Quote :

"The fact of the matter is, that nobody knows what the fuck was in the stimulus bill. My point earlier, was that its probably a lot like the bank "bailout", which was a complete pile of garbage and a waste of 3/4 of a billion dollars that didn't fix the problem at hand, only put a band-aid over it. If you 1 year old shits on the floor, you're not going to kick it under the couch and hope the smell goes away, you're going to clean that shit up, and put some elbow grease in to make sure its out of the carpet. I guess I just don't trust the gov. to do it right...of course...why would we? They're only there to get re-elected. Both reps. and dems. fuck 'em all amirite?"

Pretty much

But this still doesn't solve the credit market problem, which is the biggest problem of this whole mess right now.

Noone put the oversight needed on TARP 1 and noone knows what the hell is going on with TARP 2 now.

Meanwhile, I don't see how letting the banks fall in on themselves would solve it, so there had to be some kind of infusion to free up the credit markets.

3/10/2009 2:09:27 PM

just for the record, I'm not anti-bank bailout b/c the credit problem was going to collapse the entire economy. Its a fact though, that the money given was enough to fix most of the problem, and they spent it on other things, because there were no stipulations. I don't care about the amount, or the fact that they're giving money, but if they do it, they better get it right. They failed the first time, I assume they failed this time too.

3/10/2009 2:25:08 PM

Quote :

"My point earlier, was that its probably a lot like the bank "bailout", which was a complete pile of garbage and a waste of 3/4 of a billion dollars that didn't fix the problem at hand, only put a band-aid over it. If you 1 year old shits on the floor, you're not going to kick it under the couch and hope the smell goes away, you're going to clean that shit up, and put some elbow grease in to make sure its out of the carpet."

I'm generally in agreement with you on the stimulus but I have to diverge on the TARP. There seems to be a general consensus that immediate lender of last resort access had to happen in the wake of the Lehman failure or else a banking catastrophe was certain to happen due to the cascade of defaults and AIG not able to pay up on their CDS obligations.

The question that no one can answer is, how bad would that be? Would the credit wheels and payroll wheels stop instantly and take days/weeks to resolve? Would you not be able to use your credit cards at all, would employees not be able to make payroll because those facilities were broken? We can't know that one either. What we do know is that a crisis didn't happen, so the TARP didn't hurt in this regard.

Quote :

"Its a fact though, that the money given was enough to fix most of the problem, and they spent it on other things, because there were no stipulations. I don't care about the amount, or the fact that they're giving money, but if they do it, they better get it right."

A small percentage of the TARP money went to bullshit. I don't like it anymore than you do, but this bit of waste isn't enough of a reason to say the entire program was a sham.

3/10/2009 2:40:30 PM

Nobody knows what was in the Stimulus bill.

lol.

Do you NOT have the internet?

3/10/2009 2:48:36 PM

did you read the 800 pages of it? Of course I've read the "key points" or rather...the talking points.

^^I'm not saying the TARP money was a sham, or that the idea was retarded, I'm saying that there was no oversight for how the banks used the money, and the majority of them didn't use it to fix the loan/housing problem that created this mess. That said, the banks are still operating today, so like you say....we don't really know how it affected the system at this point. Maybe it totally saved it, maybe we didn't need it in the first place....I think we're on the same page here, I'm with you on the fact that you can't predict what would have happened without it.



[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2009 5:05:51 PM

To be fair, though most of the people who voted for the bill don't know what all was in it, there are plenty who do. This guy is becoming one of them, and blogging about it

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2009/03/blogging-the-st.html

And so, herewith launches an irregular series about the stimulus bill. I will read all of it, carefully, so that you don’t have to, and every so often I will stop and try to write something useful. It seems doubtful that the full law will prove either as funny or as morally edifying as the Old Testament, but I will do what I can.

3/10/2009 5:12:47 PM

Quote :

"It might have been a better bill, with fewer tax cuts and bolder investments in a new economy, but I am accepting of Rahm Emmanuel’s defense, citing the doctrine of the politically possible, as delivered in my colleague Ryan Lizza’s terrific profile last week. _ a much better bill was "politically possible"; however, Obama placed a higher priority on his image (as the guy who would "change how Washington works") than on economic recovery. The GOP could not have withstood public pressure had Obama taken a leadership role (including submitting his own bill, rather than relying on Pelosi and Reid to come up with their own bills), rather than deferring to Congress and allowing Blue Dog Democrats and their special interest constituencies to control the final product. "

And there you have it.

