house repubs say noooo?
- Thread starter ChChoda
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
They're posturing for the next election. At this point, if we don't stop the bleeding, this country is going into a full blown depression, it's like a snowball rolling downhill. We need an infusion of money, infrastructure not pork or tax cuts for the wealthy. The banks need to start loaning money, not buying up other banks and handing out bonuses.Obama needs to pull his head out, fuck the repukes, they lost.
diggitydank420
Well-Known Member
Too little, too late.
I'm gonna miss this little experiment called "The United States of America."
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Hell, we got the very best of it. The sorry saps that aren't even born yet sure will be jealous. They coulda had it all, but for us.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Hey, don't blame me for this shit. They could have had it all, but for greed.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Theres no "me" in society. Just a surrounded "I".
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Well "I" for one have yet to be surrounded by a bailout check.
Greed killed America but at least we're taking the rest of the world down with us
Greed killed America but at least we're taking the rest of the world down with us
the house repubs are not in charge period..and the repubs do not control the senate..the democrats have a filibuster proof majority..because of a few liberal republicans
this one is just for you moffit.
lol.....obama wants the repubs to go along with his plan..when it fail's he can say..well..we had bi partisan support..hell the repubs know the back stabing son of a bitch..he stood right next to bush and basicly started blaming him for his next four years of failure....that is a great politicians. he can blame someone else for his mistakes in advance..LOL
this one is just for you moffit.
lol.....obama wants the repubs to go along with his plan..when it fail's he can say..well..we had bi partisan support..hell the repubs know the back stabing son of a bitch..he stood right next to bush and basicly started blaming him for his next four years of failure....that is a great politicians. he can blame someone else for his mistakes in advance..LOL
medicineman
New Member
Right, I say ther repukes had their chance to do some good for the country and fucking blew it, looking for votes in '2010'. If this bailout doesnt pass with enough job creating impetus, there wont be an election in '2010', the repukes will top the hit list of every American that has lost their job and been put into the street. Fuck the repukes, full steam ahead, get some Big "O".the house repubs are not in charge period..and the repubs do not control the senate..the democrats have a filibuster proof majority..because of a few liberal republicans
this one is just for you moffit.
lol.....obama wants the repubs to go along with his plan..when it fail's he can say..well..we had bi partisan support..hell the repubs know the back stabing son of a bitch..he stood right next to bush and basicly started blaming him for his next four years of failure....that is a great politicians. he can blame someone else for his mistakes in advance..LOL
slu2
Well-Known Member
Barack's policies and votes in the Senate damn near mimicked Bush.lol.....obama wants the repubs to go along with his plan..when it fail's he can say..well..we had bi partisan support..hell the repubs know the back stabing son of a bitch..he stood right next to bush and basicly started blaming him for his next four years of failure....that is a great politicians. he can blame someone else for his mistakes in advance..LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1hqjIM8CFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX8y_IbLm-g
Spitzered
Well-Known Member
To much vote buying pork and not enough good for the general population.
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
AP
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."
Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?
Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."
Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?
Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
The repugs are hoping the package fails, they are hoping Obama fails and they are ultimately hoping the country goes into a depression just so they could say 'i told you so' and win control of the govt back. They don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves and their oil stocks.
Having said that this stimulus package is not going to do a thing, it is to little to late, its like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose. They would have to put 10X the amount of this package to see any effect and thats only if it was put into infrastructure. I cannot believe the repugs answer to this is more tax breaks, how fucking stupid are they? Tax breaks will not do a damn thing and will only worsen the problem.
I'm afraid people that this is only the beginning and we have not seen anything yet.
And yes, the Bush administration is completely responsible.
Having said that this stimulus package is not going to do a thing, it is to little to late, its like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose. They would have to put 10X the amount of this package to see any effect and thats only if it was put into infrastructure. I cannot believe the repugs answer to this is more tax breaks, how fucking stupid are they? Tax breaks will not do a damn thing and will only worsen the problem.
I'm afraid people that this is only the beginning and we have not seen anything yet.
And yes, the Bush administration is completely responsible.
It wasn't just Bush's fault it was Carter's and Clinton's and the FED's for keeping interest rates to low it was incompetent banksters. It was Bush wanting everyone to think the economy was strong while he paraded around the world bombing "everyone", setting up things like NSA surveillance and the patriot act.
Now we are in for part two this is going to be were all the guns get registered and they tax us based on half ass science about "carbon footprints" and "Cow farts". Get us all working for the Government. While they spend us into a depression and they blame ALL republicans for it. Can't wait for this Volcano in Alaska to pop. It will make more Carbon Dioxide then all the Cars in the world seance 1975 I bet.
And all Obama has to do is say it was those mean ol' Republicans that messed up the country so bad, Blame them. Meanwhile he will spend us right into a depression. (personally I think Bush and company have nearly destroyed the only opposition to fast-tracking Fabian Socialism, on purpose.)
