economic bail out package. The only redeaming factor is the job creation. The cars can wait, Government Works will suffice for now.


2. Why are the Republicans being forced out by the Democrats? Not one Republican in Congress voted for the bill, because they were kept out of the decision process. For all Obama's talk about bipartisan politics he's not putting the reigns on the Democrats and making them play ball with the Republicans. His responses to the Republican Challanges of the bill were basically, I won the election so you do it my way. Sorry Barak, we have a thing called checks and ballances.

3.Take out the pork please? Funding for Sex ed and condum distribution does not stimulate the economy what it does do is satisfy the Democrat pitbuls, most notoriously Nancy Paloski. Government funding for Acorn voter registration? WTF mate, not needed at this time. You just got elected. Now these two things are not inherintly bad, quite the opposite, I support them, but these also fall under Government Budget, not for stimulous package.

4.Now why is the Census being changed. The Census is conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to ensure non partisan influence in the drawing up Districts used to determine Seats in Congress. However there is a proccess called Gerrymandering, where Districts are reformated to include a certain voter base and ensuring political dominance over seats, however it is really only done on the State Level. Barak Obama had originally said the Census will stay under the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, back when Bill Richardson, was the Secretary, however now that Judd Gregg (a republican) is the New Secretary of Commerce, Obama has now personally decreed that the Census would be handled by the white house. Suspicious much? Maybe I'm just a paranoid Republican but it sounds like he's trying to Gerrymander the whole country, so that the Democrats stay in power. Who in my personal opinion, since they have controlled the Congress for 2 years, have contributed more to our current "Crisis" then King George Bush the II.


What a load of crap.

1) you don't see how saving money and jump starting alternative industry can help create, and preserve jobs?

2) yes, you're right, we have a system of checks and balances. And if the democrat congress didn't vote in favor of the package, it would fail. The system is working fine. They chose to vote against it. They lost. Oh well. The republicans didn't bend even the slightest bit in all their years of power. If they want an alternative proposal, let them table one. They haven't. They haven't submitted a single unified plan

3) For the most part, many of those items have legitimate purposes for economic stimulus. If you don't see how birth control funding can help save money in this economy, I really can't help you

4) then your opinion is predicated on a deep and fundamental failure to understand the roots of this crisis.

absolutely not true!
that is BIG but not particularly correct.

Thank you, for a seccond I thought I was dislexic.

umm k, so what does Dyslexia has to do with someone not agreeing with you?

But because of Obama, I missed House. At least W. had the common decency to hold his at 2 in the afternoon. *grumbles*

(tax cuts are a poor economic stimulus compared to direct government spending)

Neither you or a government can spend it's way out of an economic crisis. Direct government spending does not produce long term jobs.

Tax cuts are an excellent economic stimulus. They worked for Kennedy and they worked for Reagan.

Neither you or a government can spend it's way out of an economic crisis. Direct government spending does not produce long term jobs.

Tax cuts are an excellent economic stimulus. They worked for Kennedy and they worked for Reagan.

oh yeah, the economy under Reagan was SO good...I wonder how you cut the taxes of people out of a job...

Neither you or a government can spend it's way out of an economic crisis. Direct government spending does not produce long term jobs.

Tax cuts are an excellent economic stimulus. They worked for Kennedy and they worked for Reagan.
yes it can and yes it does.

tax cuts worked for them because taxes were high--in kennedy's case they were absurdly high.

Neither you or a government can spend it's way out of an economic crisis. Direct government spending does not produce long term jobs.

Tax cuts are an excellent economic stimulus. They worked for Kennedy and they worked for Reagan.
I wish I could actually hear chanting cadence of you repeating that crap over and over. Do you ring bells and burn incense while you do it, too?

Wow... President Obama, just had a 55 minute press conference, to talk about the stimulus package in which, I didn't have any of my questions answered. <snip>
Obama answered every question he was asked. If you have a specific list you want answered, become a journalist, get a press pass, and ask him yourself. Or attend his next "town hall" meeting and ask him then.

I wish I could actually hear chanting cadence of you repeating that crap over and over. Do you ring bells and burn incense while you do it, too?

and the flaming begins...

Obama answered every question he was asked. If you have a specific list you want answered, become a journalist, get a press pass, and ask him yourself. Or attend his next "town hall" meeting and ask him then.
at mr obama's town hall meeting today in elkart indiana they DID NOT pre-screen the audience so that it only included people who love him!

and the flaming begins...

If you think it's flaming, you could report it to the Mods in the Mod forum.

and the flaming begins...
its a little hard to put up with people who post as if they get all their economic ideas from rush limbaugh.

Neither you or a government can spend it's way out of an economic crisis. Direct government spending does not produce long term jobs.

FDR and the New Deal beg to differ...

Tax cuts are an excellent economic stimulus. They worked for Kennedy and they worked for Reagan.

oh yeah, the economy under Reagan was SO good...I wonder how you cut the taxes of people out of a job...

^^^This as far as Reagan goes...sure Corporate profits look good on paper, and look good on your GDP standing, but whats it matter if all the employees are in Mexico and China?

its a little hard to put up with people who post as if they get all their economic ideas from rush limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh has ideas????????? I could never tell.

and the flaming begins...
Like Wilgrove says...

at mr obama's town hall meeting today in elkart indiana they DID NOT pre-screen the audience so that it only included people who love him!
Wasn't it refreshing? And if he keeps that up, the OP could certainly get his questions addressed by the man himself.

oh yeah, the economy under Reagan was SO good...

Yes it was, it really was.

I wonder how you cut the taxes of people out of a job...

You cut the taxes for both individuals and business. People then buy "stuff" which creates a demand for more "stuff."

Business has more money to invest in expanding their business so they expand which creates more jobs.

ECON 101

Rush Limbaugh has ideas????????? I could never tell.
Nah, Limbaugh just repeats other people's ideas, but he doesn't really understand them.

Nah, Limbaugh just repeats other people's ideas, but he doesn't really understand them.

That's what I thought. Ash had me confused for a bit.

Yes it was, it really was.



You cut the taxes for both individuals and business. People then buy "stuff" which creates a demand for more "stuff."

Business has more money to invest in expanding their business so they expand which creates more jobs.

ECON 101
So that's why Bush's tax cuts and checks to taxpayers boosted the economy so well...

Oh, wait...

So here's what I want to understand, Obama says there's no Pork in the package...and yet...he wants to fund projects.....for states....so...how is that not pork?

What a load of crap.

really?

1) you don't see how saving money and jump starting alternative industry can help create, and preserve jobs?
as I said, the only redeeming valute was the fact that jobs would be created. Saving money in the long run is valuable definately, but first lets curb the downfall, and then start moving forward. I said they way they planned on saving money would be better suited in the Overall Government budget, not in the process of the bail out package. [/quote]

2) yes, you're right, we have a system of checks and balances. And if the democrat congress didn't vote in favor of the package, it would fail. The system is working fine. They chose to vote against it. They lost. Oh well. The republicans didn't bend even the slightest bit in all their years of power. If they want an alternative proposal, let them table one. They haven't. They haven't submitted a single unified plan

first of all, im not sure who youre talking about ,the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Congress as a whole. The Democrats did vote for the package but the Repubs still have a large enough minority to stand against the majority. They voted against it and Won. however your wrong about the Republicans not submitting a plan. They have tried to work with the Democrats. But anytime they try to suggest an alteration or a different idea, the Democrats refuse and say no its our way or the High way, and if that keeps going on the Republicans will keep shooting it down. as they should.

3) For the most part, many of those items have legitimate purposes for economic stimulus. If you don't see how birth control funding can help save money in this economy, I really can't help you

flame not an argument, Basically, a you're wrong and if you can't see why you're wrong then you suck. Make and argument not a flame attack.

4) then your opinion is predicated on a deep and fundamental failure to understand the roots of this crisis.
again attack on me as a person, not on the argument itself, debate or leave

Nah, Limbaugh just repeats other people's ideas, but he doesn't really understand them.

I just thought he created a program where all he has to do is type in about five words from a headline in the New York Post, and the program gives him enough material for a 3 hour show.

You cut the taxes for both individuals and business. People then buy "stuff" which creates a demand for more "stuff."

Business has more money to invest in expanding their business so they expand which creates more jobs.

ECON 101

You know the problem with Econ 101? Usually we call that "introduction to economics". If you wanted to actually get into more complex economic theory, I suggest you break out of the intro courses. Something in the 400s level might be good to show you how while basic theories look good on paper, they tend not to hold up in reality.

Those corpses are just never fresh enough huh Mur?

Rush Limbaugh has ideas????????? I could never tell.
i had the "pleasure" of listening to his show for about 5 minutes today (i was in the car longer but i can only take so much, im only human!)...

he mentioned that the president was going to speak in elkhart and that the economy of elkhart was the worst in the country...

then he said that the DEMOCRATS are to blame for elkhart because RVs are the cornerstone of their job base and RV sales tanked last year....because the democrats are against automobiles (or something)

he must have been in a drug induced haze when the rest of us were paying $4/gallon for gasoline.

its a little hard to put up with people who post as if they get all their economic ideas from rush limbaugh.

cant argue with you there. Even as a republican I try to move out of the same picture frame as that man

So here's what I want to understand, Obama says there's no Pork in the package...and yet...he wants to fund projects.....for states....so...how is that not pork?
its SPENDING.

spending in every state. spending for infrastructure, for education, for keeping police and firemen working.

it doesnt include the non-stimulus items like birth control.

the feds cant help us through this if there is no spending. thats what stimulus IS.

