The Obama Administration thread

[SLCPUNK]

more AIDS "education"

Would it be different if it were for cancer "research" ? Would that make you feel more comfortable ? Were you bitching about Bush's AIDS programs for Africa by chance?

[GeorgeSteele]

^ It was Moody's.  Here's the link -- https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

A lot to read in there (and a good read it is); the stats you referenced are on page 9.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I prefer to get all my information from youtube.

Same here, I only checked that out because someone told me Moody's was a depression-fetish porn site.  After reading the first 15 pages, I came to the sad realization this wasn't going to turn into the Penthouse Diaries. 

[Drew]

It's good to see that there was a non-partisan vote yesterday on that pork-barreled "stimulus' bill.  Every Republican voted "no" along with eleven other Democrats. It gives me some hope that there are some politicians in Washington who see this bill as huge waste of tax payers money.

[freedom78]

It's good to see that there was a non-partisan vote yesterday on that pork-barreled "stimulus' bill.  Every Republican voted "no" along with eleven other Democrats. It gives me some hope that there are some politicians in Washington who see this bill as huge waste of tax payers money.

Non partisan?  Howdaya figure?  Every Republican votes one way.  The vast majority of Dems vote another.  How is that "non-partisan"? 

[Smoking Guns]

There are a lot of good things in the bill, but its not really a "stimulus" bill. Even Maddow said its now a watered down bad bill.  Like some have said, some of the jobs created aren't new jobs, but another job done by the same employees.  I would love more infrastructure for sure.  That isn't an instant stimulus.  It takes a long time to aquire land for new roads and for engineers to get in and design the new roads and plan for new roads.  We need a long term package for projects taking a year or longer and a short term package for tax cuts, foodstamps, and incentives for US auto purchases or new home purchases.  Unemployment is getting out of control.

I like how Obama called out those Wall Street POS for the huge bonus structure, atleast he isn't scared to call them out. 

Obama doesn't need the Repubs to pass a bill, he knows that, but he is going to do his best to get everyone involved, and I do respect that, even if Maddow doesn't. 

[Smoking Guns]

Drew, I am with you.  I want the tax cut.  I need new tires on my truck and car.  If I got a check I would be buying 8 tires very soon instead of milking the puppies I have now.  This hits home because I service a BFGoodrich Tire plant nearby and they are so worried about the future and I can do my part to keep them alive....  Also the more the big 3 struggle, the more they hurt.  Where do all these laid off people go?  The unemployment rate is going to skyrocket soon if we don't start turning the corner. 

[SLCPUNK]

It's good to see that there was a non-partisan vote yesterday on that pork-barreled "stimulus' bill.  Every Republican voted "no" along with eleven other Democrats. It gives me some hope that there are some politicians in Washington who see this bill as huge waste of tax payers money.

Did you cash Bush's check he sent you last time?

[Drew]

Non partisan?  Howdaya figure?  Every Republican votes one way.  The vast majority of Dems vote another.  How is that "non-partisan"? 

Both Republicans and Democrats voted "no" on the bill. That's a non-partisan vote.

Did you cash Bush's check he sent you last time?

No.

[pilferk]

There are a lot of good things in the bill, but its not really a "stimulus" bill. Even Maddow said its now a watered down bad bill.....

.....because of the compromises Obama made with the republicans.  Make sure you you qualify that part of what she's said.

  Like some have said, some of the jobs created aren't new jobs, but another job done by the same employees. 

....who may currently be slated to be laid off.  It might not be a NEW job, but it's continuing work that prevents job elimination.  That means you don't HAVE to create job for that person, because they get to keep the one they have.....and thus continue to spend money in our economy.

I would love more infrastructure for sure..... 

....which the House Repubs pushed OUT of the bill, initially, in order to wedge in more tax cuts.  Or, to be more precise, the Dems eliminated, at Obama's request in order to facilitiate compromise and give the Repubs something they asked for.

