Obamacrats still retarded

[TheBrutalTruth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/us/politics/07stimulus.html?ref=business

February 7, 2009
Democrats Cite Jobs Report as Stimulus Talks Continue

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — Prodded by yet another dismal economic report on Friday, the Senate resumed its efforts to reach an accord on President Obama’s economic stimulus plan, with Democrats calling for quick action and Republicans arguing against what they described as wasteful spending.


By mid-day, the Senate was still locked in debate. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said he was worried that the Senate was becoming like a gathering of firefighters arguing about “how to get to the fire while the house keeps burning.”



Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said earlier that he remained optimistic that between 5 and 7 p.m. Friday, “we’ll have something that we can vote on that would reflect the big picture of what we need to move this to conference.”



“This is a critical day for this new Congress and our country,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. “Faced with this grave and growing economic crisis, Republicans must decide today whether they will join the president and Congressional Democrats on that road to recovery.”


“If we succeed, there will be plenty of credit to go around,” Mr. Reid said. “But if we fail, our entire country will suffer the consequences.”
But Mr. Reid’s Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said his party colleagues would not sign on to “an aimless spending spree that masks as a stimulus.”


And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the numbers being talked about show that each of the 3 million to 4 million jobs President Obama has said he wanted to create would cost more than $900,000 each. “The American people are figuring it out,” Mr. McCain said. “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”


Once the Senate votes, Senate and House negotiators must confer to reconcile their separate versions of the legislation. The negotiations could be intense, as some House Democrats have said they are increasingly alarmed by reports of efforts in the Senate to remove programs that they consider essential.



President Obama has said he hopes to sign the final legislation in the next week to 10 days, a goal Democratic lawmakers have vowed to meet.


The president seized on Friday’s economic news — the Labor Department’s new report of the plummeting jobless rate — in a White House appearance in the morning.


“Last month, another 600,000 Americans lost their jobs,” Mr. Obama said. “That is the single worst month of job loss in 35 years. The Department of Labor also adjusted their job loss numbers for 2008 upwards, and now report that we have lost 3.6 million jobs since this recession began.”


“I am sure that at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, members of the Senate are reading these same numbers this morning,” the president said. “I hope they share my sense of urgency and draw the same, unmistakable conclusion: The situation could not be more serious. These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible to get bogged down in distraction and delay while millions of Americans are being put out of work. It is time for Congress to act.”


Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators continued to work furiously in backroom negotiations to cut the cost of the more than $920 billion economic stimulus plan.



Members of the bipartisan group, led by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said they wanted to trim provisions that would not quickly create jobs or encourage spending by consumers and businesses. They have been scrutinizing the 736-page bill and wrangling over what to cut.


By Thursday evening, aides said the group had drafted a list of nearly $90 billion in cuts, including $40 billion in aid for states, more than $14 billion for various education programs, $4.1 billion to make federal buildings energy efficient and $1.5 billion for broadband Internet service in rural areas. But they remained short of a deal.


“We’re trying to focus it on spending that truly helps stimulate the economy,” Ms. Collins said. “People have different views on whether or not a program meets that test. So we’re continuing to talk. We get close, and then it drops back, and then we get close again.”


President Obama said Thursday that a package of about $800 billion was in the ballpark of what he believed the economy needed.


“The scale and scope of this plan is right,” Mr. Obama said in a speech to House Democrats who were on a retreat in Williamsburg, Va.


“If we do not move swiftly,” the president said, “an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe.” He added, “Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction.”


The White House announced that Mr. Obama would make a televised speech to the nation about the economy on Monday night.


Mr. Reid said Thursday that he believed that Democrats could muscle the stimulus bill through with at least two Republican votes. But late Thursday he said he would give the bipartisan group until Friday to reach a deal. If no deal is reached, he said he would call for procedural vote on Sunday aimed at moving to final vote.


The efforts of the bipartisan group, which at one point numbered about 20 senators, essentially tied Mr. Reid’s hands, giving him little choice but to allow time for a compromise measure to emerge. The behind-the-scenes brokering on Thursday distracted from the Senate floor where senators at times traded angry barbs through formal debate.
The Democrats will need the support of at least two Republicans and probably more to win passage of the stimulus bill, which for procedural reasons will require 60 votes. The Democrats now hold 58 seats, but only 57 have been voting this week. Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts has been absent because of illness.


