Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Vanderbilt 90, Tennessee 71: What Happened in Nashville

OT: Can't One Man Guarantee Passage of the Stimulus Plan?





 

 

Star-divide


It has been reported by many outlets that a bi-partisan group of senate members have been working the last few days on concessions from both parties to get a a bi-partisan stimulus bill passed in the Senate.  So far nothing.  A stimulus plan that exceeds 900 Billion dollars.  A plan that both sides agree has no guarantee that passage will fix anything.  The plan comes at at a time when both parties agree, immediate action is required.  We have these quotes from our new president:

"time for talk is over"

  "Everyone's going to have to give a little and understand this is a process and we have to move this ball down the court"

  "We're not moving quickly because we're trying to jam something down people's throats," he said. "We're moving quickly because if we don't, the economy's going to keep getting worse."

  But the quote that had the most impact on me was this:   "They did not send us here to get bogged down with the same old delay, the same old distractions, the same talking points, the same cable chatter," he said. "They did not vote for the false theories of the past, and they didn't vote for phony arguments and petty politics, and they did not vote for the status quo."      

Wow.  I couldn't agree with him more on this one.  The nation spoke.  I heard it.  You heard it.  So here is what I'm getting at.  Democrats and the president are dealing from a position of strength.  And what have I seen?  2 parties that wont give when there is much to concede.  The republicans had NO input on what went into the stimulus.  They did, however, get to add 2 things (cars and housing amendments).  They want to knock down the total cost by an 1/8th (100 Billion).  An 1/8th for a bipartisanship vote.  Yet that looks like it won't happen.  So who can fix this?

  President Obama.  He can reach across the aisle with his pen and the power of line-item veto.  If his party's leadership in the senate refuses to budge why not show us what change is all about and let the minority leadership know that he will line-item to get the bipartisan support.  End the "phony arguments and petty politics" and power plays and unite this country.

That would be change I'm interested in.

0 recs  |  Comment 177 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Less you.

"Obama is a Christian - He's always been a Christian...But.........what if he is[a Muslim]? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America." Colin Powell on Obama/Muslim assertions.

by AirJordan on Feb 6, 2009 10:53 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Haha

12 seconds ago I was thinking to myself.

I’m surprised I don’t see brettgardner in this thread.

Epic timing.

by SaltyGoesYard on Feb 6, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It was a zergling rush.

I’m out after getting my revenge.

by brettgardner on Feb 6, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I doubt

he’s being paid. He’s a hobbyist.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

ahaha

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 6, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I have

a little douchebaginess in me. No doubt.

"Obama is a Christian - He's always been a Christian...But.........what if he is[a Muslim]? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America." Colin Powell on Obama/Muslim assertions.

by AirJordan on Feb 6, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

i think my fav part was when the Republicans said that there was a lot of pork in the bill

and Obama said, yes there is some pork but only 1% — and said nothing about cutting it lol

it should be VERY interesting to see how this comes out — but id much rather see one that covers the next 2-5 years and then another package for the longer term

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 10:55 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Well

A bill like this actually should be filled with pork, if by pork they mean construction projects and funding for things that may create jobs, even if they aren’t “essential”. The point is to get people working. Sometimes pork does just that…and that’s why Congressmen love it so much.

by Black Francis on Feb 6, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I love the Rangers!

Call 1-800-DOCTORB. The B is for bargain!

by Panorama on Feb 6, 2009 10:56 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

i like cheese.

"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...

by ivysafety39 on Feb 6, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I like steak!

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I think guns are good!

Click Here for Hot Rangers Blog Love

"They say brevity is the key to wit, so shut the f*ck up." Dad

by RangerFloppy on Feb 6, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I grew up in the 60's

"I'm not being condescending, I'm too busy thinking about far more important things you wouldn't understand." - Jimmy Carr

by Suicide Prince on Feb 6, 2009 11:59 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I like to eat!

"I'm not being condescending, I'm too busy thinking about far more important things you wouldn't understand." - Jimmy Carr

by Suicide Prince on Feb 6, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

...as a toilet.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I like

being chief of police!

"It gets late early out there." - Yogi Berra

by JakeStrait on Feb 6, 2009 8:54 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It would be nice.....

to know that the "change’ he ran on was not a change in which party in power punishes the other and instead a change in the way the parties interact. It’s a two way street and the Republicans need to be willing to comprimise too.

by bdavison94 on Feb 6, 2009 11:14 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Yep, setting aside politics as best we all can...

Does anything think the Nancy friggin Pelosi has ANY brains or common sense?? Any??? Every time I hear her speak I get the impression that I’m listening to a school board member who is overmatched in THAT job.

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 9:17 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

perhaps you should google line item veto

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 11:15 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

yeah, you beat me to it

line item vetoes are great, they just dont exist for the pres.

your so close to a decent post, then BLAM!!!, political science slaps you across the face.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

dooh

oh well. I gave my 2 cents. I’d give it to him for a year. The last guy who had it balanced the budget.

Come on spring training.

“However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.”

by corbsclinton on Feb 6, 2009 1:38 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

no1 has ever had a line item

its one of the biggest executive branch power grab bits for decades, and it will never happen, ever….

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

“The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending” that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton." – Google

by corbsclinton on Feb 6, 2009 2:13 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yup.