That isn't an instant stimulus.  It takes a long time to aquire land for new roads and for engineers to get in and design the new roads and plan for new roads.  We need a long term package for projects taking a year or longer and a short term package for tax cuts, foodstamps, and incentives for US auto purchases or new home purchases.  Unemployment is getting out of control.

It's actually ALL in the bill.  Tax cuts, increased food stamp spending, etc.  It ranges from immediate to long term.  It's not a GREAT bill, but it's a decent one.  It would have been better the way it was, originally, to a large extent.

I like how Obama called out those Wall Street POS for the huge bonus structure, atleast he isn't scared to call them out. 

Obama doesn't need the Repubs to pass a bill, he knows that, but he is going to do his best to get everyone involved, and I do respect that, even if Maddow doesn't. 

The issue is this:  If the Repubs do what they did with the house bill....after Obama worked his ass off to compromise, consulted the Repubs, and tried to reach across the aisle....and stab him in the back, that "olive branch" you see being extended will get shoved up the Repubs collective asses.  Already the rumbling from the Dems is starting......

Because you're right...Obama doesn't need them.  And if, as he has so far, he makes a good showing of TRYING to bring them into the fold, only to get stabbed in the back, he's going to be able to take the moral high ground AND make the Repubs completely and totally irrelevant in Congress.  It's a very dangerous game the Repubs are playing.  It looks like instead of going the safe route, they're choosing the "high risk/high reward" route and banking on being able to play the "I told you so" game in 2 years.

Were I Obama (and I'm certainly not...he'll likely be much more savy and less "vengeful"), I'd have the Senate revert the bill back to it's initial incarnation, strip out all the Repub compromise, railroad it through and then dare the Repubs to fillibuster a bill their constituents likely need BADLY.  WHEN (because it would, ultimately) it passes, turn it over to the House/Senate to reconcile and give the House Repubs their "come to Jesus" talk: Either play ball, give us some votes, or be completely marginalized.  Make them go all in.

Obama won't do it.  He's far too diplomatic and savy, IMHO....but I think someone is going to need to get the Repubs to wake up, smell the coffee, realize it's '09 and they LOST the '08 elections by a LOT, and get them to see the light.   They've got zero to bargain with, right now.  They can either play nice, and be brought into the fold, and get SOME of their stuff in compromise simply because Obama wants to be the "great uniter"....or they can sit out the party and be marginalized.

We'll see...it'll be interesting.

[pilferk]

Drew, I am with you.  I want the tax cut.  I need new tires on my truck and car.  If I got a check I would be buying 8 tires very soon instead of milking the puppies I have now.  This hits home because I service a BFGoodrich Tire plant nearby and they are so worried about the future and I can do my part to keep them alive....  Also the more the big 3 struggle, the more they hurt.  Where do all these laid off people go?  The unemployment rate is going to skyrocket soon if we don't start turning the corner. 

The proposed tax cut isn't, unless I'm reading wrong, a REBATE like the last one.  It would LITERALLY be a tax cut...you'd end up with something between 12 and 40 a paycheck (week) from what I've read.

And, as has been stated, tax cuts don't stimulate the economy nearly as much as other expenditures.  Sure, it's a way to get a bit more immediate cash into the hands of the consumers...but also in the immediacy:  A tax cut on someone laid off, and not paying taxes, benefits them exactly ZERO.  That small infusion isn't going to do much to "turn the corner".  Only putting people to work does that.....

And the unemployment number IS skyrocketing, and there's no sign it's going to get better BEFORE it gets worse.  The next 6 to 9 months are going to be VERY painful, I think.

[pilferk]

It's good to see that there was a non-partisan vote yesterday on that pork-barreled "stimulus' bill.  Every Republican voted "no" along with eleven other Democrats. It gives me some hope that there are some politicians in Washington who see this bill as huge waste of tax payers money.

Non partisan?  Howdaya figure?  Every Republican votes one way.  The vast majority of Dems vote another.  How is that "non-partisan"? 