3/10/2009 6:10:24 PM

omg the guy is giving his preconceptions as opposed to pretending to be a cyborg free of bias.

part of the point of this is to show how his pre-conceptions match what is actually in the bill.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 6:12:26 PM

3/10/2009 9:14:42 PM

Quote :

"grow up. learn to read."

OK let's read this together....

Quote :

"President Obama has issued waivers allowing two appointees who were formally registered lobbyists to work for his administration. "

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/obama-grants-two-more-lobbyists-waivers-2009-03-10.html

And if you're wondering why the GOP still doesn't get it...here are the 8 turn-coats who voted for the ear-mark gorged budget bill:

Quote :

"Thad Cochran (R-MS) Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Kit Bond (R-MO) Olympia Snow (R-ME) Richard Shelby (R-AL) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Arlen Specter (R-PA) Roger Wicker (R-MS) "

Three Dems voted against it-- Evan Bayh (D-IN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), & Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

3/10/2009 9:16:21 PM

wait - let me get this straight..... you're more upset that the Republicans voted with the Democrats, instead of what they voted for, right?

Because otherwise, the operative word would have been "hypocrite", not "turncoat"

3/10/2009 9:31:01 PM

THOSE TURN COATS!

how dare they vote based on what the feel will benefit their constituents and the country and not along party lines!

THE BASTARDS, THE LOT OF THEM

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 9:31:01 PM

Quote :

"Thad Cochran (R-MS) Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Kit Bond (R-MO) Olympia Snow (R-ME) Richard Shelby (R-AL) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Arlen Specter (R-PA) Roger Wicker (R-MS)"

This is the list of people who voted to cut off debate on the issues. Learn to read.

Aside from Snowe, Specter, and maybe Murkowski, the rest of those people in no way have a history of supporting heavy spending. They're conservatives, but not as ideologically rigid as people like Coburn or DeMint who will scream till their blue in the face even when they've lost the vote. They probably realized that it was a fruitless pursuit and they wanted to move on to other matters. A bunch of amendments had failed, so it was pretty much a done deal by that point, bad bill or not. This is misleading and I bet it results in Lamar Alexander getting a bunch of unwarranted angry phone calls tomorrow from people who plan their days around talk radio.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 9:54:58 PM

It's a lot harder to be informed about someone when you don't like them so you gotta give the conservatives a break. They only want to know enough to keep their outrage going, no more.

3/10/2009 10:31:38 PM

Quote :

"Learn to read."

OK Let's read together some more...

Quote :

"Senators voted 62-35 to cut off debate on the $410 billion measure and passed it on a voice vote immediately afterward."

Those 8 Repubs allowed the vote to be taken, knowing it would pass.

Quote :

"the rest of those people in no way have a history of supporting heavy spending"

Well they sure are working on developing that history with this budget bill....

Quote :

"But the Republican crossovers in particular have a lot at stake in the package. Two of the three Republicans that made it onto Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's "definite" list earlier Tuesday had authored 129 total earmarks worth $190 million, according to an updated list from Taxpayers for Common Sense. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is actually the second-biggest earmarker, according to the list, with 64 earmarks worth $114 million. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is a few notches down, with 65 earmarks worth $76 million. Both voted for the bill. On the other hand, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, another Republican who voted for the bill, has zero earmarks. Also voting for the bill were Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who has $86 million in earmarks; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has $74 million; and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has $25 million. Shelby told FOX News Monday that he's vetted all his earmarks. Shelby's earmarks span the gamut, from $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation at the University of South Alabama, to $380,000 to the city of Tarrant, Ala., for streetscaping and walkways. The top earmarker, by value, is a Democrat -- Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, with $123 million worth of earmarks. The senator with the most earmarks, regardless of their value, is Specter with 134. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/10/gop-cross-overs-earmarks-gain-billion-spending/

I guess the GOP needs to wander in the desert some more before they return to the light of fiscal responsibility.

3/10/2009 11:12:01 PM

Quote :

"Those 8 Repubs allowed the vote to be taken, knowing it would pass. "

Look, I oppose this boondoggle as much as anybody around here, but citing a failure to throw up procedural roadblocks is not the same as actually supporting the thing.

One might wonder why such a contentious bill didn't even come down to a roll call vote - especially since procedurally it's not that hard to call one - but I'm guessing at this point opponents - like those listed above - likely observed the day was lost, and simply conceded.

3/10/2009 11:19:54 PM

Quote :

"I guess the GOP needs to wander in the desert some more before they return to the light of fiscal responsibility."

See, comments like this baffle me. When was the GOP "era of fiscal responsibility"?