I think the Republican plan to cut 5% off the two lowest tax brackets isn't a bad thing it would probably be a good thing for the economy but I don't think it would help really. The only thing that would help is to fix the bad Mortgage backed securities. The best way to do that is for the Government (because I can't think of ANYONE else to do it) to TAKE the bad Mortgages (notice I did not say buy, they broke the toy now we have to take it away) All the bad Mortgages. Have 1 year of no payments while the Government Refinances them rebundles them minus 30-50% their original value and then resell them back on the market. These securitys are worthless no one will touch them they need to be stabalized. By reselling them on the market the Government would make 1 - 1.5 trillion dollars (educated guess) they could use to pay for all there spending without having to barrow on our heads. And nobody gets put out on the street due to forclosure.
I think Obama's plan will end up hurting the country more. This is huge government discretionary spending and once they do it it will be back every year putting us further and further in Debt. Destroying the Value of the Dollar and speeding us to economic collapes.
Now we are in for part two this is going to be were all the guns get registered and they tax us based on half ass science about "carbon footprints" and "Cow farts". Get us all working for the Government. While they spend us into a depression and they blame ALL republicans for it. Can't wait for this Volcano in Alaska to pop. It will make more Carbon Dioxide then all the Cars in the world seance 1975 I bet.
And all Obama has to do is say it was those mean ol' Republicans that messed up the country so bad, Blame them. Meanwhile he will spend us right into a depression. (personally I think Bush and company have nearly destroyed the only opposition to fast-tracking Fabian Socialism, on purpose.)
I think the Republican plan to cut 5% off the two lowest tax brackets isn't a bad thing it would probably be a good thing for the economy but I don't think it would help really. The only thing that would help is to fix the bad Mortgage backed securities. The best way to do that is for the Government (because I can't think of ANYONE else to do it) to TAKE the bad Mortgages (notice I did not say buy, they broke the toy now we have to take it away) All the bad Mortgages. Have 1 year of no payments while the Government Refinances them rebundles them minus 30-50% their original value and then resell them back on the market. These securitys are worthless no one will touch them they need to be stabalized. By reselling them on the market the Government would make 1 - 1.5 trillion dollars (educated guess) they could use to pay for all there spending without having to barrow on our heads. And nobody gets put out on the street due to forclosure.
I think Obama's plan will end up hurting the country more. This is huge government discretionary spending and once they do it it will be back every year putting us further and further in Debt. Destroying the Value of the Dollar and speeding us to economic collapes.
medicineman
New Member
ViRedd
New Member
Republicans = Power for Republicans through an ever larger government.
Democrats = Power for Democrats through an ever larger government.
Neither party is "for the people."
Its time to wake up to the fact that we have a one party rule ... and that party is The Big Government Party.
Vi
undertheice
Well-Known Member
as usual, med, you take cliche and spout it as if it were profundity. try looking beyond the simple minded rhetoric and you might find a rather unpleasant truth. that neither party has your best interests at heart and that the people are just a bunch of ignorant dupes to the rabid political animals we naively believe are representing us.
republicans have traditionally catered to business, giving just enough to string them along while using them to grow their own power base. democrats are playing the other side of the street. they hand out just enough to the people to keep us indebted to them and hoping for more. they play on the greed of the masses, just as their counterparts count on the greed of big business, to expand their power; never really making a difference, but giving the impression of benevolence. of course the ignorant masses will flock to the free handouts promised by these charlatans, even more so when times are hard.
the most glaring difference between these two methods is that business is far more efficient at taking advantage of the small bones thrown to it by government.
it's far too easy to blame those shadow masters for the destruction of our freedoms and it masks the true culprits behind our gradual enslavement. businesses that genuflect before their republican masters and the unthinking hordes that followed behind their new messiah chanting "change", these are the ones that are truly to blame. we are gladly forging our own shackles far more efficiently than any shadow government could ever manage. blind belief and obedience are more effective than chains and ignorance is more useful than regulation to those who hope to gain control over us.
medicineman
New Member
as usual, med, you take cliche and spout it as if it were profundity. try looking beyond the simple minded rhetoric and you might find a rather unpleasant truth. that neither party has your best interests at heart and that the people are just a bunch of ignorant dupes to the rabid political animals we naively believe are representing us.
republicans have traditionally catered to business, giving just enough to string them along while using them to grow their own power base. democrats are playing the other side of the street. they hand out just enough to the people to keep us indebted to them and hoping for more. they play on the greed of the masses, just as their counterparts count on the greed of big business, to expand their power; never really making a difference, but giving the impression of benevolence. of course the ignorant masses will flock to the free handouts promised by these charlatans, even more so when times are hard.
the most glaring difference between these two methods is that business is far more efficient at taking advantage of the small bones thrown to it by government.
Being simple minded as you so profoundly point out, wouldn't I then be inclined to favor Democrats? Sometimes your supposed "High minded" approach to rhetoric is rather lame.
republicans have traditionally catered to business, giving just enough to string them along while using them to grow their own power base. democrats are playing the other side of the street. they hand out just enough to the people to keep us indebted to them and hoping for more. they play on the greed of the masses, just as their counterparts count on the greed of big business, to expand their power; never really making a difference, but giving the impression of benevolence. of course the ignorant masses will flock to the free handouts promised by these charlatans, even more so when times are hard.
the most glaring difference between these two methods is that business is far more efficient at taking advantage of the small bones thrown to it by government.
Being simple minded as you so profoundly point out, wouldn't I then be inclined to favor Democrats? Sometimes your supposed "High minded" approach to rhetoric is rather lame.