What he doesn't point out is one of the reasons the Repubs say they voted against it is because Pelosi refused to allow votes on the over 200 ammendments (ie: pork barrel attachments) the Repubs had introduced to the bill.  She elected to allow only 12 (which included both Dem and Repub intros), instead.

[freedom78]

Non partisan?  Howdaya figure?  Every Republican votes one way.  The vast majority of Dems vote another.  How is that "non-partisan"? 

Both Republicans and Democrats voted "no" on the bill. That's a non-partisan vote.

That's a pretty low standard.  On the flip side, ONLY Dems voted for it.  And what...a whopping 11 out of over 250 Dems voted against it?   

[SLCPUNK]

No.

So you got a "stimulus" check and never cashed it? Did you rip it up?

[sandman]

Republicans just want some of the BS removed so they can claim they fought for "fiscal responsibility." Cut some of these and they will vote FOR the bill and everyone will be happy...

- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
- $150 million to insure honey bee farmers
- $335 million for preventing sexually transmitted diseases
- $150 million for repairs to the Smithsonian Institution
- $462 million for equipment and construction at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta

[pilferk]

Republicans just want some of the BS removed so they can claim they fought for "fiscal responsibility." Cut some of these and they will vote FOR the bill and everyone will be happy...

- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
- $150 million to insure honey bee farmers
- $335 million for preventing sexually transmitted diseases
- $150 million for repairs to the Smithsonian Institution
- $462 million for equipment and construction at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta

I thought that bolded piece WAS removed, already...along with the family planning pieces the Repubs objected to, and the AIDS research grants they didn't like.   I think some of the other stuff might have been too, along with the improvement to the National Mall (I'm thinking the Arts endowment).  Items 3 and 4 are legit, shovel ready projects and I think were included for that reason...they'll create construction and manufacturing jobs (or maintain current ones) REALLY quickly.  If you want "fast", you're going to have to use SOME of that type of stuff...federal plants, buildings, and institutions because they're going to be the fastest "shovel ready" projects you can get.

The fact is: Obama went to the Repubs and asked what he needed to do to get their votes.  They worked out an agreement, which he made good on.

They didn't.  When he gave them the inch, they decided to demand the mile.....in other words: Not compromise, but behave as if they'd won the '08 elections and still had the majority.

Now, when they look like petulant children, they start to make excuses to explain away the large amount of egg on their faces (and stem the tides of the phone calls I suspect might be flooding into their offices, and the offices of the Repub senators).

[Drew]

That's a pretty low standard.  On the flip side, ONLY Dems voted for it.  And what...a whopping 11 out of over 250 Dems voted against it?   

Low standard or not, it's still a non-partisan vote. It doesn't make a difference if only one Democrat voted "no" on the "stimulus" bill. Both parties voted a "no."

So you got a "stimulus" check and never cashed it? Did you rip it up?

No. I burned it!

[freedom78]

That's a pretty low standard.  On the flip side, ONLY Dems voted for it.  And what...a whopping 11 out of over 250 Dems voted against it?   

Low standard or not, it's still a non-partisan vote. It doesn't make a difference if only one Democrat voted "no" on the "stimulus" bill. Both parties voted a "no."

So you got a "stimulus" check and never cashed it? Did you rip it up?

No. I burned it!

So if at least one member of each party is on a side of a vote, and that's "non-partisan", then what the hell is BI-partisan?

[Drew]

So if at least one member of each party is on a side of a vote, and that's "non-partisan", then what the hell is BI-partisan?

I believe it would be if every one in party A voted one way and everyone in party B voted the opposite.

[Smoking Guns]

I agree with Sandman, there is some stupid shit in the bill.  Why can't we have one fucking bill not filled with shit that isn't related to the bill to begin with.  I thought Obama was going to end this Pork bullshit.

[Jdog0830]

more AIDS "education"

Would it be different if it were for cancer "research" ? Would that make you feel more comfortable ? Were you bitching about Bush's AIDS programs for Africa by chance?

i know this is off topic a bit but did anyone see on the news a few months ago bout the Germans curing someone from AIDS some crazy blood thing i cant remember