Very famous executive power SCOTUS case resulted.

by brettgardner on Feb 6, 2009 2:14 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

This whole thing is ridiculous

The house is on fire and the GOP wants to use the squirt gun of tax cuts. The Fed is tapped out, the only thing that will stave of deflation right now is a huge government stimulus in the form of spending. Tax cuts can be a part of it, but if they pare down the spending too much it could just make things worse by 1) giving congress a false sense that they’ve accomplished something and delaying necessary action and, 2) not being enough spending to actually spur the economy and lengthening the recession, and maybe, 3) not being big enough to prevent the economy from going into a deflationary spiral that causes years of misery.

And cutting the aid to states is a terrible idea. Aid to states is one way to get quick help to people that need it the most across the entire country.

I don’t understand the reluctance to spend. The roads, bridges, dams, levees, etc. need repair anyway. By spending a ton of money on that stuff you kill two birds with one stone. Get it done.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 11:17 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Read the latest plan

Very little is being spent on infrastructute. A whole lot is being spent on wasteful projects or pure back scratching. This plan will not work.

by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Feb 6, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

That is my frustration.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Here's a thought...

take the entire stimulus package, throw it away, and write a rebate check to every taxpayer in America with the proviso that the money can ONLY go to pay off a Credit Card or a delinquent mortgage. In one fell swoop, we reduce the personal debt load on people (forget how they got there), we prop up the banks by reducing their bad debt on the books, and therefore free up people to spend on necessities, (good for the retail sector), save for a rainy day (good for the banks), or whatever.

Any other plan is go result in a ton of money going into enterprises or programs that are terribly inefficient and have miminal impact on the economy.

by bking on Feb 6, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

That's not really a reply is it?

See, wasn’t that conversation enlightening??

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Well

A non-response is certainly more enlightening than your silly little fantasy.

by brettgardner on Feb 7, 2009 9:05 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Got any meaningful critique of it??

or are you just being pissy with me as a carryover from other threads??

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 9:19 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Other threads?

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

But yes, I have a criticism: how could you put an enforceable proviso on a rebate check?

And ben is right—any rebate will be saved, not spent, and certainly not spent, in the majority of cases, on those items.

by brettgardner on Feb 7, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

So people who've been responsible all their lives

…and made intelligent decisions while everybody else was out wasting money do not get any benefit… how fair is that?

by TRanger on Feb 6, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Same with any bailout package that I have seen suggested

They all basically give money to those who messed things up already, and those have been prudent get direct benefit. What’s “fair” and what’s “effective” don’t necessarily align here. And I’m all for personal responsiblity, and don’t have a great deal of sympathy for folks who ran up massive personal debt and lived beyond their means, but I think it is simplistic to turn away from addressing it because it isn’t “fair”. What’s fair about most government outlays??

If one of the root causes of the public unease/fear/etc. is people being able to pay bills, have their house value maintained, etc., and if the biggest drain on freeing credit is that there’s too much bad debt out there, what’s the problem with tackling this problem from the bottom up. In short, if the problem is caused by people getting overextended and becoming a drain on the economy, don’t we have to put the “why” and the judgements aside and tackle it anyway? This isn’t about sending benefits to everyone, IMO. It’s about spending the money where it does the most good in righting the economy.

Personally, I’ve always thought that tiny stimulus checks just get absorbed into the household budget and their actual value is fairly hard to measure. A targeted rebate that goes directly to debt relief at the household level does seem like reasonable idea. it amounts to an immediate cash influx to the banks (which we’re doing anyway) and an immediate relief to struggling households.

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 8:59 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The problem is...

there’s been a massive move away from spending to saving in American households. So a tax rebate won’t really be a stimulus.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

That's why I don't favor a tax rebate in the form that we've seen.

Perhaps something like a ‘rebate voucher’ that you send in as payment to a creditor.

So far, I’ve ssen a critique of this idea based on fairness, and an ad hominem reply, but nothing based on its effectiveness. Anyone?

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 9:02 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

How would...

a tax rebate that goes to a creditor be stimulative?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 7, 2009 7:52 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't get the all-tax cut ideas

I think they are just kind of protest propositions by some R’s that are backfiring.

Being in Cali, the state-aid is a very interesting debate. The issue is not that that money will reach people, it is that many of these states are in huge debt. It is not out of the question that California will have to default on loans in the next year if there no help. This would be a disaster for both California and the financial institutes that lent California the money. I see bailing out states not as a cash-infusion, but rather as saving the entire structure of state-level government (and these states should be shamed for over-spending the way they did).

There is a lot of nonsense in the bailout – I think far more should be going towards infrastructure or funding federally sponsored research programs (energy, health care, etc) – things that would give both a cash infusion and make the country better off long term. A lot of it really is just government expansion stuff that D’s like to do. But the alternative by the R’s is a non-starter as well.

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Read the proposed stimulus

The money going to state governments is to balance 2008 state budgets. The money has already been spent. It’s not generating any stimulus.

by kpb928 on Feb 6, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh I understand that

It is basically to keep these states from defaulting on their loans, which I just said. People have California bonds in their money market accounts, pension plans, etc. If Cali went bankrupt, things start happening to the financial stability of this country which no one wants to see. Its messy, it stinks, but I, as big a fiscal conservative you’ll ever find, have to admit that it is necessary. Its that or the state fires hundreds of thousands of people or defaults.

The state money is not a stimulus, its the same as the TARP was – a bailout. But the alternative is a collapse of municipal and state bond markets.

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

So a large part of the stimulus packages proposed or passed to date

deal with bailing out businesses and govenment entities that have made bad choices and been fiscally reckless.