You cut the taxes for both individuals and business. People then buy "stuff" which creates a demand for more "stuff."



Problem is, Government is going to get its taxes from somewhere, if you cut Taxes on one end of the Chain, the other end is going to have to pick up the slack...

Uncle Sam is NOT going to take a cut, EVER, and therefore, who's taxes are a bigger issue, the guy makin Multi-Millions, or the guy makin less than 250000 a year?

yes it can and yes it does.


You will have to explain that one to me. I know if I am in a serious financial crisis and I borrow some money to help out thinks might get a little better. Then it comes time to pay back the money I borrowed and suddenly things are a hell of a lot worse.

No different with the government. They might stimulate the economy in the short term, but then China, Russia, and OPEC are going to be looking for the money they lent us. What do we do when it comes time to pay the piper?

Yes it was, it really was.
No, the Reagan years were the worst of my life until these last few.
Like a lot of people, I heard rumors about an "economic expansion" under Reagan, but I didn't actually know anybody who was doing better. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the median stayed rather flat: up in some regions (deep South, principally because of the military bases; Pacific northwest, principally due to extractive industries), down in others (Northeast and Great Lakes: it was bad where I was living), neither in the Plains or Mountains.

cant argue with you there. Even as a republican I try to move out of the same picture frame as that man
doesnt it make you a bit crazy when the big time republicans have their tongues so firmly up his ass that they APOLOGIZE when they (rightly) say something that offends him?

FDR and the New Deal beg to differ...

economists say otherwise.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002760.html

^^^This as far as Reagan goes...sure Corporate profits look good on paper, and look good on your GDP standing, but whats it matter if all the employees are in Mexico and China?

everything was good under these policies all through the 90's a little recession here and there but mostly by growth. The last 2 years of a "gasp" democratically controlled congress has death rayed the economy.

doesnt it make you a bit crazy when the big time republicans have their tongues so firmly up his ass that they APOLOGIZE when they (rightly) say something that offends him?

um...you have no idea... well maybe you do.

first of all, im not sure who youre talking about ,the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Congress as a whole. The Democrats did vote for the package but the Repubs still have a large enough minority to stand against the majority. They voted against it and Won.

No, they did not. The vote in the Senate to close debate was today. 61 to 37. The attempt to filibuster failed.

however your wrong about the Republicans not submitting a plan. They have tried to work with the Democrats. But anytime they try to suggest an alteration or a different idea, the Democrats refuse and say no its our way or the High way, and if that keeps going on the Republicans will keep shooting it down. as they should.

1) They have not submitted a proposal. Not one. They have made general noise about "tax cuts" and complained a lot, but not one actual proposal has been tabled

2) they failed to shoot it down, today in fact. The filibuster attempt failed.


flame not an argument, Basically, a you're wrong and if you can't see why you're wrong then you suck. Make and argument not a flame attack.

At some point, nothing is left to do but stand in wonder. One things that if you're going to discuss the economy, certain basic realities would come out. There are two:

1) a condom costs less than an abortion. An abortion costs less than pre-natal care, childbirth, and post-natal care. If you want to help people save money, proving a way for them to stop unplanned and unwanted pregnancies is a fairly good one

2) many states are obligated by law to provide health care for contraception. By helping states fund those requirements, it frees up OTHER state funds for more job creating projects.

Those are basic ideas. And I stand by what I said. If they hadn't occurred to you already, I don't think you're equipped for this discussion.

again attack on me as a person, not on the argument itself, debate or leave

I'm terribly, terribly scared. More to point, I'll repeat. If you want to discuss the economic crisis, a basic understanding of its causes would be necessary for that discussion. Since you're trying to lay the blame on a congress which had less than 2 years to act, with a confrontational president, and no veto proof majority, you obviously lack the basic understanding of what happened here.

As such I can't really debate it with you. It's like debating medieval European history with someone who has never been taught anything that happened before 1945. You simply lack the knowledge to contribute to the discussion.

FDR and the New Deal beg to differ...

The New Deal did not produce long term jobs and get us out of the recession. WW II got us out of the recession.

So here's what I want to understand, Obama says there's no Pork in the package...and yet...he wants to fund projects.....for states....so...how is that not pork?
Pork is usually pet projects that score high political points for the pols from the areas in which the project is located. According to Obama, this is all general and basic public spending, not "pet" projects. So, for example, funding police and fire departments is not pork. Funding all highways is not pork, whereas funding a bridge to nowhere would be.

You will have to explain that one to me. I know if I am in a serious financial crisis and I borrow some money to help out thinks might get a little better. Then it comes time to pay back the money I borrowed and suddenly things are a hell of a lot worse.

No different with the government. They might stimulate the economy in the short term, but then China, Russia, and OPEC are going to be looking for the money they lent us. What do we do when it comes time to pay the piper?

the federal government is just about the only sector not in a serious financial crisis. 'tis sorta the point.

Pork is usually pet projects that score high political points for the pols from the areas in which the project is located. According to Obama, this is all general and basic public spending, not "pet" projects. So, for example, funding police and fire departments is not pork. Funding all highways is not pork, whereas funding a bridge to nowhere would be.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up for me.

economists say otherwise.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002760.html

Oh, you want to quote economists? OK.

"The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up." - John Keynes

Nah, Limbaugh just repeats other people's ideas, but he doesn't really understand them.

There is a lot of things that man does not understand.

You know the problem with Econ 101? Usually we call that "introduction to economics". If you wanted to actually get into more complex economic theory, I suggest you break out of the intro courses. Something in the 400s level might be good to show you how while basic theories look good on paper, they tend not to hold up in reality.

Those corpses are just never fresh enough huh Mur?
Stale corpses. They haunt our endeavors. ;)

Originally posted by Herbert West, Economist
You're probably right. He'd been dead too long. He wasn't fresh enough.

i had the "pleasure" of listening to his show for about 5 minutes today (i was in the car longer but i can only take so much, im only human!)...

he mentioned that the president was going to speak in elkhart and that the economy of elkhart was the worst in the country...

then he said that the DEMOCRATS are to blame for elkhart because RVs are the cornerstone of their job base and RV sales tanked last year....because the democrats are against automobiles (or something)

he must have been in a drug induced haze when the rest of us were paying $4/gallon for gasoline.

lol I Was watching wheel of fortune during armed forces week, and they were giving away RV's as one of the final prizes. Twice a contestant missed the final clue but when the prize was opened it said RV. God blessed them. A useless hunk that you have to pay taxes on, if you use it it sucks your bank account dry, and you can't sell it because no one is buying. RV= suckage.

You will have to explain that one to me. I know if I am in a serious financial crisis and I borrow some money to help out thinks might get a little better. Then it comes time to pay back the money I borrowed and suddenly things are a hell of a lot worse.

No different with the government. They might stimulate the economy in the short term, but then China, Russia, and OPEC are going to be looking for the money they lent us. What do we do when it comes time to pay the piper?
we have fallen off a cliff. people are losing jobs at a terrifying rate. (they dont need a tax cut eh?) those who havent lost their job arent buying stuff. they are too scared to. (and who can blame them?)

by jolting the economy with money--money that generates jobs so that people can keep paying their mortgages--you help to stop or slow the fall. It puts the money into the economy that just isnt there. businesses do more business, hire people back, invest in equipment because they have the money to do so.

if you dont do it, it continues to spiral downward and the tax cuts do nothing. if no one is making money or doing business they dont pay taxes. once we get some kind of stability -- if we hit bottom at a much higher level than we would without the government spending--then the private sector will do what it does best--get back to work and build us back up to where we were.

of course i only understand this as explained. the part where it is back up by the vast majority of economists gives me some confidence that it is the right way to go.

Oh, you want to quote economists? OK.

"The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up." - John Keynes

epic fail. "Oh you want to quote an expert whose more qualified than you and I to make a judgement? Yeah well they were probably paid off! Yeah thats it.!"

obvious troll is obvious

So that's why Bush's tax cuts and checks to taxpayers boosted the economy so well...

Oh, wait...

It was to late. Bush, and the Democrats in Congress (like Barney Frank) had their heads in the sand about the economy. I blame both Bush and Congress (both Dems & Repubs) for the situation we are in now.

lol I Was watching wheel of fortune during armed forces week, and they were giving away RV's as one of the final prizes. Twice a contestant missed the final clue but when the prize was opened it said RV. God blessed them. A useless hunk that you have to pay taxes on, if you use it it sucks your bank account dry, and you can't sell it because no one is buying. RV= suckage.
lol

worst

prize

ever!

worse than those ceramic dalmations that they used to make contestants "buy" in the shopping round.

epic fail. "Oh you want to quote an expert whose more qualified than you and I to make a judgement? Yeah well they were probably paid off! Yeah thats it.!"

obvious troll is obvious

what...the fuck? Do you know who John Maynard Keynes is?

So here's what I want to understand, Obama says there's no Pork in the package...and yet...he wants to fund projects.....for states....so...how is that not pork?