Ms. Collins is clearly one Republican they are counting on. But on Thursday evening she said she would not vote for the measure in its current form and wanted further changes in spending programs. “My goal is to be able to support a bill,” Ms. Collins said.


The cost of the Senate measure has risen substantially above the $820 billion House-passed bill, first with the addition of a $64 billion provision to spare millions of middle class Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009, and the more recent inclusion of tax breaks for purchases of homes and cars, totaling $30 billion.


As an amendment to the stimulus bill, the Senate voted on Thursday to limit pay and ban bonuses for the 25 top executives at companies that have received money from the Treasury’s $700 billion bailout program for the financial industry.


The vote came a day after Mr. Obama imposed a $500,000 cap on pay for executives whose companies receive substantial bailout money in the future. The Senate provision could be applied retroactively to companies that already received rescue money.


Comments earlier in the day by Mr. Reid and other members of the Democratic leadership suggested a growing frustration with Republican opposition to the recovery measure and assertions by some in the minority party that Mr. Obama’s aggressive efforts had so far failed to win over a large number of critics.


Republican efforts to drastically alter the package, by eliminating huge blocks of spending in place of expanded tax cuts, continued Thursday morning as Senator McCain proposed yet another substitute bill, including a plan to slash corporate and personal income taxes. Democrats defeated his proposal and others.


“Despite the efforts of the president, Senator Reid and all of us to reach out, we’re getting rebuffed,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, said at a news conference with other leaders. “Has bipartisanship been a failure? Well, so far it’s not working. But it takes two to tango, and the Republicans aren’t dancing.”


Republicans suggested that Democrats were angry because they simply had not been able to generate widespread support for their proposal among lawmakers or the general public.


“The question is not, doing nothing versus doing something,” Senator McConnell of Kentucky said. “The question is the appropriateness of an almost $1 trillion spending bill to address the problem.”

It's amazing how quickly the Democrats point fingers. Almost as amazing as how quickly the Republicans point fingers, but in the case of this spending package, I have to agree with the Republicans. It is not a stimulus package it is a spending package.

Now, what would a stimulus package be?

How about giving every American a tax holiday for a year?

Or cutting taxes by the $940 or is it $960 Billion over the next four years?

Or better yet, make the tax cuts permanent.

Just make sure that they are focused on the middle class and working class. Though I really do like the idea of a tax holiday.

What the Democrats appear to be ignoring (which fails to surprise me) is that the idea is to CREATE JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, not to INCREASE FUNDING FOR JOBS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

With out the Private Sector there is no public sector. Increasing spending in government programs is stupid, and does the opposite of a Stimulus. In essence what the Democrats are doing is using the need to stimulate the economy as an excuse to increase funding for their favorite pet projects.

What's really disgusting is the fact that none of those pin heads in Congress has yet to step forward, and say, "Instead of amending this growing monstrosity, lets break it into its components, and see what we can all agree on, and pass the legislation we can agree on."

They could start with

AMT Relief
Tax Cuts

and move on to

Infrastructure Spending

skipping funding for
the states (the states fucked up, let them fix their own damn problems, at least then they'll learn (got to let them grow up (or stop acting senile) some time))

the National Endowment of the Arts (how the hell is that going to create jobs?)

Family Planning (WTF does that have to do with creating JOBS?)

Hell, at this rate the bridge to nowhere was a better stimulus than the crap that the Democrats are putting in this bill, at least the Bridge to Nowhere created jobs in the private sector (temporarily.)

Something that the Democrats have obviously decided to ignore.

I, personally, would rather just get a tax free year.

 

[ViRedd]

"Without the Private Sector there is no public sector."

That's exactly right, TBT. As you know, California has a budget shortage of 48 BILLION. The State Legislature is run by entrenched Marxist Democrats and their answer to the shortage is to raise taxes, fees and to increase regulations on the private sector. The government employee unions continually try to suck more out of the private sector as well. Pubic employees here in California have incredible retirement programs and super benefits. If these public employees know what's good for them, they had better start talking about lowering taxes and creating super benefits and incentives for businesses here, because businesses and their employees are leaving the state in droves. You'd think it would be obvious to these governmental looters that the money to fund their golden retirements comes from the private sector. Personally, I think they are way to greedy to wake up and smell the coffee ... until its too late.