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 9:20 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

times and post are both republican slant papers

you cant trust their op eds, not like friedman at the times.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Not true

but even so, can we not trust the CBO?

by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Feb 6, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

friedman has a nobel prize in economics

he has been wrong on this shit yet.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

A nobel prize?

Wow. Thats impressive. Didnt they also give one of those little trinkets to Jimmy Carter? Case closed. NEXT!

by BEW on Feb 7, 2009 8:57 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

so maybe we should listen to krugman

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 7, 2009 11:02 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

al gore lol

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 7, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

and..

this isn’t an op ed – it is a news article.

by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Feb 6, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

so the title is just op ed then?

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Try the link again

I don’t think you are looking at the right article.

by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Feb 6, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

so where were the times and post

and the CBO’s take when they were pissing away dept in iraq at a rate of $200,000 a minute? I guess they didnt feel that would adversely effect our longterm GDP like 50M bucks to the states for education? Where was there article on the giant give away that was the bank bailout and the fact that no oversight made it just a give away to the rich?

its a slant. see through it.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you always get your news from Papers owned by Rev, Moon?

The Moonies own that paper:

The Washington Times is a conservative daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., and it calls itself "America’s Newspaper." The paper has an average daily circulation in excess of 100,000 readers. The Times was founded in 1982 by Reverend Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (Unification Church), to be a conservative alternative to the larger and older Washington Post. To this day, it is widely perceived as maintaining a generally right-leaning editorial stance.

by SanDiegoKev on Feb 6, 2009 2:03 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Current effective unemployment rate?

13 point fucking 9…get on task, people!!!!

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 11:25 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Paul Krugman today on the issue

I agree with him pretty much wholeheartedly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 12:08 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge

just a few things, but i SERIOUSLY doubt that many politicans in DC “take their marching orders” from rush. in fact, the majority of the republicans out there dont even listen to him

also, if this was some wonderful, transcending bill dont you (and everyone/anyone else) think that it would have passed by now?

i mean ZERO votes from one side when your talking about the economy should speak pretty damn loud..it should also say a lot that the senate is working together on the issue after pelosi’s “we won, get over it” stuff.

if this was as wonderful as people want it to be, then why isnt it getting passed by huge majorities in both the house and senate?

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

that was utterly pathetic

probably one of the most pathetic moments in politics in my lifetime.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

all i can say

ugh.

RUSH: Look, I totally agree with you on that. I think a backbone is clearly visible here. And, look, I understand why you guys might be upset with me. I don’t have thin skin, and when I make the statement that it appears the president’s more concerned with me than he is with Mitch McConnell or John Boehner, I can understand how that would offend some people. But look at it this way. Look at me as taking the heat. Look at me as taking the fire, directing it away from you so that you guys can go stealthily and do what you’re doing here in building an opposition to this.

very seriously/hoenstly..who really thinks that?

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not Rush the person

it’s the mindset that he, Norquist, and the whole Reagan is God clique perpetuate. Rush is a symptom, not a disease.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

i just dont get the people that listen to him religiously

i mean i am QUITE conservative but i dont listen to/watch him or hannity or coulter or anyone of that ilk

i like people like kristol and barnes
i read op ed articles from both sides

i just dont get how someone can listen to him day in/day out and take what he says as the gospel…

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

That's just it, though

it isn’t a wonderful bill because Obama asked for too little. It’s the wrong bill. He tried to preempitvely compromise, which is stupid.

And I don’t think that all those Repulbicans take their marching orders directly from Rush, but like him, they believe tax cuts are some kind of panacea. Conveniently forgetting that their god, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes in 1982 because even he realized his cuts had gone too far. Tax cuts right now are insanely stupid. ZERO votes does speak pretty loudly, about the House GOP’s blindness and lack of any real new ideas. They’re content to use 1980 politics against anything coming from a Democrat. Meanwhile Obama is pussying his way through this and trying too hard to be a compromiser.

This bill, no matter what compromise they come up with, will do nothing much to help and then the Republicans can conveniently blame Obama for failing to lead the country out of the crisis in 2010.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

There are two problems

Republicans who say “Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes” and little else. And Democrats who say “Increase government, increase government, increase government” and little else. Its an ugly scene watching these two parties true colors.

Obama had an opportunity to step up and say “We’ll fix this my way” and impose something that actually targets the economy as opposed to just having a government shopping spree that congress can bicker over like kids in a candy store.

This money should be cash infusions into infrastructure (both physical and intellectual), replacing local and state government debt with more stable loans from the federal government, and possibly a direct cash infusion into taxpayers hands (6 month payroll tax exemption).

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yep

Those priorities seem right to me, huge infrastructure spending (which pays big time long term dividends in productivity, by the way), aid to state and local governments to help them through the crisis time, some rebates to consumers.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

conservatives can be a little too close minded

about what constitutes a stimulus program.

example: public works project

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 2:24 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

example: education

example: flood control

example: broadband in rural areas

example: bringing current technology into gov’t agencies (replacing Pentium 2’s in HUD etc)

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Those may all be fine government programs

That’s a debate for a different time though. I fail to see how faster computers will stimulate the economy, other than just stabilize Dell’s and HP’s revenue streams. Yes, the departments may need better machines. Lots of people need lots of things. If the idea is to stimulate job growth today, some HUD bureaucrat’s computer taking 30 seconds to load instead of 2 minutes isn’t really a priority.