Money in there for ACORN also. How does that create jobs? State projects can create some jobs but not long term jobs and we need long term jobs.

we have fallen off a cliff. people are losing jobs at a terrifying rate. (they dont need a tax cut eh?) those who havent lost their job arent buying stuff. they are too scared to. (and who can blame them?)

by jolting the economy with money--money that generates jobs so that people can keep paying their mortgages--you help to stop or slow the fall. It puts the money into the economy that just isnt there. businesses do more business, hire people back, invest in equipment because they have the money to do so.

if you dont do it, it continues to spiral downward and the tax cuts do nothing. if no one is making money or doing business they dont pay taxes. once we get some kind of stability -- if we hit bottom at a much higher level than we would without the government spending--then the private sector will do what it does best--get back to work and build us back up to where we were.

of course i only understand this as explained. the part where it is back up by the vast majority of economists gives me some confidence that it is the right way to go.

I made no arguments agaisnt tax cuts. I am currently Middle class, but come the 23rd where I actually hit basic at Paris Island, I become lower class making only 15 garand a year. I would like a nice healthy tax cut please.

My argument was against what wasteful spending that package does entail.

It was to late. Bush, and the Democrats in Congress (like Barney Frank) had their heads in the sand about the economy. I blame both Bush and Congress (both Dems & Repubs) for the situation we are in now.

damn those corpses! Just. Never. Fresh. Enough.

what...the fuck? Do you know who John Maynard Keynes is?

I don't, but I wasn't the one that dismissed it.

Money in there for ACORN also. How does that create jobs? State projects can create some jobs but not long term jobs and we need long term jobs.
there is no money "for acorn"

that is a bullshit talking point.

Eh personally I'm willing to try anything to get us out of this economic crisis that we're in.

damn those corpses! Just. Never. Fresh. Enough.

Personally I like to wait till Rigor Mortis sets in......;)

I made no arguments agaisnt tax cuts. I am currently Middle class, but come the 23rd where I actually hit basic at Paris Island, I become lower class making only 15 garand a year. I would like a nice healthy tax cut please.

My argument was against what wasteful spending that package does entail.
are you making lots of money now?

you need to marry a nice girl with children (1000k/qualfying child under 17)... i heard of this nice girl in california with 14 kids under 8 years old...

what...the fuck? Do you know who John Maynard Keynes is?

My bad, I read your post the wrong way, or rather under the wrong tone. Appologies offered. However while yes that works in theory, studies show that the Depression would have been over ealrier, his attempting to spend his way out, ended up prolonging the depression.

are you making lots of money now?

you need to marry a nice girl with children (1000k/qualfying child under 17)... i heard of this nice girl in california with 14 kids under 8 years old...

actually no i make no money right now, currently unemployed as I wait for my enlistment to begin. My story is irrelevant really, but I'm under my parents roof for another 2 weeks.

you need to marry a nice girl with children (1000k/qualfying child under 17)... i heard of this nice girl in california with 14 kids under 8 years old...

You know, when my Dad was alive, he had a client that had $100,000 in capital losses, which at the time could only be deducted at $1,000 per year against ordinary income.

He married a woman with $120,000 in capital gains on December 20th or so, and they got divorced on January 5th. They filed together, split the money he saved her, and went their own ways.

So, people do get married for tax reasons.

economists say otherwise.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002760.html

You need more than one article if you're going to characterise an entire field.
From the article:
In the 1920s, unemployment had averaged below 5 percent. Blundering when they knew better, Herbert Hoover, his Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Congress drove that rate up to 25 percent. Roosevelt pulled unemployment down, but nowhere near enough to claim sustained recovery. From 1933 to 1940, FDR's first two terms, it averaged in the high teens. Even if you add in all the work relief jobs, as some economists do, Roosevelt-era unemployment averages well above 10 percent....
New Deal public-works spending did have a short-term effect, creating jobs and economic activity during Roosevelt's first term...A master of timing, he even managed to get unemployment down to a low of 13.9 percent in November of that year, the month of the presidential election.

So from your article we can see that the New Deal did well, just not well enough. This idea is supported by the second world war. The mass government spending that triggered healed the great depression showing that government spending isn't the problem it's how much they spend. And FDR just wasn't aggressive enough.



everything was good under these policies all through the 90's a little recession here and there but mostly by growth. The last 2 years of a "gasp" democratically controlled congress has death rayed the economy.
They barely had a majority and republican ideals put into play before they were elected caused the crisis.

Pork is usually pet projects that score high political points for the pols from the areas in which the project is located. According to Obama, this is all general and basic public spending, not "pet" projects. So, for example, funding police and fire departments is not pork. Funding all highways is not pork, whereas funding a bridge to nowhere would be.

and if the term has any negative meaning at all, it probably has to include the idea that it is included in a bill mainly to gain some politician's support for an otherwise unrelated bill.

there is no money "for acorn"

that is a bullshit talking point.

wrong, one of the points was to fun Acorn for voter regestration for the election of 2012 but more importantly midterms in 2010, trying to get a filibuster proof majority.

My bad, I read your post the wrong way, or rather under the wrong tone. Appologies offered. However while yes that works in theory, studies show that the Depression would have been over ealrier, his attempting to spend his way out, ended up prolonging the depression.

I've seen those studies. They are based on a basic premise that the free market will self regulate and correct with great efficiency than interventionism. I firmly believe that this current crisis is a direct example of the failure of the free market to do just that.

actually no i make no money right now, currently unemployed as I wait for my enlistment to begin. My story is irrelevant really, but I'm under my parents roof for another 2 weeks.
good luck in basic!

i hear its tough.

its SPENDING.

spending in every state. spending for infrastructure, for education, for keeping police and firemen working.

it doesnt include the non-stimulus items like birth control.

the feds cant help us through this if there is no spending. thats what stimulus IS.

Stimulus is not just spending. Stimulus is spending to create long term JOBS.

Giving money to ACORN (which is in the bill) does not create jobs. Spending on fixing up government buildings does not create long term jobs. Spending a few $$ for new aircraft for the Air Force or replacing military equipment lost in the war creates long term jobs. Cutting taxes and increasing consumer spending creates long term jobs.

You know, when my Dad was alive, he had a client that had $100,000 in capital losses, which at the time could only be deducted at $1,000 per year against ordinary income.

He married a woman with $120,000 in capital gains on December 20th or so, and they got divorced on January 5th. They filed together, split the money he saved her, and went their own ways.

So, people do get married for tax reasons.
did he think it up on his own or did your dad advise him to do it? its brilliant.

It was to late. Bush, and the Democrats in Congress (like Barney Frank) had their heads in the sand about the economy. I blame both Bush and Congress (both Dems & Repubs) for the situation we are in now.
Aahahahahahaa! :D :D You get better and better. Brother, wake up -- 20+ years (and three administrations) worth of shitty economic policy is what's to blame for the situation we're in now. The only president who did anything right since before Reagan was ... you might want to sit down... Clinton, because he abandoned the Republican-supported policies and managed to balance his budget. But even he did not establish really sound policy that would have stopped the corruption of the financial industry that we saw come to light with the bursting of the housing bubble.

and if the term has any negative meaning at all, it probably has to include the idea that it is included in a bill mainly to gain some politician's support for an otherwise unrelated bill.

also known as riders, hence why I support the idea of the LIne Item Veto.

"Alright funding for Schools, but whats this a rider that gives 80 bajillion dollars to the Hamster in Balls foundation? well I can't afford that one, sorry kids."

Fascisous(sp?) using an outrageous example to prove a finer point.

did he think it up on his own or did your dad advise him to do it? its brilliant.

It was hinted, I believe.

Stimulus is not just spending. Stimulus is spending to create long term JOBS.

Giving money to ACORN (which is in the bill) does not create jobs. Spending on fixing up government buildings does not create long term jobs. Spending a few $$ for new aircraft for the Air Force or replacing military equipment lost in the war creates long term jobs. Cutting taxes and increasing consumer spending creates long term jobs.
not that there IS money "for acorn"

but

acorn employs lots of people. it employs the lower income kind of people who spend every penny they get.

it would be an excellent way to spend stimulus money.

good luck in basic!

i hear its tough.

true especially Marine basics, thanks for the support. I shall endure!

2. Why are the Republicans being forced out by the Democrats? Not one Republican in Congress voted for the bill, because they were kept out of the decision process. For all Obama's talk about bipartisan politics he's not putting the reigns on the Democrats and making them play ball with the Republicans. His responses to the Republican Challanges of the bill were basically, I won the election so you do it my way. Sorry Barak, we have a thing called checks and ballances.
Checks and balances does not mean the President is the Congressional opposition party's bitch. And the President made alot of changes the jackass GOP wanted in the House bill, and they all refused to vote for it. Their whining and bitching about not playing ball with them is disingenuous.

4.Now why is the Census being changed. The Census is conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to ensure non partisan influence in the drawing up Districts used to determine Seats in Congress
The jackass that should have never been appointed to head the Chamber of Commerce is a partisan hack who has previously taken pot shots at the census.

wrong, one of the points was to fun Acorn for voter regestration for the election of 2012 but more importantly midterms in 2010, trying to get a filibuster proof majority.

Dude, no.

Tell you what. Find it. Don't find some airbag yacking about it, find the provision. Show us.