(the Dems haven't been responsible since...well, not this century I suppose but they aren't the ones constantly talking about this being their "roots")

Was it the Reagan '80s when the Laffer Curve exploded the deficit?

Was it the Bush era (ha!)?

Was it the Contract w/ America which, aside from welfare reform, didn't really accomplish much in that vein?

Certainly wasn't the years prior to Reagan, they were more pragmatic then.

When people say this, they seem to base it on one of 2 things:

-The Reagan Myth, that everything he once said in a speech came to be
-The myth of some long forgotten GOP that was unified in favor of fiscal conservatism

Shit, before the 80s we had conservatives and liberals, and we had Republicans and Democrats. There were liberal Republicans and there were conservative Democrats. We had Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, and George Romney, and we had Sam Ervin, Strom Thurmond, and Lester Maddox.

What I think some people (like Ron Paul last year, which has created a generation of misinformed kids) have done is taken a few figureheads like Goldwater and Robert Taft and tried to make them the standard bearers of the historical GOP, and while it's arguable Goldwater is, it's just as arguable that Theodore Roosevelt is as well.

Sorry, but as a historian these sorts of things get under my very thin skin. Carry on.

3/10/2009 11:41:40 PM

Quote :

"I guess the GOP needs to wander in the desert some more before they return to the light of fiscal responsibility."

I think you just need to give up on the GOP.
Fiscal responsibility from either of the 2 major parities? It ain't gonna happen

3/10/2009 11:41:44 PM

I'm not convinced we could maintain our standard of living if we practice what people lump under the term of "fiscal responsibility."

"Fiscal responsibility" is kind of like "the war on terror," it doesn't really mean anything.

Fixing the upcoming problems thatre going to be caused by social security, for example, isn't being fiscally responsible, it's doing what's suppose to be done. Cutting spending isn't necessarily being fiscally responsible if it means less people going to college or a lower quality of grade school education.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2009 11:44:33 PM

You can be fiscally responsible w/o being a libertarian. When I said "fiscally responsible" in the previous post, I meant the definition ED likely meant (Libertarian virtually being his no de plume).

I don't think spending trillions is responsible, but the mere act of spending money, if its for things that foster a strong economy like infrastructure or certain regulatory bodies , that foster a stable, trustworthy, and profitable business environment, or for the truly down and out who have no options, isn't irresponsible like some think, imo.

3/10/2009 11:46:48 PM

I think its more (for me anyway) about spending money that we don't have, and reality, won't every be able to pay for at this rate.

Throughout history, we've used the government to inject money into the economy in order to prevent a total collapse, get people's confidence back up, and get the country on track again. The difference is, that we're no longer concerned with paying that money back, and we're spending more money in a shorter period of time than we ever have.

If thats not concerning to you, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, then you have a problem. Now, thats not to blame this on the current president. The last one was a republican and spent a retarded amount of money as well. I'm just saying that something has to change from within. Its not going to matter if the quality of living stays the same or gets better in the short term. Eventually, the government and financial system will collapse under the debt (assuming nothing is done to address the issue).

3/11/2009 8:41:09 AM

Quote :

" Ron Paul last year, which has created a generation of misinformed kids"

How has Ron Paul created a generation of misinformed kids?

Quote :

"as a historian.... "

...you would be the first to admit that all historical interpretation is open to subjective bias.

Quote :

"spending money, if its for things that foster a strong economy "

I think your heart is in the right place P&B, but Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives congress no authority to foster a strong economy.

Quote :

"spending money that we don't have"

Bingo!
That's a basic of fiscal responsibility. The fiat money system has allowed our country to spend a lot of money we didn't have. And politicians have traditionally avoided the wrath of voters by pushing the evil effects of inflation on down the road.

Camille Paglia tears Obama a new one today....

Quote :

"Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship. First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/

3/11/2009 11:05:50 AM

Quote :

"I think your heart is in the right place P&B, but Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives congress no authority to foster a strong economy."

One tidbit, congress has the authority to spend money however it pleases. It could give a trillion dollars to Spain if it so chose and no Supreme Court going back to 1787 would question the constitutionality. Keep in mind the constitution was written by Madison and his cohorts to be what it is today.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/11/2009 11:21:12 AM

Quote :

"focused blueprint for economic recovery. "

lol

What blueprint is this? Does this person have plans for perpetual motion and the formula to unify quantum and classical physics?

She sounds more like a very shrill, verbose naysayer. She doesn't know what's going on any better than Geithner or Obama.