On the federal bailout ... All this is, is a wish list compiled by leftists in an attempt to satiate their pent up demand for Marxist programs that here-to-fore, they couldn't get through. Even now, the only way they will get this crap through is to scare the hell out of the American people. Thanks to conservative talk radio and TV broadcasts, they won't get away with it. As this is being written, the switch boards at our congressmen and senator's offices are overloaded with their constituents screaming like crazy. American's are waking up to this scam of all scams ... the greatest train robbery since the Sundance Kid.

Vi

 

[Spitzered]

n a TV interview last month, Vice President Joe Biden said the following:

Every economist, as I’ve said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs.
​

That statement is clearly false. As I have documented on this blog in recent weeks, skeptics about a spending stimulus include quite a few well-known economists, such as (in alphabetical order) Alberto Alesina, Robert Barro, Gary Becker, John Cochrane, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Sargent, Harald Uhlig, and Luigi Zingales–and I am sure there many others as well. Regardless of whether one agrees with them on the merits of the case, it is hard to dispute that this list is pretty impressive, as judged by the standard objective criteria by which economists evaluate one another. If any university managed to hire all of them, it would immediately have a top ranked economics department.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/28/economists-against-the-stimulus/


Change we can believe in.

 

[110100100]

Personally I like the idea of forcing banks to drop all current primary residence mortgage interest rates to 3%.

Banks would still make money on the loans, it would give current home owners a little breathing room and would actually leave a little more money in the federal coffers in the form of lower tax deductions. It would cost the American taxpayer nothing and would offer some real help to people that are struggling. Even the people that can easily afford their mortgage would now find a little bit extra cash each month and they might be apt to spend it else where in the economy which is currently one of the real problems today. People not stimulating the economy by saving money is hurting us more than most people realize.

Giving banks money to loan when people have no jobs and no confidence in the economy to borrow is pointless. Giving tax breaks to first time home buyers only offers help to a very small segment of the population and even worse it may entice some people to take on a mortgage when they really can't afford it. All at the cost of the rest of us. The new car tax break is a TOTAL joke. Yeah lets encourage people to take on MORE debt.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Personally I like the idea of forcing banks to drop all current primary residence mortgage interest rates to 3%.

Banks would still make money on the loans, it would give current home owners a little breathing room and would actually leave a little more money in the federal coffers in the form of lower tax deductions. It would cost the American taxpayer nothing and would offer some real help to people that are struggling. Even the people that can easily afford their mortgage would now find a little bit extra cash each month and they might be apt to spend it else where in the economy which is currently one of the real problems today. People not stimulating the economy by saving money is hurting us more than most people realize.

Giving banks money to loan when people have no jobs and no confidence in the economy to borrow is pointless. Giving tax breaks to first time home buyers only offers help to a very small segment of the population and even worse it may entice some people to take on a mortgage when they really can't afford it. All at the cost of the rest of us. The new car tax break is a TOTAL joke. Yeah lets encourage people to take on MORE debt.

The problem with that is it violates the contracts. Contracts that were signed between the banks and the people that took the mortgages. It is not just unfair to the banks, but also horribly unfair to those that took out mortgages before, that were not Interest-Only, Variable Rate, or No Documentation Loans.

It is unfair to any one that does not need help, or has too much self-respect to ask for it.

Besides, if it does anything like most government policies it will make the problem worse.

And that is Economics 99: Remedial Economics

 

[110100100]

The problem with that is it violates the contracts. Contracts that were signed between the banks and the people that took the mortgages. It is not just unfair to the banks, but also horribly unfair to those that took out mortgages before, that were not Interest-Only, Variable Rate, or No Documentation Loans.

It is unfair to any one that does not need help, or has too much self-respect to ask for it.

Besides, if it does anything like most government policies it will make the problem worse.

And that is Economics 99: Remedial Economics

Are you kidding? Do you really think I give a fuck about the fairness to banks? They were a large help getting us into this mess they should bear some of the brunt of fixing it. You're talking about companies that handed out bonuses EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE LOSING MONEY. Yeah the banks wouldn't make as much money on the loans but 3% of something is way better than 0% of nothing.

Now how is it unfair to the consumer? I'm not saying you RAISE someone's rate to 3%, if they somehow (love to know how) have a rate lower than 3% let it stay where it is. I'd love to hear you explain how lowering someone's interest rate is unfair to them.

It's unfair to people who don't need it HOW exactly? It would give them extra money each month and hopefully they would put that extra cash back into the economy by spending it. Any consumer spending we could generate would help stimulate the economy.