There is some merit in the education expenditures, but only in the “these people aren’t working right now, so at least they can be in school” sense. But frankly, several million college educated people isn’t much different from several million high school educated people. Right now, you address job growth, and in the next round of stimulus (as we all know is coming), you put money into revitalizing education programs.

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

the bill is to save and create jobs

investing in infrastructure of government (ie updating all their computers, any1 think the pentagon has P2’s?, buying new more fuel efficient cars for the gov’t,) is another area that can help save or create jobs, plus it invests money into modernizing the different government entities out of the 1980-90’s era.

If the idea is to stimulate job growth today, some HUD bureaucrat’s computer taking 30 seconds to load instead of 2 minutes isn’t really a priority.

what if some hud bureaucrats job is to region by region evaluate proposals for urban development and research to find which ones will create the most impact? you still dont care about updating government systems?

Infusing money into education is the difference in teachers all over the US keeping their jobs or not. your kid learning to read without a class of 60+ kids, who 30% need ESL which doesnt exist b/c it cant be afforded, who you have to pick up by 2:30 b/c they cut the afterschool program you used to use so you work that extra 4 hours to pay for your mortgage every month…

see where this is going? this is just the tip of the iceberg…

until we let these early 20th century old failed ideas of economy and government die, this nation is on a fast track to the wealthiest of americans literally having their impaled heads on stakes on the way into town.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I think it was Calvin Coolidge...

that said that if you’re standing in the middle of the road, and 10 problems are rolling towards you, 9 of them will roll into the ditch without you doing anything. This “stimulus,” whatever form it takes, is unlikely to have much effect one way or the other on the recession.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think

there is much question that deficits stimulate the economy.

However the longterm impacts of the total Debt they are talking about, plus the Bush era Debt could push us over WW2 debt levels. We really aren’t that far off those levels now.

We are plowing up levels of debt that I’m not sure the US can ever pay off when we are talking about the trillion per year structural deficits that Bush left us with, plus this new stimulus.

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 6, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Deficits stimulate the economy...

but I don’t think that the “stimulus” is going to meaningfully effect this recession.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I'm not sure we could afford

the type of stimulus necessary to jump start this economy.

I’m not sure with all the Social Security and Medicare obligations, as well as the Debt run up to date, and the economy, that we aren’t fairly close to bankrupt as a nation.

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 6, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Certainly not

as it’s currently constructed it won’t. It needs to be much bigger and much more centered on spending.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 5:32 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, great...

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

What would you suggest?

I suppose you just want to let it play out?

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 10:08 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

so, a return

to pre-depression era you’re on your own government policy? No thanks.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 7, 2009 12:00 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't have any problem...

with companies that have made poor decisions going under.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 7, 2009 1:35 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

or made good decisions going under

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 7, 2009 11:02 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It is not the companies I'm worried about

I also don’t care if companies go bankrupt. It’s the millions of people who did nothing wrong but are in danger of losing homes and healthcare that benefit from the government spurring the economy back into health, or at least not sliding as far down.

I am against the bailouts, I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about government doing things like infrastructure improvements to dams, levees, roads, bridges, etc. Things that have to be done anyway, and soon, and will put people to work or keep them in jobs they already have. You don’t see the value in that?

Improvements in failing infrastructure improve productivity and at least partially pay for themselves in the long run. Do do things that help education. The GI Bill after WWII meant billions in improved output and incomes for decades afterward, paying for itself many times over.

I’m not talking about bailing out AIG here.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 7, 2009 3:48 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I haven't seen anything...

convincing that indicates that the people that have lost jobs have the required skillsets to get jobs in infrastructure programs.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 7, 2009 7:54 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Seems like a lot of

construction jobs have been lost since way fewer houses and commercial projects are being built now. Engineers, paper pushers, kids in schools being built/repaired, people whose houses aren’t flooded from leaky dams and levees, fewer potholes and damaged vehicles from bad roads or guardrails in need of repair, etc.

There are just so many ways this could benefit so many people. Your view is limited. I respect your intelligence and opinion, but I’m going to agree with Friedman and Krugman on this. Obama asked for too little and for many of the wrong things. The Republicans are completely out to lunch, insane.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 7, 2009 9:06 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Krugman...

ugh.

Too little?! Ugh.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 7, 2009 10:55 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm wanted to come back to this...

and reiterate that I can’t understand why people think that the government needs to be everything to everybody. Those people are eventually going to find new jobs. Why do they need some sort of government make-work? And doesn’t that government make work slow down the integration of those people into the “real” workforce?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 8, 2009 1:13 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

If there are no jobs

how can that slow them down? The government should not be all things to all people, but when there is a serious chance of deflation the government can and should do something to avoid it. And as I said above, infrastructure improvements need to be done anyway, you’re killing two birds with one stone.

To me it’s a far better use of govt. spending then being interventionist all over the globe, much less of that, please.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 8, 2009 5:25 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you telling me...

that without a $1 trillion dollar stimulus, these people are going to be unemployed forever? Because I frankly don’t see how $1 trillion spent today is going to keep those people employed forever. If you’re doing infrastructure projects, those things are specialized and temporary. Why wouldn’t we focus on letting the economy stabilize into a “new normal” and allow the unemployed to find jobs in that reality, rather than temporary “make work” situations?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 8, 2009 5:32 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The New York Times, surprisingly...

says, “Look at how this worked out for Japan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html?_r=1

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 8, 2009 5:37 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Here's some good bits...