Good luck with that.

Stimulus is not just spending. Stimulus is spending to create long term JOBS.

no.

Money in there for ACORN also. How does that create jobs? State projects can create some jobs but not long term jobs and we need long term jobs.
Prove that, please, because more than a week ago, I was hearing Senators on CNN declaring that that was false, and ACORN is not in the package. If you know otherwise, post your info, please. Otherwise, I'm going to call bullshit talking point.

wrong, one of the points was to fun Acorn for voter regestration for the election of 2012 but more importantly midterms in 2010, trying to get a filibuster proof majority.
i dont know if that is still in there (if it ever was) but that would be money that could be applied for by ANY voter registration outfit. its not "for acorn".

I've seen those studies. They are based on a basic premise that the free market will self regulate and correct with great efficiency than interventionism. I firmly believe that this current crisis is a direct example of the failure of the free market to do just that.

Thats up to endless debate and opinion unfortunately, but put simply, you cant get out of debt by spending more money. Even if people keep giving you money, what really saved the Economy was WWII a massive publics work program, that had some long term jobs. By the time they all came back, we had fixed everything.

Cutting taxes and increasing consumer spending creates long term jobs.

not right now it doesn't. I'm a fairly typical average joe. I get my annual increment payrise come April and I plan to save every last penny of that rise. Likewise if I got a tax cut, I'd do the same. Why? Cause I've no idea if I'll still be in a job this time next year. I want to make sure I've got enough put away to tide me over if worse comes to worst. The government could give me a 100% tax cut right now and I wouldn't spend a cent of that.
And I'm pretty sure the majority of the (still) working populace would do as I am.

i dont know if that is still in there (if it ever was) but that would be money that could be applied for by ANY voter registration outfit. its not "for acorn".

very true, I was just regarding the specifics of the Bill. I would object to any voter agency funding because THeres other places to spend the money that are more beneficial.

the federal government is just about the only sector not in a serious financial crisis. 'tis sorta the point.

The Social Security trust fund is full of IOUs. MEDICARE is seriously underfunded. How can you say the federal government is NOT in financial crisis? :confused: We have one hell of a deficit and are about to spend billions more of dollars we don't have. Soon we could be like Zimbabwe and be removing zeros from our currency because one billion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread.

wrong, one of the points was to fun Acorn for voter regestration for the election of 2012 but more importantly midterms in 2010, trying to get a filibuster proof majority.
Either you or Celt, whoever has the source that proves that claim, I am eager to see it.

Thats up to endless debate and opinion unfortunately, but put simply, you cant get out of debt by spending more money. Even if people keep giving you money, what really saved the Economy was WWII a massive publics work program, that had some long term jobs. By the time they all came back, we had fixed everything.
makes you wonder how different our economy would be now if it had had the chance to fully recover from the great depression instead of being "fixed" by a world war.

not right now it doesn't. I'm a fairly typical average joe. I get my annual increment payrise come April and I plan to save every last penny of that rise. Likewise if I got a tax cut, I'd do the same. Why? Cause I've no idea if I'll still be in a job this time next year. I want to make sure I've got enough put away to tide me over if worse comes to worst. The government could give me a 100% tax cut right now and I wouldn't spend a cent of that.
And I'm pretty sure the majority of the (still) working populace would do as I am.


DONT SELL STOCK!!! Keep it and actually buy some more. Cause while the Economy crumbles the stocks will be low. But as it rises you will own stock that increasingly will gain value. While the stocks crashed its an on paper loss but technically you havent lost any money, you only will if you sell.

Thats up to endless debate and opinion unfortunately,

Actually no, it's not. It's pretty cut and dry that this crisis was caused by financial institutions' failure to regulate themselves in an efficient manner. Something that free market proponents suggests is what should happen in a free market system.

In fact, the exact fucking opposite happened, and they leveraged themselves on a market that they knew to be unstable. That wasn't rational self interest promoting smart self regulation.

That was greed. Which is the fundamental flaw in the free market system.

but put simply, you cant get out of debt by spending more money. Even if people keep giving you money, what really saved the Economy was WWII a massive publics work program, that had some long term jobs. By the time they all came back, we had fixed everything.

an entire school of economics would disagree. I'm not necessarily inclined to throw out the entire Keynseian school of economics because some guy on the internet said so.

Moreover, I"m gonna focus on your bolded part here. What saved the economy? A public works program? You mean the government spending money on industries so that people can get hired, and have jobs and money?

What do you think is the POINT of this stimulus package?

very true, I was just regarding the specifics of the Bill. I would object to any voter agency funding because THeres other places to spend the money that are more beneficial.
yeah its hard to figure what things should go out of the bill because while they may need funding, they need to be fully debated before the changes are made. like.. head start, family planning, some education things...

its not like voter registration isnt going to get more funding later. it will. it just wont be in the stimulus bill.

Checks and balances does not mean the President is the Congressional opposition party's bitch. And the President made alot of changes the jackass GOP wanted in the House bill, and they all refused to vote for it. Their whining and bitching about not playing ball with them is disingenuous.


The jackass that should have never been appointed to head the Chamber of Commerce is a partisan hack who has previously taken pot shots at the census.


while you may be extremely liberal and sit to the left of things, (it's not hard to tell) stop throwing the personal attack words.

we have fallen off a cliff. people are losing jobs at a terrifying rate. (they dont need a tax cut eh?) those who havent lost their job arent buying stuff. they are too scared to. (and who can blame them?)

by jolting the economy with money--money that generates jobs so that people can keep paying their mortgages--you help to stop or slow the fall. It puts the money into the economy that just isnt there. businesses do more business, hire people back, invest in equipment because they have the money to do so.

if you dont do it, it continues to spiral downward and the tax cuts do nothing. if no one is making money or doing business they dont pay taxes. once we get some kind of stability -- if we hit bottom at a much higher level than we would without the government spending--then the private sector will do what it does best--get back to work and build us back up to where we were.

of course i only understand this as explained. the part where it is back up by the vast majority of economists gives me some confidence that it is the right way to go.

I hope you are right. If not, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay dearly.

I disagree that a "vast majority of economists" agree with the stimulus plan as it is. I realize the government must do something but I think we be very careful about where and how we spend the money. I also think we need a lot of oversite so the $$$ don't vanish into thin air.

No one is going to try to back up that ACORN claim? *is dissappointed but not surprised*

I hope you are right. If not, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay dearly.

I disagree that a "vast majority of economists" agree with the stimulus plan as it is. I realize the government must do something but I think we be very careful about where and how we spend the money. I also think we need a lot of oversite so the $$$ don't vanish into thin air.
well no. most economists would prefer more spending.

damn those corpses! Just. Never. Fresh. Enough.

Barney Frank and a lot of the others in Congress of both parties who contributed to this crisis are still very much alive. I suggest they all be thrown to the lions.

The Social Security trust fund is full of IOUs. MEDICARE is seriously underfunded. How can you say the federal government is NOT in financial crisis? :confused: We have one hell of a deficit and are about to spend billions more of dollars we don't have. Soon we could be like Zimbabwe and be removing zeros from our currency because one billion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread.

yeah, that's not really how it works

I hope you are right. If not, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay dearly.

I disagree that a "vast majority of economists" agree with the stimulus plan as it is. I realize the government must do something but I think we be very careful about where and how we spend the money. I also think we need a lot of oversite so the $$$ don't vanish into thin air.
we know where this money is going. just like we know where the stimulus money went from last spring.

but tomorrow the secretary of the treasury is going to tell us his plan for doling out the rest of that $700billion bailout from october. THAT needs to be closely watched.

yeah its hard to figure what things should go out of the bill because while they may need funding, they need to be fully debated before the changes are made. like.. head start, family planning, some education things...

its not like voter registration isnt going to get more funding later. it will. it just wont be in the stimulus bill.

this is the point ive been trying to make all long. though family planning is another one that should be on the Government Budget not on the Stimulus Bill

an entire school of economics would disagree. I'm not necessarily inclined to throw out the entire Keynseian school of economics because some guy on the internet said so.

Moreover, I"m gonna focus on your bolded part here. What saved the economy? A public works program? You mean the government spending money on industries so that people can get hired, and have jobs and money?

What do you think is the POINT of this stimulus package?
as i said im not arguing against the stimulus package I think we need one, just certain aspects of it.

I disagree that a "vast majority of economists" agree with the stimulus plan as it is.

indeed, they seem to mainly think it is way too small, and all the compromises made with 'centrists' were terrible terrible ideas. also, they think we should have nationalized the banks months ago.

No one is going to try to back up that ACORN claim? *is dissappointed but not surprised*

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/850-billion-stimulus-package-will-funnel-money-to-acorn/

Aahahahahahaa! :D :D Clinton, because he abandoned the Republican-supported policies and managed to balance his budget.

Sorry. It was not Clinton who balanced the budget. It was the Republican majority in Congress that balanced the budget.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/850-billion-stimulus-package-will-funnel-money-to-acorn/

wow, this guy belongs on NSG. The part of the bill he's quoting in no way relates to the argument he's trying to make.

He'd fit in fine around here. That part of the bill that's "designated money to ACORN"? It's this one:

“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289) . . "

giving money for assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes? Those BASTARDS? What is this spending money on HOUSES. Don't they know there's a housing crisis going on?

