man

if we could get an engine to run on republican tears

we wouldn't have to buy gas for the next 8 years

2/5/2009 11:51:24 PM

Yeah ignore the issues and cut down republicans, real mature

2/5/2009 11:52:06 PM

I don't know about his credibility, but after hearing this I laughed a little.

http://www.aprilwinchell.com/2009/02/05/barack-obama-is-tired-of-your-motherfucking-shit/

"This shit's getting way too complicated for me"

2/6/2009 5:08:54 AM

Pres got a little snippy with the press yesterday over questions about the stimulus.

Obama fucked up when he left the conception of this bill in the hands of Nancy Pelosi.

2/6/2009 8:12:53 AM

yeahh he's getting a little pissed

2/6/2009 8:33:00 AM

IMO Obama really misread the mood of the American people over this bill and he should tread lightly on 'getting pissed' about it. I think that only hurts his credibility.

as a President, you cant get pissed off if things dont go your way. it comes across as a little whiny and shows he is a little politically immature. Bush had some of this same problem...it can be interpreted as arrogance.

2/6/2009 9:07:37 AM

Yeah, Obama is definitely seeming like a whiny bitch about this whole thing.

2/6/2009 9:19:19 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/obama.stimulus/index.html

Quote :

""Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis," the president said at the House Democrats' annual retreat in Williamsburg. "

uhh Mr. President, Stimulus packages are included in the same worn out ideas that keep getting brought to the table

2/6/2009 9:42:44 AM

^ Haha, the Democrats keep coming to to the table with the same arguments as well. Also does anyone think its ironic that he criticizes all of the bank executives for having their trips and then goes to give a speech at a Democratic retreat at a golf resort in the middle of an economic crisis?

2/6/2009 10:10:11 AM

Id like to see Obama and his aides pen a bill themselves and send it to Pelosi...instead of them preaching to everyone about what should be in it.

2/6/2009 10:22:05 AM

^that's above his paygrade. Besides, the bill is perfectly balanced as written. And if it is not signed within 48 hours, we will be reduced to eating tree roots for sustenance.

2/6/2009 10:39:34 AM

Quote :

"IMO Obama really misread the mood of the American people over this bill and he should tread lightly on 'getting pissed' about it. I think that only hurts his credibility. as a President, you cant get pissed off if things dont go your way. it comes across as a little whiny and shows he is a little politically immature. Bush had some of this same problem...it can be interpreted as arrogance."

I actually agree with you on this.

I think people want the bailout, but they do so reluctantly. They are not enthusiastic about it at all, and you can easily lose support if you act like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

2/6/2009 10:48:48 AM

Quote :

" I actually agree with you on this. "

I am happy we have some common ground.

2/6/2009 10:51:07 AM

I loved this part of his Democrat Retreat tirade...

Quote :

""What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.” "

I think tax cuts are more stimulating to the economy than spending money on building butterfly gardens and passing out condoms.

His hatred of capitalism has blinded him to the basics of economics.

2/6/2009 11:11:44 AM

And your hatred of government has blinded you to the basics of reality.

2/6/2009 11:57:35 AM

Reality? The reality is that there are at least ten "bridge to nowhere" like projects in this "stimulus" package.

2/6/2009 12:06:55 PM

^^ What are you basing that off of?

Do you realize the economy was great under CLinton's tax increases, and has plummetted under Bush's record tax cuts?

So clearly, tax cuts don't come remotely close to addressing the entirety of the issue. Your emotion hatred of taxes isn't going to give you a clear judgment. You have to try and look at things objectively.