“In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.”

xxx

“Economists tend to divide into two camps on the question of Japan’s infrastructure spending: those, many of them Americans like Mr. Geithner, who think it did not go far enough; and those, many of them Japanese, who think it was a colossal waste.”

xxx

“Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep the party in power.”

xxx

“Dr. Ihori of the University of Tokyo did a survey of public works in the 1990s, concluding that the spending created almost no additional economic growth. Instead of spreading beneficial ripple effects across the economy, he found that the spending actually led to declines in business investment by driving out private investors. He also said job creation was too narrowly focused in the construction industry in rural areas to give much benefit to the overall economy.” (wow, that sounds like what I was saying above)

xxx

“But every 1 trillion yen spent on infrastructure projects in the 1990s increased Japan’s gross domestic product, a measure of its overall economic size, by only 1.37 trillion yen, mainly by creating jobs and other improvements like reducing travel times.” (can you say deadweight loss?)

xxx

“Still, local officials in Hamada warn that their city’s economy will collapse without public works, though they recognize the spending cannot continue forever.”

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 8, 2009 5:47 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

You need to do both

let the banks fail and sort themselves out, but public stimulus is still helpful and necessary. I did not mean above to say only construction jobs, obviously any are that would have a multipying effect should be examined. But I think the construction jobs are different in Japan than here (more below on that).

Obviously they should not be building unneccesary roads, bridges, etc. and it sounds like Japan did a lot of that.

These quotes from that article are my view:

But some Western economists who have studied Japan’s experience say the stimulus accomplished more than it is now given credit for. At a minimum, they argue, it saved the economy from an outright, 1930s-style collapse.

Moreover, they say, any direct comparison of Japan and the United States is inevitably misleading, because Japan has spent so much more over the years on infrastructure. Having neglected its roads, bridges, water treatment plants and more over the years, the United States is bound to generate a greater payback for such spending than would Japan.

You can’t diddle around with a stimulus. It should be massive and immediate, not trickling out over many years. Japan’s hisotyr of infrastructure improvements is very different from the U.S., as the article goes on to say. The U.S. has catching up to do, so a stimulus in infrastructure would be both more needed and more helpful.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 8, 2009 8:43 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

According to the CBO...

the economy will recover in late 2009 without the stimulus.

The concept of this just irritates me. This isn’t the 30’s… a reorganization of the economy isn’t going to be as hard on people as it was then. And, on top of that, it seems like the government doing things just to be doing things just delays the inevitable reorganization.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 8, 2009 11:44 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the CBO

is optimistic in that. Really, the best time for the stimulus may have already passed, might be too little too late right now. We’ll see.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 9, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

On the other hand

if there was ever a time for massive deficits, that time is now.

Unfortunately, due to the Republicans massive deficits during reasonably good economic times, that’s a tough option to execute.

This would be a good time for long term capital spending that you have to do eventually anyway. Road and bridge upgrades. Water improvement projects. Etc.

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 8, 2009 8:11 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

most economic experts disagree

and feel that this stimulus is one of likely multiple that must include multiple trillions of dollars in stimulus in order for the economy to regain its footing. All the other major global economies are working on the same page.

Calvin Coolidge would have said that, if he gets proactive on securities and regulation in his presidency then the depression never gets that out of hand, not like it did.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It's impossible...

to foresee every catastrophe. And overregulation would be one way to insure that fewer catastrophes happen, at the expense of slower growth (at best).

Are you telling me that, barring a trillion dollars of present funding, the economy will not recover?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

"Are you telling me that, barring a trillion dollars of present funding, the economy will not recover?"

im reading a trillion wont even come close. multiple trillions, just reading between the lines more than 2 less than 5 trillion over the next 6-8 years gets the nation out of this jam.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Okay...

do you want to buy some swamp land? I have some that would be perfect for you.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:14 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

is that an educated response?

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 5:18 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It's...

about as educated a response as your comment deserved, I guess.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:20 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

stick to your lawyering

ill stick to the poly sci minor and the brother with a degree in finance.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 5:25 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow...

that did put me in my place.

It amazes me how often people are suckered by “act now, before it’s too late,” whether in politics or in retail.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait a sec.

Ben, don’t you do some type of securities work for a gig?

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 5:50 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

I’m licensed with the 7 and 63.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:51 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok, then that trumps

a poly sci minor…and possibly a degree in finance, in my humble opine, if you are an active trader.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The 7 and 63...

are the license required to be a registered representative of a broker-dealer and the “blue sky” or state registration, respectively. So an active trader may hold them or may not, but you are generally required to hold them to work in the securities industry in a client-facing position.

I wouldn’t say that they, by themselves, are indicative of some kind of position of authority regarding financial/political matters, but I would say that working in a capacity in which they are needed lends itself to being financially literate and thinking about financial/political issues much of the time.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 6:43 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

except

lots of active traders couldn’t see any of this coming.

a few did – and they are the ones that sold short and made millions.

but alas – many are jobless.

anyway, i don’t have an opinion on whose right between ben and jayslick. lots of incredibly smart economists disagree about this.

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think it matters...

if someone saw this coming, because whether you saw it coming or not is irrelevant in deciding who’s right in “fixing” it.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 6:49 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

well

it’s a signal about how much you understand about the overall system.

granted, traders probably understand a lot more about CDO’s now so the average trader might understand the crisis a bit better than joeblo.

but you’re point also suggests that a trader really shouldn’t have a good idea about how to fix it any more than the average economist who thinks about it on the macro level. You might have a good grasp of how to fix the securities market though.

And your answer to this question might have some insight: Are ratings agencies salvageable?