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/850-billion-stimulus-package-will-funnel-money-to-acorn/
yeah im not sure its still in there. that was from 1/26. the bill has changed substantially since then.

besides, acorn is an excellent organization. the republican party hates it because they registered a bunch of new voters who voted democratic.

indeed, they seem to mainly think it is way too small, and all the compromises made with 'centrists' were terrible terrible ideas. also, they think we should have nationalized the banks months ago.

i like national banks, all my stuff is gaurenteed unless the whole country goes under.

wow, this guy belongs on NSG. The part of the bill he's quoting in no way relates to the argument he's trying to make.

He'd fit in fine around here. That part of the bill that's "designated money to ACORN"? It's this one:

“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289) . . "

giving money for assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes? Those BASTARDS? What is this spending money on HOUSES. Don't they know there's a housing crisis going on?
i hope thats still in there. if we let whole neighborhoods go to the mountain lions (remember that photo?) its pretty hard to save the houses that are still being lived in and the surrounding neighborhoods.

yeah im not sure its still in there. that was from 1/26. the bill has changed substantially since then.

besides, acorn is an excellent organization. the republican party hates it because they registered a bunch of new voters who voted democratic.

I wont disagree with this, I was looking for a source and I found one that started "Acorn is the largest far left political group in the United states" *back click and grumble about stupid far rights that make your party look bad.*

however there was some isolated cases, that Obama did not have ahand in where Acorn attempted to influence the election, however they were caught. and Obama scolded them.

however there was some isolated cases, that Obama did not have ahand in where Acorn attempted to influence the election, however they were caught. and Obama scolded them.

Do you have a source for this? Where was ACORN caught "attempting to influence the election"? When was this?

Prove that, please, because more than a week ago, I was hearing Senators on CNN declaring that that was false, and ACORN is not in the package. If you know otherwise, post your info, please. Otherwise, I'm going to call bullshit talking point.

And little more than a week ago there was this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

And little more than a week ago there was this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

Once again, this is not an attempt to "fund ACORN". It's providing funding for a project which ACORN (amongst many organization) undertakes as one of its projects (amongst many projects).

ACORN is one of many. It's also the republican boogieman. nobody has objected, seriously, to the purpose of those fundings, they've just screamed and jumped up and down that this bill is allocating money to ACORN.

That is a lie.

The moral of the story: Life's a hell of a lot better when you don't listen to what the fuckin' idiots on Washington have to spew about how to "make your life better."

Fuck that. I'll make my own life (oh shit, middle-class guy in a university, I'm FUCKED according to Congress, the President, both parties, whatever. WHAT A CRISIS). Sorry, I actually - OH MY GOD - work. I study, I work a supplemental job, I go to class, and yet I still wouldn't trade my life for any other. Whoops, look what independent thought can do!

Stop buyin into the bullshit on Capital Hill, seriously. When all we have to do is worry about how the government is gonna fix our problems, than we're truly in a pretty shitty state. I don't vouch for either party 'cuz frankly both suck and just make power grabs (you want a recent case? The Census. Bang. I can bring up Republican power grabs too).

Credit to my boy Tarsonis for stimulating an interesting psychological debate regarding people who buy into the crap that D.C. spews. If nothing else, it's pretty interesting to follow your conversation and see how heated y'all get into this stuff. I'd love to see what y'all could do if you tried looking out for yourself.

not right now it doesn't. I'm a fairly typical average joe. I get my annual increment payrise come April and I plan to save every last penny of that rise. Likewise if I got a tax cut, I'd do the same. Why? Cause I've no idea if I'll still be in a job this time next year. I want to make sure I've got enough put away to tide me over if worse comes to worst. The government could give me a 100% tax cut right now and I wouldn't spend a cent of that.
And I'm pretty sure the majority of the (still) working populace would do as I am.

And what will the bank do with that money you are saving? Put it in a jar and bury it? Or will they loan it to someone to buy a house or a car? Will they loan it to a business to expand and create a job?

Just because you are not spending it doesn't mean it won't stimulate the economy.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/850-billion-stimulus-package-will-funnel-money-to-acorn/
Ah, finally. Now let's look at that.

"Nice Deb" might be a very nice lady, but who is she, beside some random blogger? I could not find anything on her blog page that tells me that she is a journalist, or a politician, or an economic analyst, or news analyst, or party wonk, or anything. All her blog post is, is a regurgitation of a talking point release from the Republican Party, focusing on Boehner's anti-stimulus junket from last month. One of the problems with these anonymous amateur bloggers is that they, like the people who link to them, do not read their sources carefully enough. Here is a quote from what your blogger was quoting (emphasis added by me):

The Democrat’s Job Creation” Bill Offers Taxpayer-Funded Bonanza for Organization Reportedly Under Federal Investigation Washington, Jan 23 - The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill, approved on January 21 by the Appropriations Committee and headed to the House floor next week for a vote, could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)

So, in fact, even your blogger's source does not actually say that ACORN was in the bill or getting any money.

That admission, of course, did not stop Boehner from ranting on and on about the horrendous evils of ACORN as if they were not only in the stimulus bill but maybe even hiding under our children's beds.

Nor did it stop "Nice Deb" from piling on with scare words like "obscene" to describe this horrific travesty that was not actually happening.

And it did not stop you from repeating what is, basically, one of the more transparent lies floated by the Republicans recently.

Do you have a source for this? Where was ACORN caught "attempting to influence the election"? When was this?

Uh.....during the election? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge that in about 6 different Acorn locations, people were either Rejecting Republican Voter Registration outright or tearing them up after the people left. They got caught Obama made a speach about it saying that wasn't his policies and they acted on their own. I believe him......way to pay attention to the campaign.

And little more than a week ago there was this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

I love how this-
He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.
becomes OMG They're gonna give ACORN money to fix elections!!!one!1!!


Sweet crap.

Sorry. It was not Clinton who balanced the budget. It was the Republican majority in Congress that balanced the budget.
Oh, really? What happened under Bush then? Did they forget to drink their coffee?

The moral of the story: Life's a hell of a lot better when you don't listen to what the fuckin' idiots on Washington have to spew about how to "make your life better."

Fuck that. I'll make my own life (oh shit, middle-class guy in a university, I'm FUCKED according to Congress, the President, both parties, whatever. WHAT A CRISIS). Sorry, I actually - OH MY GOD - work. I study, I work a supplemental job, I go to class, and yet I still wouldn't trade my life for any other. Whoops, look what independent thought can do!

Stop buyin into the bullshit on Capital Hill, seriously. When all we have to do is worry about how the government is gonna fix our problems, than we're truly in a pretty shitty state. I don't vouch for either party 'cuz frankly both suck and just make power grabs (you want a recent case? The Census. Bang. I can bring up Republican power grabs too).

Credit to my boy Tarsonis for stimulating an interesting psychological debate regarding people who buy into the crap that D.C. spews. If nothing else, it's pretty interesting to follow your conversation and see how heated y'all get into this stuff. I'd love to see what y'all could do if you tried looking out for yourself.
so the 3 millions jobs lost is all a lie?

Ah, finally. Now let's look at that.

"Nice Deb" might be a very nice lady, but who is she, beside some random blogger? I could not find anything on her blog page that tells me that she is a journalist, or a politician, or an economic analyst, or news analyst, or party wonk, or anything. All her blog post is, is a regurgitation of a talking point release from the Republican Party, focusing on Boehner's anti-stimulus junket from last month. One of the problems with these anonymous amateur bloggers is that they, like the people who link to them, do not read their sources carefully enough. Here is a quote from what your blogger was quoting (emphasis added by me):



So, in fact, even your blogger's source does not actually say that ACORN was in the bill or getting any money.

That admission, of course, did not stop Boehner from ranting on and on about the horrendous evils of ACORN as if they were not only in the stimulus bill but maybe even hiding under our children's beds.

Nor did it stop "Nice Deb" from piling on with scare words like "obscene" to describe this horrific travesty that was not actually happening.

And it did not stop you from repeating what is, basically, one of the more transparent lies floated by the Republicans recently.


okay heres a source about the republicans actions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

oh wait i forgot thats Fox News, and even though its a legitamate news source people disregard it as biased, since CNN and NBC are so impartial.

Now I will admit *many bows and pardons please* that I may have jumped the Gun by naming ACORN specifically, but ACORN and Groups like it, will be eligable for money. which should not be in the bill, thats my argument, the Ethics of Acorn aside.

I wont disagree with this, I was looking for a source and I found one that started "Acorn is the largest far left political group in the United states" *back click and grumble about stupid far rights that make your party look bad.*

however there was some isolated cases, that Obama did not have ahand in where Acorn attempted to influence the election, however they were caught. and Obama scolded them.
That was another lie spread by rightwing bloggers. ACORN hires people to get folks to register to vote. They pay them a fee per completed form. Some of their hirees filled out the form fraudulently so they could pad out their numbers and get paid more.

BY LAW, ACORN IS REQUIRED to send ALL forms that it receives, no matter how bogus, to the local election board. And that is exactly what ACORN did. They also flagged the obviously bogus ones as "questionable" to bring them to the election board's attention. But the law forbade ACORN from culling what they sent in to the government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/



That is a lie.

Just :rolleyes: lol...