3/11/2009 1:48:58 PM

^ Camille Paglia is a staunch feminist and a huge liberal.

Given that, you won't find many honest liberals any more that agree with what Geithner is doing.

Quote :

"What blueprint is this?"

she said "what should have been a focused blueprint". Are you going to argue that's not was the Stimulus plan should have been?

3/11/2009 2:31:38 PM

and i would argue that spreading the money out over many different programs insures that more of the money will be spent in the relatively near future, as opposed to if he poured lots of cash into a small number of focused programs.

3/11/2009 3:06:36 PM

Quote :

"nd i would argue that spreading the money out over many different programs insures that more of the money will be spent in the relatively near future, as opposed to if he poured lots of cash into a small number of focused programs."

Most asinine thing I've read in awhile.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : x]

3/11/2009 3:16:41 PM

really? why?

3/11/2009 3:52:16 PM

Quote :

"she said "what should have been a focused blueprint". Are you going to argue that's not was the Stimulus plan should have been?"

I'm saying that's a vacuous statement.

You can't construct a "focused blueprint" for economic stimulus without someone saying "what we really need is a focused blueprint."

One man's pork is another man's stimulus.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2009 4:27:07 PM

according to chit chat obama just ordered some applebees shut down near crabtree

3/11/2009 7:11:47 PM

yeah

basically from what i heard, if mccain was president

he would have frequented all applebees enough for them to stay open

3/11/2009 10:03:35 PM

Pat Buchanan from his column today: "Lyndon Baines Obama"

Quote :

"It was the winter of conservative discontent. Barry Goldwater had gotten only 38 percent of the vote, and his party had suffered its worst thrashing since Alf Landon fell to FDR in 1936. Democrats held 295 House seats, Republicans 140. They held 68 Senate seats to Republicans' 32, and 33 governors to the GOP's 17. Democratic registration was twice that of the GOP. The liberal press was gleefully writing the obituary of "The Party That Lost Its Head." Decades might pass, it was said, before the GOP recovered from its fatal embrace of right-wing radicalism and foolish rejection of the leadership of Govs. Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton. Donovan and all the rest were wrong. The GOP came roaring back in 1966 to capture 47 House seats and eight new governorships. In 1968, Nixon led the party out of the wilderness and into a White House it would hold for 20 of the next 24 years. Full of hubris in 1965, Lyndon Johnson had seized his moment. He had launched a Great Society that would outdo his beloved patron FDR. He would dispatch 500,000 troops to Vietnam to "bring the coonskin home on the wall" and create a "Great Society on the Mekong." Those were heady days of "guns-and-butter." By 1968, LBJ's coalition was shredded. Gov. George Wallace had torn away the populist right. Sens. Gene McCarthy, George McGovern and Robert Kennedy had rallied the antiwar left against him. LBJ and Hubert Humphrey were left to preside over a shrinking center. Why did LBJ fail? He overloaded the circuits. He tried to do it all. He misread a national desire for continuity after Kennedy's death as a mandate for a lunge to the left and a great leap forward with the largest expansion of government since the New Deal. By the winter of 1968, Lyndon Johnson was a broken president. History never repeats itself exactly. But Barack Obama is making the same mistakes today that LBJ made in 1965. Obama is misreading the election returns. When America voted to cancel the White House lease of Mr. Bush, it did not vote Barack Obama a blank check. By misinterpreting his mandate, Obama has accomplished something John McCain could not – unite the Republican Party and instill in it a new esprit de corps. For the Obama budget is an insult to the core belief of the party – that free people, not coercive government, should shape the character of society. By daring Republicans to fight on the issue of a $1.75 trillion deficit, Obama has liberated the GOP from any obligation to him. He has come out of the closet as a radical liberal spoiling for a fight over an agenda of radical change. "

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan106.html

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2009 11:01:44 PM

very true

3/12/2009 3:00:03 AM

^^ What does that have to do with credibility? You posted a staunch conservatives opinion. This thread is not the dumping ground for every salon or drudge linked article.

Can we please restrict it to actual fuckups or highly questionable moves, preferably with some supporting commentary of your own. Not just every anti-obama piece you yoyos come across. You guys are doing more crying than the democrats ever did when Bush was elected.

3/12/2009 8:09:14 AM

Quote :

"By misinterpreting his mandate, Obama has accomplished something John McCain could not – unite the Republican Party and instill in it a new esprit de corps. For the Obama budget is an insult to the core belief of the party – that free people, not coercive government, should shape the character of society."

so this is what a united republican party looks like? flailing with few new ideas? that's pretty pathetic.

and he's also obscuring other important things that happened between 1964 and 1968 that changed the democrat and republican balance:

much of the civil rights movement, assassination of the most popular dem candidate and mlk, race riots, decline of the vietnam war, etc. 1968 was not a pretty year in our history and lbj was in power when all of that happened.