2/6/2009 12:08:06 PM

Oh, so where's the waste in the bill? Here's a nice mention of some of the crap pork in this bill:

Quote :

"Title VI, Financial Services and General Government, says that "not less than $6,000,000,000 shall be used for construction, repair, and alteration of Federal buildings." There's enough money there to name a building after every Member of Congress. The Bureau of Land Management gets $325,000,000 to spend fixing federal land, including "trail repair" and "remediation of abandoned mines or well sites," no doubt left over from the 19th-century land rush. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are getting $462,000,000 for "equipment, construction, and renovation of facilities, including necessary repairs and improvements to leased laboratories." h The National Institute of Standards gets $357,000,000 for the "construction of research facilities." The Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gets $427,000,000 for that. The country is in an economic meltdown and the federal government is redecorating. The FBI gets $75,000,000 for "salaries and expenses." Inside the $6,200,000,000 Weatherization Assistance Program one finds "expenses" of $500,000,000. How many bureaucrats does it take to "expense" a half-billion dollars? The current, Senate-amended version now lists "an additional amount to be deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund, $9,048,000,000." Of this, "not less than $6,000,000,000 shall be available for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to High-Performance Green Buildings." High performance?"

sure it'll get into the economy somehow, but this indirect route is not needed. If Obama wants to shove some stimulus bill down our throats, maybe he should write it himself instead of leaving it up to the Wicked Witch of the West.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123379617394050229.html

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : h]

2/6/2009 12:20:35 PM

^ Are you retarded?

Have you never actually worked for a business before?

That number comes out to about 8% of the total, which is likely what it's based on. That's a reasonable percentage to allocate to expenses. That doesn't mean it MUST be spent that way though.

If you're going to bash Obama, at least be rational about it.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 12:24:52 PM

sorry, misread your post.

Its not reasonable b/c all of this is borrowed money! This is just expanding government programs, not stimulating the economy. Come budget year 2010 are they going to reduce this additional spending? Very doubtful.

Create new jobs? Sure thing, a few million new jobs working for Uncle Sam.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : k]

And how exactly am I bashing Obama? Its pretty obvious this isn't a bill he drafted so its hardly an attack on him.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM. Reason : kj]

2/6/2009 12:51:24 PM

^^Moron do you realize the true effects of economic policies cannot be seen for years into the future. So while times might have been great while Clinton was in office, this does not mean it was due to his policies.

2/6/2009 1:41:08 PM

Quote :

"Obama fucked up when he left the conception of this bill in the hands of Nancy Pelosi. "

Agreed.

Quote :

""Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis," the president said at the House Democrats' annual retreat in Williamsburg. "

Nice soundbyte, but I'm a little confused about this quote from Pres Obama. What tired arguments and worn ideas helped to create this crisis again? My understanding is that bloated federal spending, fiscal irresponsibility, loose monetary policies and lax regulation created this mess. Opposing the excessive spending in this stimulus package hardly qualifies as the "same tired arguments and worn ideas"...

2/6/2009 2:10:09 PM

Quote :

"Moron do you realize the true effects of economic policies cannot be seen for years into the future"

Sometimes they can be seen instantly, sometimes they can't. It depends on the policy.

2/6/2009 2:11:06 PM

Everyone thought Clinton was great because he gave them the ability to purchase a home when they really could not afford it. Now look where those homes are.

2/6/2009 2:23:20 PM

^ Everyone also thought cutting taxes was a great way to help the economy. Look where the economy is now...

2/6/2009 2:25:03 PM

moron, you're out of your element when talking about economic theory. Stick to whining about latent racism or some other bullshit.

The Bush tax cuts did help the economy for a while, until our fiscal irresponsibility and loose money induced housing bubble came crashing down on our head.