ACORN and Groups like it, will be eligable for money. which should not be in the bill, thats my argument, the Ethics of Acorn aside.

why not? do you know what they do?

And little more than a week ago there was this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/
That article is dated January 27. Nice Deb's blog was dated January 26. This is the exact same thing -- the Republicans bitching about something that might happen in vague connection to groups that might be similar to a group that is not actually named in the bill.

Good night all. It has been a pleasure debating with you but it is time for this old fart to go to bed. I am still fortunate enough to have a job and and doing my part to stimulate the economy by paying two mortgages and two sets of utility bills.
Now, if one of you would be so kind as to do your job in stimulating the economy by buying my house in OK so I can retire to LA I would be forever greatfull.
Great dreams and Happy Paws to all.

Uh.....during the election? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge that in about 6 different Acorn locations, people were either Rejecting Republican Voter Registration outright or tearing them up after the people left. They got caught Obama made a speach about it saying that wasn't his policies and they acted on their own. I believe him......way to pay attention to the campaign.

ahh, so you bought into right wing talking points, I see. The reason I asked, is because what happened isn't at all what you're describing. I had assumed the possibility that there might be something else I wasn't aware of, and you weren't repeating that old lie.

I was wrong.

Let me lay down a little facts, ok? ACORN's function was to register voters, they paid people to do that, and paid them by the amount of people they got to register. Didn't matter if the people were democrat, or republican, or independant, ACORNs mission was to register voters.

In order to do that, ACORN employed people to get voters to register. They were paid by the registration. Some people, acting independently, figured rather than do the work, they'd fill out a bunch of of fake registration forms. They got caught. Who caught them? ACORN did. In their inspections, they noticed fake looking forms, and they, of their own volition and initiative, instigated an internal investigation, and found more.

And then what did they do? They turned them over. ACORN wasn't caught "trying to influence the election". That is a lie. Individual employees of ACORN decided to, instead of doing their job, fill out fake registration forms, not for any political purpose, but to get paid. Unless someone actually showed up to vote the name on those fraudulent forms, this would not and could not influence the election in any way, and there hasn't been a single shred of proof that this was for ANY OTHER PURPOSE other than lazy people trying to make money. ACORN discovered it, and ACORN reported it.

To this day, neither ACORN, nor one single person in their management has been convicted of, charged with, indicted for, arrested for, or even formally accused of ANY voter fraud, or voter registration fraud. Not once.

Moreover, not one single fraudulent vote has been linked to this event. Not one.

Oh, really? What happened under Bush then? Did they forget to drink their coffee?

uh see earlier where the recession took a nose dive when the Dems took over under bush just a little over 2 years ago.

And what will the bank do with that money you are saving? Put it in a jar and bury it? Or will they loan it to someone to buy a house or a car? Will they loan it to a business to expand and create a job?

Just because you are not spending it doesn't mean it won't stimulate the economy.
True, if the banks were issuing loans and credit. Which they are not doing. You know, that whole "credit crunch" thing...

okay heres a source about the republicans actions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

oh wait i forgot thats Fox News, and even though its a legitamate news source people disregard it as biased, since CNN and NBC are so impartial.

Now I will admit *many bows and pardons please* that I may have jumped the Gun by naming ACORN specifically, but ACORN and Groups like it, will be eligable for money. which should not be in the bill, thats my argument, the Ethics of Acorn aside.
Celt posted that link. It is based on the same source as your blog, and just as false.

Celt posted that link. It is based on the same source as your blog, and just as false.


not true, it funds "groups like ACORN". the ethics or mysteries of ACORN aside, I really don't care about that, I mainly care about what ACORN actually is. A voter Registration group, and thats not where money needs to be spent. Republicans Cry foul more so because it looks like O'bama is filling the bill with favors to those who helped get him elected.

uh see earlier where the recession took a nose dive when the Dems took over under bush just a little over 2 years ago.
Oh, so the whole previous two decades of the exact same policies that collapsed in 2008, didn't exist, or else were chugging along perfectly?

Well, I guess the corpses were a little fresher in 1982 than they were by 2008.

No. I'm sorry. You don't get to claim that the Republicans are pure as the driven snow economic saints while the Democrats are evil money-wasting goblins, when the Republicans were the ones who set up the policies that are destroying our economy, and when every single trend chart shows that, when the Republican party's policies are followed the national economic numbers deteriorate, and when the Republicans, throughout the past 8 years have been spending like drunken sailors at the end of the world.

not true, it funds "groups like ACORN". the ethics or mysteries of ACORN aside, I really don't care about that, I mainly care about what ACORN actually is. A voter Registration group, and thats not where money needs to be spent. Republicans Cry foul more so because it looks like O'bama is filling the bill with favors to those who helped get him elected.

no, it's not. ACORN is a lot of things. Voter registration is one of the thing they do. Community organization revitalization is another. In fact, voter registration is, on the whole, a very small part of their mission. One of the largest is, wait for it, affordable housing.

not true, it funds "groups like ACORN". the ethics or mysteries of ACORN aside, I really don't care about that, I mainly care about what ACORN actually is. A voter Registration group, and thats not where money needs to be spent. Republicans Cry foul more so because it looks like O'bama is filling the bill with favors to those who helped get him elected.
acorn does lots of things besides voter registration.

not true, it funds "groups like ACORN". the ethics or mysteries of ACORN aside, I really don't care about that, I mainly care about what ACORN actually is. A voter Registration group, and thats not where money needs to be spent. Republicans Cry foul more so because it looks like O'bama is filling the bill with favors to those who helped get him elected.
No, it does not. Read the words on the page. It says, clear as day, that the bill COULD open up money for the evil lefties...

Not DOES.

COULD.

You know what it means when someone says "this plan could make it possible for X to happen"?

It means X is not happening and is not written into the plan.

Therefore, any time anyone says that there is money in the plan for ACORN or groups like them, they are lying.

And I hate to have to say this, but there are only so many times you can repeat a lie before you become the liar as well.

acorn does lots of things besides voter registration.

*bites the bullet and pulls up ACORN's Website*

Oh, so the whole previous two decades of the exact same policies that collapsed in 2008, didn't exist, or else were chugging along perfectly?

Well, I guess the corpses were a little fresher in 1982 than they were by 2008.

No. I'm sorry. You don't get to claim that the Republicans are pure as the driven snow economic saints while the Democrats are evil money-wasting goblins, when the Republicans were the ones who set up the policies that are destroying our economy, and when every single trend chart shows that, when the Republican party's policies are followed the national economic numbers deteriorate, and when the Republicans, throughout the past 8 years have been spending like drunken sailors at the end of the world.

Isn't it funny Mur, that when Clinton took office, and the economy improved, that the argument was that the policies of one administration acted too slowly to have immediate effects. The boom under clinton? That was all regan and bush sr. But when it started to get shakey? That was clinton's fault.

And when it improved under bush? W to the rescue? When it started to tank? Clinton's fault. Now? Congress' fault. When the economy improves under a democrat administration, well that's the efforts of the previous republican administration. When it improves under a republican? Well that's all him.

I guess enough time has passed for it to stop being "clinton's fault" and suddenly become "Congress' fault". I understand though. I mean, I get how they want to pretend that January 2001 through January 2007 never happened, what with the whole "failure of their ideology" thing. God knows I want to.

so the 3 millions jobs lost is all a lie?

You're pretty pathetic if you think the only way to make a living is in corporate America.

Welcome to the military, why don't you enlist. If I don't find a job, why not? Guaranteed housing, benefits, and a decent pay that scales up if you just do your job and shut up about it. But oh no, can't do that now can we? Can't support our country or anything? Please. Both sides can grow some.

How 'bout the police force (as much as I can't stand them)? Fire Department? Government services? There's tons of opportunity, but no, going outside your comfort zone is illegal, of course.

Go find a real life, rather than hiding and crying for the government to give you a handout. Neither side's right - both are ridiculously spending, and you tell me how we're gonna pay that off? Oh shit, you don't have an answer, do you. Let's just push it onto the next generation, huh? Let's look out for just me, me, me, huh? Please. It's pretty sad when the government has to fix everybody's problems. That's not what it's designed to do. You're supposed to fix your own damn problems. Go out and find what's already out there. Maybe you're down for a little spell, shit, it happens. Life ain't perfect. Get your head outta the clouds.

You're pretty pathetic if you think the only way to make a living is in corporate America.

Welcome to the military, why don't you enlist. If I don't find a job, why not? Guaranteed housing, benefits, and a decent pay that scales up if you just do your job and shut up about it. But oh no, can't do that now can we? Can't support our country or anything? Please. Both sides can grow some.

How 'bout the police force (as much as I can't stand them)? Fire Department? Government services? There's tons of opportunity, but no, going outside your comfort zone is illegal, of course.

Go find a real life, rather than hiding and crying for the government to give you a handout. Neither side's right - both are ridiculously spending, and you tell me how we're gonna pay that off? Oh shit, you don't have an answer, do you. Let's just push it onto the next generation, huh? Let's look out for just me, me, me, huh? Please. It's pretty sad when the government has to fix everybody's problems. That's not what it's designed to do. You're supposed to fix your own damn problems. Go out and find what's already out there. Maybe you're down for a little spell, shit, it happens. Life ain't perfect. Get your head outta the clouds.
soooo

you dont care that 3 million jobs were lost. all those people should join the military...we arent taking that many...or start working at mcdonalds?