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 6:58 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know...

they have conflicts of interest, sure, but they also do provide some valid insight. It’s interesting that you ask that because I’m doing a little study myself right now on the short term impact of ratings changes.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

it just seems like they aren't good at what they do

for whatever reason (this is all Liar’s Poker talk though).

Anyway, something needs to change. Too many “conservative” mutual funds were tied up in really crappy AAA securities that weren’t AAA because Moodys said it was AAA.

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 8:37 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

There was a systematic failure in the pricing of risk...

I think that goes beyond all the ratings agencies and much further. A triple a rated debt security still carries credit risk, obivously… I mean, if we say that “this is a 100 year flood,” that doesn’t mean that we can sue god because 5 years later there’s another 100 year flood.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 9:00 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

i don't know what the flood thing means

but there were a lot of securities that were just priced horribly – objectively priced horribly, trading at prices that would not indicate that they were AAA securities.

A lot of funds rely on those ratings – maybe they shouldn’t.

now when you say it goes beyond the ratings agencies, I guess. Except, those are the people that should have been looking at what those securities were backed up by – subprime crap.

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 9:43 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

What it boils down to is return...

if a return is an outlier for similar securities of similar stated or rated risk, then it’s going to be riskier.

For instance, Citi is offering 2.5% on savings accounts right now. Why is that, do you think?

There are more than just ratings to factor into making a decision.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

You've never heard of a 100 year flood?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 9:55 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I'm not trying to start anything.

Just that there are many opinions on fixing this, and many levels of expertise.

If I wasn’t so busy, and still working now, I might throw my hat in the ring.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 7:09 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Here's the problem with that analysis

Your argument for a liberal stimulus bill is that liberal programs are necessary. So the only people you’re going to convince are people who are already liberals. Which is fine, I guess, since liberals are in power. But it shocks me that people are getting indignant that conservatives aren’t behind what is obviously a liberal dream list.

A conservative can write up the same sort of “tip of the iceberg” analysis about all sorts of things. Doomsday scenarios if we don’t cut corporate taxes and make the capital gains tax permanently 10%. Without a doubt, all such scenarios are nonsense.

What changed in the past 6 months with education to make it desperate that we infuse cash into public schools (other than state budget crunches, which is a different story and what I am for)? Heck, if anything a petering out economy should make teaching a more attractive profession.

I’ll fully agree that education needs to be reformed in this country. But “reform” does not equal writing a giant check and hoping it gets better. This stimulus should be for things that keep the economy from cratering RIGHT NOW.

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

RIGHT NOW

being the most important words, of course. We can fine tune this as we go along, but as I posted this morning, things are in very, very dire straights currently.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Feb 6, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

there is no "keep the economy from cratering"

in the sense that there is no direct spending that will get that done. this is largely about confidence and psychology with job creation mixed in. I agree, there are some pure entitlements in there but for the most part, it’s not that bad.

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 7:17 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

There is nothing liberal or conservative about a fiscal spending policy

It’s economics. Monetary policy has no more room to act. Fiscal policy is what’s left.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 10:11 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

interesting article from popular mechanics

link

"Shovel-ready" isn’t language used in the bill, but the House’s version, at least, does have an enforceable short-term focus: Only projects that are able to start construction within 90 days of selection are eligible for funding from the $90 billion set aside for infrastructure.
The programs that would meet the bill’s 90-day restriction are, for the most part, an unappealing mix of projects that were either shelved after being fully designed and engineered, and have since become outmoded or irrelevant, or projects with limited scope and ambition. No one’s building a smart electric grid or revamping a water system on 90 days notice. The best example of a shovel-ready project, and what engineers believe could become the biggest recipient of the transportation-related portion of the bill’s funding, is road resurfacing—important maintenance work, but not a meaningful way to rein in a national infrastructure crisis. "In developing countries, there are roads that are so bad, they create congestion, because drivers are constantly forced to slow down," says David Levinson, an associate professor in the University of Minnesota’s civil engineering department. "That’s not the case here. If the road’s a little bit rougher, drivers will feel it, but that’s not going to cause you to go any slower. So the economic benefit of those projects is pretty low."

That might be acceptable to people focused purely on fostering rapid job growth‹but, ironically, such stimulus spending could fall short on that measure, as well. "In the 1930s, when you were literally building with shovels, that might have made sense. That was largely unskilled labor. Today, it’s blue collar, but it’s not unskilled," Levinson says. "The guy brushing the asphalt back and forth is unskilled, but the guy operating the steamroller isn’t. And there’s an assumption out there that construction workers are interchangeable between residential and highway projects. But a carpenter isn’t a whole lot of help in building a road."

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:25 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Daley refuses to release stimulus project list

Mayor Richard Daley said today Chicago has compiled a wish list of “shovel-ready projects” to spend federal economic stimulus funds on should Congress approve a plan.

Unlike hundreds of other cities, however, Daley said Chicago won’t make its list public.

“Yes, we do, we have our list, we’ve been talking to people. We did not put that out publicly because once you start putting it out publicly, you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart,” Daley said.

“It’s very controversial. Yes, we have ready projects from the Board of Education to the City Colleges to the Park District to the CTA and the city of Chicago. Oh yes. Us and New York decided not to do that. We thought we could go directly into the federal bureaucracies and the different departments,” the mayor added.

Later, Daley was asked why he wasn’t being more transparent.
 