[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 8:19 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 8:09:21 AM

this is something that will hurt his credibility: if he and his staff ignore national intelligence reports and just continue to make shit up, just like Bush did
http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2009/03/dennis-blair-iran-not-developing-nukes.html

3/12/2009 9:44:22 AM

Quote :

"flailing with few new ideas? that's pretty pathetic."

what does that even mean? What "new ideas" are they supposed to be coming up with? What would/could they do with their "new ideas" and how exactly would they have done anything with their "new ideas" in a few months?

3/12/2009 10:17:41 AM

If we're talking about the current crop of republicans, a return to traditional republican ideals and actually get this message out through different channels than Rush, Fox, etc would be new ideas.

3/12/2009 10:28:29 AM

^^^ No, what will hurt his credibility is if he says they are developing nukes, then he finds out it's not true and refuses to acknowledge his mistake, a la bush.

If he finds out that they aren't and admits his mistake, it will help him. Here's hoping he'll admit he's wrong if he is.

I think this wording deserves a deeper look, however:

Quote :

"Iran has not produced the highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear weapon and has not decided to do so, U.S. intelligence officials told Congress yesterday, an assessment that contrasts with a stark Israeli warning days earlier that Iran has crossed the "technological threshold" in its pursuit of the bomb."

They haven't *decided to do so*, but that doesn't mean they aren't considering it, which could still mean they are, in general, "pursuing nuclear weapons." I'm just saying...

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 10:34:09 AM

Seems a bit silly to criticize them for a lack of ideas when there's not a damn thing they can do at the moment except rally the party and come out with new ideas when it's time for elections again...

I think there's no denying that Obama's performance so far is going to help them in the first part though. Whether they can actually bring a candidate worth a fuck to the table remains to be seen but I think there's plenty of time for that

3/12/2009 10:35:45 AM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/FBI_raids_office_of_DC_CTO_Obama_appointee.html

3/12/2009 10:55:20 AM

Quote :

"I think there's no denying that Obama's performance so far is going to help them in the first part though."

like tying the dead weight of rush around the party? and then the republicans racing to get caught up in it?

oh yeah and fail boat, what was so dumb about what i said yesterday? you never got back to me.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 11:27:54 AM

The Republican chances lie with the economy.

If recovery starts, they are going to be hurt immensely and for a quite a long time. There's no denying that.

If recovery doesn't start and the economy continues to worsen over the course of Obama's presidency, then they'll probably be able to make strong gains.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason : >.<]

3/12/2009 12:23:11 PM

Even though all obama's trying to do is recover from the failures that happened during the republican rule. But you're right, of course.

3/12/2009 1:22:31 PM

Quote :

" I think there's no denying that Obama's performance so far is going to help them in the first part though."

I think there's plenty of denying that.

THeir organization post-election has been pretty piss poor, and their relying on Rush is only going to hurt them.

Quote :

" I think there's no denying that Obama's performance so far is going to help them in the first part though."

How about something more nuanced than "tax cuts" when it comes to the stimulus, which already had tons of tax cuts in it?

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 3:16 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2009 3:15:45 PM

Quote :

"THeir organization post-election has been pretty piss poor, and their relying on Rush is only going to hurt them."

They aren't relying on Rush. The entire Rush thing is a construct of the media, instigated by Rahm Emanuel, come on now. What are they suppose to be doing? They are organizing and planning ahead. Other than that, what do you expect the GOP to do right now?

3/12/2009 4:17:18 PM

Quote :

"The entire Rush thing is a construct of the media, instigated by Rahm Emanuel, come on now."

so rahm emanuel made michael steele shit all over himself in response to the whole rush thing?

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 4:20:55 PM

President Obama's incredible watch:



http://www.barackswatch.com/the-watch/

3/12/2009 5:31:27 PM

That is actually a really good looking watch and surprisingly (relatively) inexpensive.

3/12/2009 6:02:28 PM

Quote :

"so rahm emanuel made michael steele shit all over himself in response to the whole rush thing?"

That entire incident was in response to the media hyping up Rush.... Why do you think Steele was even talking about it? Because a reporter asked him a question in regards to Rush..... come on, try to use a few brain cells.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 7:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 7:27:24 PM