Isn't it funny Mur, that when Clinton took office, and the economy improved, that the argument was that the policies of one administration acted too slowly to have immediate effects. The boom under clinton? That was all regan and bush sr. But when it started to get shakey? That was clinton's fault.

And when it improved under bush? W to the rescue? When it started to tank? Clinton's fault. Now? Congress' fault. When the economy improves under a democrat administration, well that's the efforts of the previous republican administration. When it improves under a republican? Well that's all him.

I guess enough time has passed for it to stop being "clinton's fault" and suddenly become "Congress' fault". I understand though. I mean, I get how they want to pretend that January 2001 through January 2007 never happened, what with the whole "failure of their ideology" thing. God knows I want to.
Fucking hilarious. Like a fiery train wreck.

How 'bout the police force (as much as I can't stand them)? Fire Department? Government services? There's tons of opportunity, but no, going outside your comfort zone is illegal, of course.


Yeah how about those police and fire departments? Municipalities are freezing hiring and announcing layoffs of cops and firefighters all over the country. The Republicans just reduced funding for state police and fire departments in the "stimulus" bill. This weekend, I believe, in Florida, about 1000 or more people stood in line for hours to apply for just 35 firefighter jobs.

soooo

you dont care that 3 million jobs were lost. all those people should join the military...we arent taking that many...or start working at mcdonalds?

a job is a job...period. even if it means flipping burgers. Many Americans have gotten doctorates in hopes of teaching at the college level. You know where they work? The library.

I'll bite the ACORN and concede that point, but my other arguments still stand.

a job is a job...period. even if it means flipping burgers. Many Americans have gotten doctorates in hopes of teaching at the college level. You know where they work? The library.
a job is a job if you are starting out.

if you are 45 years old with a house and 2 kids in college you cant work enough minimum wage jobs to pay for what you have.

I'll bite the ACORN and concede that point, but my other arguments still stand.
Ha, that's what you think. *rubs hands gleefully*

Anyway, thank you for checking your facts and realizing that your point was in error. It is really refreshing.

I'll bite the ACORN and concede that point, but my other arguments still stand.
i like you.

as the president said its not a perfect bill. but they did wring out quite a bit of the more outrageous stuff in this moderate republican/democratic compromise.

it needs to be passed.

I have an idea for funding, Take money away from the Army. Of all the Branches of the MIlitary, the Army is the Least successful, and yet has the most money. take money that they are waisting and give it to the fire fighters and police officers.

Ha, that's what you think. *rubs hands gleefully*

Anyway, thank you for checking your facts and realizing that your point was in error. It is really refreshing.

A real man admits when he's wrong as I have. I did over jump the Acorn train because I always heard them refered to as Voter Registration.

a job is a job if you are starting out.

if you are 45 years old with a house and 2 kids in college you cant work enough minimum wage jobs to pay for what you have.

Clearly you haven't been saving. Maybe if you'd been better with your money, you wouldn't be totally screwed.

If you narrow your viewpoint to only the things I mention, than clearly you don't have the patience to go out and try to find a job. I can find tons of ads and other things for needs for people, both in my current city (Miami) and back in Newport News, Virginia. Go out and maybe take a pay cut for a less glamorous job, because there's plenty of people who aren't looking for the government's hand to solve everything. Maybe if you'd see that, you could get a job yourself.

Additionally, the military needs more people. They're subsequently having their funding slashed by capital people who want more funds for global warming research. Boost the military and you subsequently generate jobs for military-supporting industries, which will boost other commercial groups helping to support them (ie, banks for funding). Maybe if you looked long-term rather than panicking the fuck out and calling everything a crisis, you could notice that, too. You're remarkably short-sighted, like many up on the Hill.

Clearly you haven't been saving. Maybe if you'd been better with your money, you wouldn't be totally screwed.

If you narrow your viewpoint to only the things I mention, than clearly you don't have the patience to go out and try to find a job. I can find tons of ads and other things for needs for people, both in my current city (Miami) and back in Newport News, Virginia. Go out and maybe take a pay cut for a less glamorous job, because there's plenty of people who aren't looking for the government's hand to solve everything. Maybe if you'd see that, you could get a job yourself.

Additionally, the military needs more people. They're subsequently having their funding slashed by capital people who want more funds for global warming research. Boost the military and you subsequently generate jobs for military-supporting industries, which will boost other commercial groups helping to support them (ie, banks for funding). Maybe if you looked long-term rather than panicking the fuck out and calling everything a crisis, you could notice that, too. You're remarkably short-sighted, like many up on the Hill.
yes thats the problem. not saving enough to pay for a few years worth of un or under employment

yeah thats it.

A real man admits when he's wrong as I have. I did over jump the Acorn train because I always heard them refered to as Voter Registration.

I appreciate you admitting your error. Here's the problem. If you hadn't researched it enough to know it was an error, why repeat it? Why assume it was true if you were unwilling to do the legwork necessary to prove it?

Maybe you didn't know it was wrong, but you willingly propagated it. I'm unwilling to give credence to your arguments if they contain demonstrable falsehoods. I appreciate you admitting the error, but doesn't it give you pause to wonder how much ELSE of your argument is wrong?

That's what I said on the onset. If you say things that are false, just plain wrong, then I don't know why I should bother giving your argument any value, and not just point out that you seem to not know what you're talking about.

And what will the bank do with that money you are saving? Put it in a jar and bury it? Or will they loan it to someone to buy a house or a car? Will they loan it to a business to expand and create a job?

Just because you are not spending it doesn't mean it won't stimulate the economy.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll send it offshore to invest in some other country or prop up one of their failing overseas branches thereby ensuring the country gets no benefit from my savings. Unlike the Stimulus Package which will all be invested within the USA, creating jobs.

Considering banks here are now offering 0.5% interest on savings a/c's along with numerous and various charges which more than counter the interest they're offering, probably the best idea for me is to get that money in cash and bury it.

i like you.

as the president said its not a perfect bill. but they did wring out quite a bit of the more outrageous stuff in this moderate republican/democratic compromise.

it needs to be passed.

no doubt it needs to be passed, but I'm tired of the partisan shit.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186776&title=Clusterf#@k-to-the-Poor-House---Bailout-Bill-Passes

Unlike the Stimulus Package which will all be invested within the USA

I have to say, on that point Im not so sure...

Obama already bowed down on that one, when Gordon Brown objected, really did piss me off that....

a job is a job if you are starting out.

if you are 45 years old with a house and 2 kids in college you cant work enough minimum wage jobs to pay for what you have.

true but it can be a bridge between jobs, I know people who have done it.

true but it can be a bridge between jobs, I know people who have done it.
Do you know 45 year old people with a house and 2 kids in college who have done it? Do you know any such people who have done it for more than a couple of months?

I appreciate you admitting your error. Here's the problem. If you hadn't researched it enough to know it was an error, why repeat it? Why assume it was true if you were unwilling to do the legwork necessary to prove it?

Maybe you didn't know it was wrong, but you willingly propagated it. I'm unwilling to give credence to your arguments if they contain demonstrable falsehoods. I appreciate you admitting the error, but doesn't it give you pause to wonder how much ELSE of your argument is wrong?

That's what I said on the onset. If you say things that are false, just plain wrong, then I don't know why I should bother giving your argument any value, and not just point out that you seem to not know what you're talking about.

ah the one wrong brick philosophy, or one cut corner or what ever name you have for it, i made one error in one argument, thankfully had 4 seperate arguments.

Do you know 45 year old people with a house and 2 kids in college who have done it? Do you know any such people who have done it for more than a couple of months?


Well no not for years, but I don't think this will be a seccond great depression, I think we will be on the upswing before the summer. How I know? I don't just have faith.

I guess enough time has passed for it to stop being "clinton's fault" and suddenly become "Congress' fault".
So in about 10 years or so time, we'll have to put up with, "It's all Obama's fault!" then, will we?

ah the one wrong brick philosophy, or one cut corner or what ever name you have for it, i made one error in one argument, thankfully had 4 seperate arguments.

more to point, it wasn't the only one. A lot of your arguments can be chalked up to matters of opinion, and as such aren't REALLY subject to debate, but you made some fairly serious factual errors as well, namely the "let's blame the democrat congress on this one", where just about every economist, every single one, can tell you that the main problem we have had is an overextended credit market, ESPECIALLY in the housing field, which has been overvalued for about...6 years now.

Now, sure, democrats could have tried to pass something to try and reign in exploitation of this over valuing, but again, they were faced with an administration that had made it quite clear he was unwilling to allow such a bill to proceed unvetoed, and a republican minority that made it clear that they would not help to pass such a bill over the veto. So they could have tried, and maybe they should have tried, but I won't fault them too much for declining to tilt at windmills.

The thing is, I know the facts. And I know the right wing talking points. And I know when those differ. What I've seen you say, hasn't been facts, they've just been talking points.

So in about 10 years or so time, we'll have to put up with, "It's all Obama's fault!" then, will we?

If the Republicans have anything to say about it...Probably...

soooo

you dont care that 3 million jobs were lost. all those people should join the military...we arent taking that many...or start working at mcdonalds?