There is a reason that Obama has amost 300 Billion in tax cuts in his stimulus plan. It's because even he understands that tax cuts stimulate the economy, as does infrastructure spending. The question is how big and what mix of tax cuts and spending we want.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 2:35 PM. Reason : 2]

2/6/2009 2:34:37 PM

why are we not studying the Japanese stimulus plan of the eighties? we saw how great that went.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/02/06/Japans_stimulus_plan_offers_lessons/UPI-86841233931520/

it was also mentioned in today's N&O

2/6/2009 4:17:49 PM

^^ I don't think you understood what I was saying. I wasn't really talking about the Bush tax cuts. I was saying that tax cuts alone are far from the magic bullet certain people are making them out to be. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf


http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/02/senate-republicans-and-the-sti.php

2/6/2009 4:31:06 PM

@DaBird (And no, I am not intentionally stalking you. In fact, until you pointed it out in the other thread, I didn't even realize I was arguing with the same person.)

Quote :

"why are we not studying the Japanese stimulus plan of the eighties? we saw how great that went. "

There is much debate among economists as to whether Japan's problem was that they spent too much or that they spent too little and too slowly.

There was a front page NYTimes article on it today.

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

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 4:36:03 PM

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/02/economic-recove.html

Quote :

"... Despite Wall Street’s savaged image with the public, Obama gave one seat on the 15-member board to Robert Wolf, the CEO of investment bank UBS Group Americas. No surprise, of course, that Wolf was a big fundraiser for Obama's presidential campaign. ..."

Glad we got rid of the influence of Big Business in Washington. Good thing Obama is bring Change. Big supporter of Obama during election? Well then, time to advise him on economic policy that will directly relate to your business! woot. Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO of General Electric is of course on this board as well, a huge Obama supporter during the election. GE has done so well under his guidance . Not to mention GE has huge investments in certain alternate energy technologies. Hmm, wonder what he will support for energy policy, I am willing to bet it will be what is in his best interests, not Americas.

One of the biggest criticisms of Bush's presidency was the influence of big business. It seems the Change Obama was talking about was change in which business was influencing policy for their own gain, not getting rid of that type of corruption.

2/6/2009 6:39:53 PM

It's nice to see conservatives finally holding a president to account for these things; I thought that had become passe in the GOP given the last eight years.

That said, I don't think a couple people on a 15 member advisory board is evidence of the kind of widespread cronyism we saw under Bush.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 7:15:53 PM

Obama's credibility takes a hit on that because he so adamantly preached against it.

however, its probably impossible to avoid on some level.

2/6/2009 7:48:57 PM

Quote :

"Everyone also thought cutting taxes was a great way to help the economy. Look where the economy is now..."

The tax cuts are not the reason the economy tanked. For that, look at and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
Look at Fed policies, look at runaway republican spending.

Quote :

"And your hatred of government has blinded you "

I don't hate gov't. I do hate it when power-hungry politicians use a crisis to bring home pork for their re-election campaigns. Tell me again how it helps this fiscal crisis with Butterfly gardens,


Again, I post this amazingly revealing non-teleprompter comment from the Prez...

Quote :

"‘this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill,’ What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously, that’s the point."

He just sees tax cuts as some tidbit to throw to republicans to entice them to sign onto this spending bill. To him, spending is stimulus.

Quote :

"Do you realize the economy was great under CLinton's tax increases,"

And how much better would the economy have been if people had been able to keep more of their hard-earned money?

2/6/2009 8:44:08 PM

ha, that's awesome, E-Dogg - If the economy is shitty, it doesn't have anything to do with tax cuts. If the economy is good, it would be even better if there were more tax cuts. That's pretty much air-tight logic there. Guess we can't argue with that.

2/6/2009 8:54:17 PM

^^ First of all, you quoted him out of context. Secondly, he's right, the whole concept of a stimulus bill is to jumpstart the economy with government spending. Butterfly gardens? Way to go, you've nailed a provision that accounts for about .0001% of the bill.

2/6/2009 9:22:20 PM

Quote :

"First of all, you quoted him out of context"

Please explain how knowing the context would change the stupidity of this line? I watched him say this in all of it's "context" ... the context was he was having a temper tantrum in front of his fellow democrats. "They voted for me...I should get whatever I want...waaaah!"

Quote :

"Butterfly gardens? Way to go, you've nailed a provision that accounts for about .0001% of the bill."