“Read some of your newspapers. Heh heh,” he replied

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

DOT projects

If other states have a program similar to Virginia, we’ll be paying five guys to watch one guy working instead of only four guys.

If you want some slack, bring your own rope.

by rangerfaninva on Feb 6, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

sounds like how texas utilities was back in the day

heh

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

VA Beach

If you want some slack, bring your own rope.

by rangerfaninva on Feb 6, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm in Fredericksburg

or Fast Fred, as I’m wont to call it…

I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 9, 2009 9:22 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The best thing Obama can do

is make business that make bad decisions take responsibility for their actions.

I can’t believe a bailout’s even being talked about. Quick-fixes never work. You’re putting too much faith in an increasingly immoral society.

If this thing passes, here’s what I’ll tell my kids every night: “Merry Christmas for the rest of your life kids, our generation screwed it up and your going to have to pay for it. And it’s all because of greed and the politicians that are simply opportunists rather than true Americans that would die for our country.”

by Apes and Androids on Feb 6, 2009 12:26 PM CST reply actions   1 recs

interesting read

Link

"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan

by Dirk Diggler on Feb 6, 2009 12:34 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

President Barack Obama and Congress have a great opportunity to produce reforms that do return Americans to work, and that provide a foundation for sustained long-run economic growth and the opportunity for all Americans to succeed. These reforms should include very specific plans that update banking regulations and address a manufacturing sector in which several large industries — including autos and steel — are no longer internationally competitive. Tax reform that broadens rather than narrows the tax base and that increases incentives to work, save and invest is also needed. We must also confront an educational system that fails many of its constituents. A large fiscal stimulus plan that doesn’t directly address the specific impediments that our economy faces is unlikely to achieve either the country’s short-term or long-term goals.

good quote

but…you mean the “new deal” wasnt a success? GASP
FDR wasnt a perfect president? GASP
the new deal wasnt all FDRs idea? GASP

blasphemy!

(but seriously, a good read)

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

please

go read a book

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

i do read books

and i do read news articles

what specifically do you want me to go read about?

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 6, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

still waiting

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 7, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Freidman had an article a couple weeks ago

saying the downturn of 36 was because the government didnt continue its economic stimulus after 33-4 (ie push through another stim a couple years after 33)

Murdock and Co. are pushing hard the philosophy that the new deal didnt work. It ignores that as the depression took hold, capitalism was in serious risk of complete collapse. Look at the percentages of voters who turn to the fascist and communist parties in that era, they are ridiculously high and its kinda mindblowing. In order to save Capitalism and free market economics, socialist mechanics were forced to be put in place.

Its scary stuff and it shouldnt be forgotten.

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly, the problem with the New Deal

was not the government spending, it’s that there wasn’t enough of it for a long enough time.

WWII was a HUGE government fiscal stimulus. If the government had sustained and increased the stimulus of the mid-30’s the depression would have ended sooner. Instead they foolishly tried to be “responsible” with the budget in 1936-37 and the depression gained a 2nd wind.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

What's funny to me

is that one of the big thing the Congress wants to do is “Buy American” crap. Thank you Senator Smoot, and Representative Hawley for your brilliant idea.

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 6, 2009 2:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, that is all nonsense

These people think that a subsidy isn’t a subsidy if you call it by something else. This is a global recession, and requires a global recovery. All the “Buy America” stuff will do is strain trade relations to stall out the recovery.

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

isnt half the reason we are in this situation though

i mean, if we had a contract to buy all the government’s toilet paper from china and we sign a new contract with an american company for the same price, doesnt that create jobs or at least sustain them that help pay for mortgages, car loans, college for kids, electricity, etc for americans who otherwise would lose their jobs, healthcare, etc?

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

That was the thinking of the folks

during the Great Depression. We passed the Smoot-Hawley Trade act, a trade war broke out, and it forced the world economy even farther under.

We live in a global economy, whether folks like it or not. We start a trade war now, and things go downhill fast.

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 6, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

how does changing companies when you review your toilet paper contract invoke a trade war?

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 4:42 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Other countries

stop buying computers and planes and cars from us. You see a spate of Buy French legislation in France and Buy British legislation in Britain.

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 6, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Propping up...

domestic business just because it’s a domestic business is stupid.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

if its the same price to buy the same roll of TP

why would buying a roll from overseas be the better route?

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 5:17 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

it's never the same

and the question is not really about what to do when it is the same. the question is what to do when the american product sucks and the stupid answer is to subsidize the american product so people will buy it even though it’s inferior and inefficient

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 6:43 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

What ab said.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 6, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure if it was the same price

everyone would buy domestic.

If Fords were equal quality to Toyota’s for the same price, Americans would buy Ford. The problem is that Toyota makes a better car than Ford.

You’re toilet paper analogy should be this – the American company charges $1.50/roll of stiff 1-ply stuff. China charges $0.50 for plush 3-ply stuff. Forcing a “Buy American” allows the American company to keep being inefficient (or pocketing extra profits), while the American bureaucrats who you love are stuck wiping their butts with sandpaper. Sounds like a good deal to me.

by JBImaknee on Feb 6, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Buy American is stupid now

because it’s very difficult to actually do that, in addition to the trade war risk you mention. Ford makes cars in Mexico, Toyota makes cars in Tennessee, and most cars have parts from all over the world.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 6, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

there were also some bad things the FDR tried to do in the New Deal

but I don’t think the spending was the real problem. people say WWII is what got us out of the depression.

well – what exactly is a war if not huge amounts of spending

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Feb 6, 2009 2:22 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

its perspective really

TVA was “socialism” but the TVA electrified and ran plumbing to most of the southeast (Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama) when they were still in 1800’s era technology 30 years after the fact, and led to the population and economic boom of the south through to this very day. But its still frowned upon by the right who have spent until this day tearing it apart all the while claiming it didnt work.