As far as "people too proud to ask" I'm not asking them to ask. I'm saying we force the banks to make the change. All primary residence mortgages over 3% BAM...cut em to 3. Hell I'd go so far as to say convert any ARMs to fixed rates at 3% while they're at it. I seriously doubt the rate will ever go that low, do you?

The best is you suggesting that as a govt policy it has to make things worse. Get real. Do you think the govt is NOT going to do anything as it is now? Maybe you heard about this little thing they are considering doing called the stimulus package? Yeah no lets tell them to sit on their thumbs and spin and see what happens.

Prominent economists can't agree on what to do here but you're going to tell me about some shit you read in a book? You're in for a shock when you get into the real world.

BTW Lawrence Lindsey suggested we do this at 4% but you make the loan like a student loan where you still have to pay it back even if you walk away from your home. Then again what the fuck does he know he only got his A.B. magna cum-laude from Bowdoin College and his A.M. and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.

 

[ViRedd]

The problem with FORCING banks to lower the mortgage interest rates to 3% ... or anything below market rates, is that the banks will refuse to lend. Think of it like the minimum wage laws that FORCE employers to pay above market rates for labor. If minimum wage laws make sense, let's raise it to $40.00 an hour. If that makes sense, let's FORCE banks to lend at 1/2% interest. Same-o, same-o, no?

Forcing unnatural interest rates onto banks is like forcing unnatural wages onto employers. Its nothing more than a tax ... and you know the old saying ... "If you want less of something, tax it.

Vi

 

[max420thc]

hey? wasnt the guvment responsible for making the banks lend to people who couldnt afford to pay it back? the government is NOT THE SOLUTION THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

 

[110100100]

I did not say force them to lower interest rates I said force them to give all CURRENT primary residence mortgage holders a reduction to 3%.

Min wage laws ALREADY force employers to pay above market value in some situations but it's not exactly unreasonable. $40/Hr would be unreasonable.

Banks helped create this mess and should bear some of the burden of cleaning it up. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the taxpayers as it is now? There needs to be some level of accountability and so far it's not happening. Banks are being rewarded for irresponsible business practices by being bailed out by taxpayers.

If people continue to default on home loans the fire sale by banks on foreclosed properties will crush property values. I've seen estimates as high as 20% decline in value in some areas as it is now. Wouldn't it be better for the banks if more people keep paying their loans at a lower interest rate than to take the losses they will incur by having to unload these properties in a seriously depressed market? No lets let the feds continue to buy off their toxic assets with taxpayer money.

 

[medicineman]

BTW, for all you righty geniouses that belitle the stimulus package, In effect, stimulus means spending, duhhh. Tax cuts actually are lethargic in producing any real "STIMULUS", they basically only help those that need help the least. Tell me how a tax cut helps the unemployed. In this economic climate where the banks got billions and still won't loan money, do you actually think giving a tax cut to a millionaire or a company will promote jobs, get real. Spending on things that will create jobs, like infrastructure and giving the states money to keep from laying off thousands is more like it. Here in Nv. there is the spector of losing about 10,000 state jobs. Maybe they have it cushy, I wouldn't know as I spent my career in the private sector, but that alone would remove between 40 and 60 million bucks from Nv.s economy. I hate to think of how many and how much it would remove from Ca.s economy

 

[cookin]

a large part of the tax cuts would just be saved, wasting it.

 

[medicineman]

a large part of the tax cuts would just be saved, wasting it.

Exactly my point.

 

[ViRedd]

We have the second highest corporate tax rate on the planet at 35%. The capital gains tax is a farce. The "death" tax is right from Marx's handbook. You want the economy to boom? Cut the corporate tax rates to the bone. That would attract foreign corporations to our shores and will create millions of jobs here. Cut the capital gains tax to zero. That would leave all that capital in private hands for investment and job creation. Abolish the "death" taxes. That will keep businesses flourishing ... in the hands of the rightful owners; the heirs.

Government is not the answer ... government is the problem.