OK so as long as the wasteful spending isn't a big percentage of this bill, we should stop complaining?
They want $4.5 million for a "eco-park" in Boynton Beach Fla. I'll grant you it's a small chunk of this humongus spending bill, but the bill is chockful of so much of this kind of pork project, that it really adds up to a lot of waste.

$500,000 to create a place for dogs to run off the leash in Chula Vista CA? ...Building a 36-hole disc golf course for $886,000 that would create 4 jobs?
c'mon...that's not stimulus...that's Pork. Mayors gave the democrats 18,750 requests like those to get a piece of this pork-bill. These mayors, like state governors, congressmen and senators all see this spending bill as the pork needed to insure their re-election.

2/6/2009 10:05:36 PM

it doesnt matter if it is 10% or .0001% if it is wasteful. thats your money they are wasting.

2/6/2009 10:27:53 PM

^ Word. Thats the American dollar going into the shitter.

2/6/2009 10:46:15 PM

Why does it matter that they want to build a butterfly garden?

Under the Keynesian theory they're working with, it doesn't matter what you are building, as long as it stimulates, and a butterfly garden does in fact require workers to work to build and maintain it.

2/7/2009 10:31:22 AM

2/7/2009 10:32:15 AM

did you oppose the war spending moron?

2/7/2009 1:06:36 PM

I don't recall ever taking a stance on the war spending.

I did oppose the Iraq war though, but that's an entirely different issue.

2/7/2009 2:34:22 PM

To say it doesnt matter what they spend money on is idiotic. It needs to be on infrastructure that will actually help America grow and prosper in the future; a butterfly garden does not serve that purpose.

2/7/2009 3:39:41 PM

The only way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes for both large and small companies. This will create many many many more jobs than building a butterfly garden.

2/7/2009 8:31:49 PM

^ You're wrong.

Tax cuts are but one minor component of the plan. Tax cuts didn't stop this problem, and they can't fix it.

^^
What infrastructure will help us grow now? We have pretty amazing infrastructure as it is.

2/7/2009 8:57:11 PM

Tax cuts greatly helped the problem from becomming worse than it already is. The thing that caused the problem is the banks being forced to give loans to people who can't repay them and greedy oil companies. If you really want to fix the economy you do everything you can to help the people who create the jobs. Particularly small business owners who are the backbone of America.

2/7/2009 9:14:46 PM

Quote :

"The thing that caused the problem is the banks being forced to give loans to people who can't repay them and greedy oil companies."

Where did "greedy oil companies" come in to the equation? You're the first person i've heard blaming them.

And the problem wasn't banks being "forced" to give money to poor people, it was banks misrepresenting the quality of investments backed by risky loans, and other things surrounding this.

2/7/2009 9:25:58 PM

^ Either way the root of the whole economic crisis is people/banks/governments over extending themselves with credit.

The solution should be to reduce ones debt, whether it be a person/bank/government. So spending 900 Billion dollars that the US Government doesn't have makes perfect sense.

2/7/2009 10:20:45 PM

^^ yes, but if some banks hadn't been forced to give risky loans out in the first place, then said risky loans would not have found their way into the loan packages that major banks bought, thus bringing those banks down.

2/7/2009 10:41:56 PM

come... on....
that has been debunked time and again. These companies weren't "forced" to give bad loans, and anyway, loans under the CRA have a lower default rate than normal loans.

Fannie and Freddy can share plenty of the blame, but don't pretend like these other banks and mortgage companies were just victims in all this - they were out to make a quick buck by purposefully and knowingly give out money left and right to anyone with a pulse, collect the commission, then pass the risk on to someone else.

Then combine that with the ridiculous Credit Default Swap practices and SEC-endorsed untenable leverage limits, and the banks built the house of cards themselves, and now everybody has to pay for it.

2/7/2009 11:00:18 PM