Not even that is guaranteed. I have been mentoring a kid online and she would like a job but says the fast foods and walmart aren't hiring.

I guess enough time has passed for it to stop being "clinton's fault" and suddenly become "Congress' fault"..

Sounds about the same as the people who blame Reagan for everything.

yes thats the problem. not saving enough to pay for a few years worth of un or under employment

yeah thats it.

And you bought more house then you could afford and you were living beyond your means. Sending kids to college *pfft* lazy good for nothings.

Sounds about the same as the people who blame Reagan for everything.

Psh, I blame Reagan for the '92 Recession...I blame George Bush's continuation of his policies for the Current one...

Here's the thing I don't understand though. People who say "spending money doesn't create jobs! The New Deal didn't end the depression, world war 2 did that!"

How exactly do you think the war ended the depression? Could it be, oh I dunno, that it, shockingly...employed people? That the government was paying people to go fight, paying people to build boats? Paying people to make bullets? Could it possibly be that the war got us out of the depression because the war...created jobs, because the government was spending money?

Moreover, the same people who attack new deal programs, and say we shouldn't get ourselves in debt for a failed idea that spending money creates jobs, and that the war was what fixed our economy...how do you think the government got the money in World War 2 to pay all these people? I'll tell ya if you're wondering. Treasury Bills.

So the very thing that actually got us out of a depression, by y'alls own admission, was a massive increase in government spending, financed by taking on debt. Don't that sound familiar?

Not even that is guaranteed. I have been mentoring a kid online and she would like a job but says the fast foods and walmart aren't hiring.

Indeed. I lost my job some months back, and while I started out only applying for "good" jobs, I've long since moved down to putting in applications everywhere. The problem is, so has everybody else, and so McDonalds and Wal-Mart are being deluged with applications from overqualified people they didn't really want to hire in the first place, and they sure as heck can't hire all of us. There was a job fair in town recently, and the news reported in passing that there were something like 200 applications submitted for each individual job there - including the crappy ones, presumably. The idea that it's easy to get a job right now if you're willing to do something you're overqualified for is bunk.

Indeed. I lost my job some months back, and while I started out only applying for "good" jobs, I've long since moved down to putting in applications everywhere. The problem is, so has everybody else, and so McDonalds and Wal-Mart are being deluged with applications from overqualified people they didn't really want to hire in the first place, and they sure as heck can't hire all of us. There was a job fair in town recently, and the news reported in passing that there were something like 200 applications submitted for each individual job there - including the crappy ones, presumably. The idea that it's easy to get a job right now if you're willing to do something you're overqualified for is bunk.

Which, Really sucks since I was laid off last Sunday...

obviously you 2 should buck up and join the military.

because they love to enlist people who have no interest in the military.

Which, Really sucks since I was laid off last Sunday...

Welcome to the club. It's a little scary just how many people I know who've lost their jobs within the past few months. :(

obviously you 2 should buck up and join the military.

because they love to enlist people who have no interest in the military.

Well they did lower their requirements.....

Welcome to the club. It's a little scary just how many people I know who've lost their jobs within the past few months. :(

I am sorry for you both. What's even worst is the fact fast foods are closing stores so it's pretty bleak. I am not there yet. Just a job loss away. :(

obviously you 2 should buck up and join the military.

because they love to enlist people who have no interest in the military.

I was thinking of giving it another shot...I was going to join the Air National Guard just before I started college but, my BMI was a bit too high...

Im thinkin maybe if i get too desperate then I might try Army next...

obviously you 2 should buck up and join the military.

because they love to enlist people who have no interest in the military.

Indeed! They especially love delicately-built women with multiple chronic health issues who have no interest in the military!

Well they did lower their requirements.....
better apply quickly then. i think they are going to raise them up again. bad economy is great for enlistment rates.

I was thinking of giving it another shot...I was going to join the Air National Guard just before I started college but, my BMI was a bit too high...

Im thinkin maybe if i get too desperate then I might try Army next...

You might get in. I saw a blip where they had overweight guys getting in simply because they were getting desperate for bodies.....

Indeed! They especially love delicately-built women with multiple chronic health issues who have no interest in the military!
youll LOVE the 80 mile hikes with 100lb packs that they do in basic!

The idea that it's easy to get a job right now if you're willing to do something you're overqualified for is bunk.

Not just where you are either, as this report from Australia shows:
New statistics show the number of jobs advertised on the internet has plummeted.
The Olivier Job Index shows online ads fell 35.26 per cent over the year to January.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/09/2485981.htm

I read that Circuit City in the US has gone under, meaning another 40,000+ out of work. They owe over $600 million to unsecured creditors, so you can just imagine what the flow-on effects of their bankruptcy will have on the US economy.

Not just where you are either, as this report from Australia shows:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/09/2485981.htm

I read that Circuit City in the US has gone under, meaning another 40,000+ out of work. They owe over $600 million to unsecured creditors, so you can just imagine what the flow-on effects of their bankruptcy will have on the US economy.

Even more stores and chains are going. Snopes even did a check on the claims:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/storeclosings.asp

Here's the thing I don't understand though. People who say "spending money doesn't create jobs! The New Deal didn't end the depression, world war 2 did that!"

How exactly do you think the war ended the depression? Could it be, oh I dunno, that it, shockingly...employed people? That the government was paying people to go fight, paying people to build boats? Paying people to make bullets? Could it possibly be that the war got us out of the depression because the war...created jobs, because the government was spending money?

Moreover, the same people who attack new deal programs, and say we shouldn't get ourselves in debt for a failed idea that spending money creates jobs, and that the war was what fixed our economy...how do you think the government got the money in World War 2 to pay all these people? I'll tell ya if you're wondering. Treasury Bills.

So the very thing that actually got us out of a depression, by y'alls own admission, was a massive increase in government spending, financed by taking on debt. Don't that sound familiar?
Lies! Filthy leftist lies!! Everyone knows -- because they have faith and fresh corpses -- that wars don't involve spending!! Only creating jobs involves spending. That's why jobs are bad. Wars don't cost money and don't create jobs. That's why wars are good.

Or something...

Which, Really sucks since I was laid off last Sunday...
Welcome to the club. You'll have to bring your own booze. We can't afford the bar anymore.

Welcome to the club.

Have we got T-shirts....WAIT!!! Ive got it, we can start the T-Shirt Manufacturing for the Club, itll work brilliantly!!! lol

Have we got T-shirts....WAIT!!! Ive got it, we can start the T-Shirt Manufacturing for the Club, itll work brilliantly!!! lol
Who will you sell the shirts to?

Who will you sell the shirts to?

Other club members, who will buy it with the money made from working for the Club T-Shirt Company...

Wait.....lol...

Here's the thing I don't understand though. People who say "spending money doesn't create jobs! The New Deal didn't end the depression, world war 2 did that!"
this is why amateurs should not do history, wrong on both sides.


How exactly do you think the war ended the depression? Could it be, oh I dunno, that it, shockingly...employed people? That the government was paying people to go fight, paying people to build boats? Paying people to make bullets? Could it possibly be that the war got us out of the depression because the war...created jobs, because the government was spending money?

Job creation form government spending is temporary. and once the government credit card is maxed out your back where you started
+ a mass of debt. The only time you should run a deficit is if it actually fixes the problem.

Moreover, the same people who attack new deal programs, and say we shouldn't get ourselves in debt for a failed idea that spending money creates jobs, and that the war was what fixed our economy...how do you think the government got the money in World War 2 to pay all these people? I'll tell ya if you're wondering. Treasury Bills.

So the very thing that actually got us out of a depression, by y'alls own admission, was a massive increase in government spending, financed by taking on debt. Don't that sound familiar?

The great depression was ended by the restoration of trade in the Breton Woods system. Wars are historically bad for economies because soldiers come home and begin spending money they have saved up leading to a severe inflationary period followed by a deflationary period as the spending dries up.

Also the post war period has a massive shift in jobs as people who were hired to make armaments are released from work to look elsewhere.

Didn't watch, Don't care, Don't like Obama.

this is why amateurs should not do history, wrong on both sides.

Job creation form government spending is temporary. and once the government credit card is maxed out your back where you started
+ a mass of debt. The only time you should run a deficit is if it actually fixes the problem.
So we can run a deficit if it does fix the problem? So, if this deficit fixes the problem, it will have been the right thing to do?

The great depression was ended by the restoration of trade in the Breton Woods system. Wars are historically bad for economies because soldiers come home and begin spending money they have saved up leading to a severe inflationary period followed by a deflationary period as the spending dries up.

the post war period has a massive shift in jobs as people who were hired to make armaments are released from work to look elsewhere.
Right, just like the famous deflationary downturn in the US in the 1950s and 1960s. Oh, wait...

Didn't watch, Don't care, Don't like Obama.

Then why did you post?

Where do some of you summon the energy and inclination to argue something ad nauseum with idiots? And on purpose.

Not even that is guaranteed. I have been mentoring a kid online and she would like a job but says the fast foods and walmart aren't hiring.

obviously you 2 should buck up and join the military.

because they love to enlist people who have no interest in the military.

Yea, right now I'm thinking that I should've stuck with the OT stuff. I would've been unhappy, but at least it would've been a job that pays well. But I'm sure hospitals and rehab clinics will soon be laying off people.