Vi

 

[110100100]

Government is not the problem PEOPLE are the problem

 

[max420thc]

Government is not the problem PEOPLE are the problem

government is the problem.they CAUSED the current situation we are in right now.they cause wars .enslavement of the population.incase you havnt noticed medomao. government only creates money and the game rules for the people to play by.anytime the government wants to control all of the assets of the economy and controls the spending and the amount of monet in the economy.it creates problems.people spending money and bussines spending money is what fuels a large economy.not the government.the governments money comes from only a couple of sources.tax.and borrowing it.

right now the government is trying to spend enough money into the economy to keep it afloat.every dollar they spend we owe in either increased tax.or increased debt.at one point or another it is going to have to be paid back.that is how it worked under this federal reserve system.and its not about the money.its about the greed and power.the money is worthless.it takes them a second it make a computor entry.for trillions.they loan something .they got for nothing to you on your home car bussiness ect.when you cant pay it back .and that is how the economy is set up to were you can not pay it back eventualy.,at least for the peasants ,they will own your home you car..but the most important thing they will own is YOUR FUCKING SOUL.and you ...the american public traded your freedom for a few worthless fleetinging dollars.

government is the fucking problem.they do not solve any problems without creating more of them ten times worse.the best thing for them to do is allow incompetent to fail and the competent to take over.right now we are subsidizing failure.you know what happens when you subsidize somthing? you get MORE OF IT.more failure is what we will have..and more debt and huge inflation a guvment that is going to default in its loan obligations .oh..and starvation ..did i mention alot of people are going to be hungry and pissed?

 

[medicineman]

Government, government, government. Can't you realize that the government is made up of people just like us? Many have been corrupted by the easy cash provided by the business sector, the capitalists. In fact a very special part of capitalism is greasing the government wonks. If the government would do it's job, regulating the capitalists, instead of giving them what they want, we very well wouldn't be in this mess we are in right now. Lasse-faire capitalism is the exact reason we are bankrupt as a nation. Maybe the great experiment really doesn't work for the whole society, just for a few at the top. A better form of capitalism needs to be discovered. One where the least in the society is taken care of and given an equal chance. One where multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses are not permitted, but the top salaried guys are allowed to make no more that the POTUS. I don't advocate a socialistic government where everyone is exactly the same. I believe in incentives, but this system is out of control. When one man can make a hundred times in one year, what a worker can make in his entire lifetime, the game is rigged.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Government is not the problem PEOPLE are the problem

Good, then you shouldn't object to being part of the solution to the problem by killing yourself.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Government, government, government. Can't you realize that the government is made up of people just like us? Many have been corrupted by the easy cash provided by the business sector, the capitalists. In fact a very special part of capitalism is greasing the government wonks. If the government would do it's job, regulating the capitalists, instead of giving them what they want, we very well wouldn't be in this mess we are in right now. Lasse-faire capitalism is the exact reason we are bankrupt as a nation. Maybe the great experiment really doesn't work for the whole society, just for a few at the top. A better form of capitalism needs to be discovered. One where the least in the society is taken care of and given an equal chance. One where multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses are not permitted, but the top salaried guys are allowed to make no more that the POTUS. I don't advocate a socialistic government where everyone is exactly the same. I believe in incentives, but this system is out of control. When one man can make a hundred times in one year, what a worker can make in his entire lifetime, the game is rigged.

If some one stays at the bottom of the economic chain their entire life then there is something wrong with them.

It has been concluded that people in the bottom 20% will reach the top 20% with in their life times. The game's not rigged, at least not in the way you are advocating, rigged in favor of people that get off their asses and reach for their goals and dreams, certainly, but that's life.

Of course, Med o Mao, here's a question for you. If greed is evil, then is it evil when a person making minimum wage aspires to a job that will bring them more money?

Is it evil when some one making $10/hr aspires to a job that pays $15/hr or $20/hr or $50/hr, or even $100/hr?

 

[max420thc]

if everyone is broke who will support the economy?who will pay tax? if it were not for smart people who often become rich . who would the public have as employers?the government is a net negative in other words they steal from the public for their own selfish greedy interests.when the public is broke and they can no longer thief a living off of us .then they borrow the money till they run out, to keep themselfs in control of the power.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

If some one stays at the bottom of the economic chain their entire life then there is something wrong with them.

It has been concluded that people in the bottom 20% will reach the top 20% with in their life times. The game's not rigged, at least not in the way you are advocating, rigged in favor of people that get off their asses and reach for their goals and dreams, certainly, but that's life.

Of course, Med o Mao, here's a question for you. If greed is evil, then is it evil when a person making minimum wage aspires to a job that will bring them more money?

Is it evil when some one making $10/hr aspires to a job that pays $15/hr or $20/hr or $50/hr, or even $100/hr?

Strange, seems that Med o' Mao is too afraid to answer the question.