WPA Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million jobs. It built public buildings, projects and roads and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. Expenditures from 1936 to 1939 totaled nearly $7 billion.

conservatives still blast these acts as blatant socialism and based much of their platform for years against such acts, ignoring that they made life for the average americans in their regions sustainable and using any form of media they could (and still do) to say the new deal was a complete failure. Those arguments in my mind lack humanity.

anyway, my $00.02

mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.

by Jayslick on Feb 6, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I think they have to get something done soon.

I really don’t care what it is. It can be adjusted later if need be, but lets get this shit to the President’s desk right now and refine and tweak later. Nobody would ever say this is a perfect bill, but it’s a fucking start.

by Black Francis on Feb 6, 2009 2:45 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Umm.... so let;s don't worry about doing something right; let's just do something now??

Isn’t that how went pissed away hundreds of billions in the first bailout – you know, the one that was supposed to open the credit spigot by buying bad paper, but where the money just went poof?

by bking on Feb 7, 2009 9:12 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

The answer to all of your questions is yes. What happened with TARP was obviously a different treasury secretary. Things are being adjusted as we speak.

Pass the bill, get things moving, and adjust where necessary. The point is to get started, which they have thankfully done.

And, really, I’ve read a lot of the conversations in this thread. I don’t think you can even look at most provisions as “right” or “wrong”. The state bailout for example. Some say that’s bad because it doesn’t create any stimulus, but I’d argue that it does. First, it helps states from going under which would be a bad thing. Secondly, it allows them to go about their own infrastructure projects that they had been holding off on. Stimulus. “Companies that made bad decisions”. I’m not interested in moral bullshit right now. All I care about is keeping people employed. If you don’t do that, it’s going to not only companies that have made bad decisions going under. While I’m happy to see something like the executive compensation cap, that’s easy to say “if you accept this money, you have to do this”. Because “this” in this case is very simple. Asking the government to determine which businesses have made good decisions and which have made bad decisions is not a good idea. That’s much more complicated.

Anyway, it’s not like the bill that was passed is set in stone and can never be changed.

by Black Francis on Feb 7, 2009 3:44 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

A stimulus is about as different from a bailout as it could possibly be.

and is a well known use of fiscal policy in economics. Monetary policy is tapped out, the Fed can’t do any more. Fiscal stimulus is what is left. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bailout, which we can agree was poorly planned and even more poorly executed. To vote against the stimulus because you didn’t like the TARP plan is idiocy.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 7, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

done

deal

"If you have a problem with me, you're probably a doucher."

by red shoe ranger on Feb 6, 2009 9:09 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Someone look up 1974!

The economy and unemployment rate was much worse then. Unemployment was 18% and interest rates on homes were almost 20%.

And no, the New Deal didn’t work. The only thing that pulled us out was WW1. Wars are a huge economy boost and the Republicans know it. It’s part of the reason we invaded Iraq.

That said, I don’t know who we’d go to war with now. Maybe we can do a reality show to see which people we’ll let fly into our buildings again.

by Apes and Androids on Feb 7, 2009 6:45 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

I think Newt's commentary on Obama's stimulus speech...

was that it reminded him of Jimmy Carter.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 7, 2009 6:47 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Was that when

the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Get off my lawn.

by DJCahill on Feb 7, 2009 8:11 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

What exactly do think WWII spending was?

It was a stimulus, fool. If the government had not backed off its stimulus in the mid-30s the depression might have ended sooner.

Please read this:

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Feb 7, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Stimulus

The part that sucks for me is the housing stimulus, they are doubling the original first time buyer program and making it a credit not an interest free loan. But from what I’ve read you don’t qualify unless you buy a home after it passes….which stinks

"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg

by rentz on Feb 7, 2009 7:17 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

i know some people who were VERY happy about that

that itgot in at all

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 7, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not happy because i bought before and qualify for the old plan but not the new

"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg

by rentz on Feb 7, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

more than fair

btuthen again i know a lot of ppl in the industry

was it easy to get under the old rules?

Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.

by knockoutking on Feb 7, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

well the old rules were buy between x date and x date and you get 10% of the purchase price or 7500 whichever is less., with $500 per year repayment until you sell.

the new one is no repayment and double the amount but what ive read is it doesnt override the old law, and purchases made before now wont count

"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg

by rentz on Feb 7, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Texas Rangers.
Start posting about the Rangers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Highfidelity_small
Rangers 2009 Top Plays/Highlights Video
Rangers_small
Adam J. Morris Facebook Fan Page
Ochomerun_small
Feliz The Cheeez
Small
If Lone Star Ball were a movie
Small
Highlights from the Mid-Winter Banquet

Recent FanPosts

110307_1802_00__small
People in my Keeper Fantasy League (and those interested in joining)
Small
Jose Vallejo out for the year
Eastwood_small
Rank the Baseball Commissioners
Th_buckykatt_small
Super Bowl Thread
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Cj_photo_day_small
LSB Community Prospect Project: Post Season #30
110307_1802_00__small
so...
Rangersp_small
Other Rangers uni numbers that should be retired?
Sbn_ds_small
Best In The West

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Managers

Th_buckykatt_small Adam J. Morris