Republican hypocrisy re: stimulus by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I've heard a few of these, but the sheer number, I'll admit, did shock me. It's so blatantly stupid and immoral--I know, expecting morality from politicians is an oxymoron--but this is such brazen hypocrisy it blows my mind. Shouldn't, given the atmosphere today, but it still does.

For those of you idealogs who dismiss anything from the left; yeah, it's Maddow, but the facts are still the facts:

C'mon Niki, ex-Air America propagandist Maddow has zero credibilty in the real world. She begins by "citing" all the things Repubs said they wanted, then reneged on when Obama proposed those same ideas. As if! I'm supposed to believe her, because she says so? She's just making this up as she goes, especially when she says..."Republicans supported Cap & Trade". Well that's just absurd, and made even more absurd by the fact that it was Democrats that killed it. I have never heard any Republican or Conservatives supporting a bill that would increase energy costs for all Americans, hurt businesses with draconian regulations, and send more jobs oversees to less-than-green countries. Perhaps Ms. Maddow mis-interpreted something Olympia Snow or Susan Collins may have said at a DC cocktail party they attended as the only Republicans invited. They were the "kind of Republicans" that Dems could always count on in the past. I think those days are gone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

C'mon Niki, ex-Air America propagandist Maddow has zero credibilty in the real world.

She has a definable & obvious political slant to her, but she does make points. Basically what I get from this is that resentment rules politics, left OR right.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Like I expected, Maddow was dismissed without actually listening. As I've said before, I take what I hear/read in the MSM and then check it out for MYSELF before believing it. However you view her, the FACTS of how many Repubs have voted against and derided the stimulus, then gone on to praise it's results in their own constituency, and in some cases make it look like they made it happen, is FACT. That's the only issue I'm putting forth, not anything else she says.

The fact is that, however left-leaning Maddow is, she digs up FACTS to support her position, which I find few, if any, pundits doing.

You think she's purely left-leaning and her position on this has no merit? Show me where each of the politicians she listed DIDN'T praise the results of the stimulus; then I'll take you seriously. We all know about Bobby Jindal's oversized check, signed by him, and a few others. But here's a more comprehensive list; refute away, why don'tcha?

Quote:
It's getting crowded in the House Republicans' Hypocrisy Hall of Fame - 15 Republicans (and counting) are celebrating the benefits of President Obama's economic recovery bill in their districts - even though they voted against it in Washington.

House Republicans Hypocrisy Hall of Fame
House Republicans Voted Against the Economic Recovery Bill in DC, Praise It at Home

Representative Adam Putnam (FL-12)
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21)
Representative Tom Rooney (FL-16)
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Representative Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05)
Representative John Mica (FL-07)
Representative Cliff Sterns (FL-06) and
Representative Bill Posey (FL-15)
(Politico; 2/19/09]

These are the nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, who asked the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who also campaigned ardently against the bill, said he would nevertheless gladly accept its funds for his state. “You don’t want to be crazy here,” he said. http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/republicans-taut-stimulus-plan-af
ter-th

Rep. Howard Coble (R., N.C.) issued a news release on March 11 boasting that "six Coble earmarks" were in the omnibus bill, including $855,000 to extend an airport runway. ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759908731101583.html)

Representative Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) - "If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time. Stimulus incentive is very generous! Up to 8k! Check it out." [Representative Pete Hoekstra's Twitter page; 2/18/09]

Representative Leonard Lance (NJ-07) - Infrastructure projects that are "shovel-ready" could be the first to be funded with economic recovery money. That's the hope of Rep. Leonard Lance, R-Clinton Township...'This is a classic example of a ‘shovel-ready' project,' Lance said after the tour." [mycentraljersey.com; 2/17/09]

Representative Greg Walden (OR-02) - "I figure my job is to try and do whatever I can to clear the hurdles and get the projects going and the people back to work using these funds." [Mail Tribune; 2/19/09]

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09) - "Luetkemeyer said the project is considered ‘shovel ready' and that's what the economy needs." [KTVO-TV, 2/16/09]

Representative Don Young (AK-AL) - "All of us in the Inland Empire will do what we can to direct as much money as we can." [The Press Enterprise; 2/13/09]

Representative John Mica (FL-07) - "I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future." [Congressman John Mica Press Release; 2/13/09]
[Politico; 2/19/09]

http://dccc.org/blog/archives/day_3_more_than_a_dozen_house_republican
s_take_credit_for_the_economic_reco/. Mary Bono Mack (R., Calif.), who denounced the stimulus bill as wasteful, soon announced that it provided a $4.2 million grant for her district to prevent families from becoming homeless. "This funding will provide much-needed assistance," she said.

Spokeswoman Jennifer May said that Ms. Bono Mack's district was especially hard-hit by the housing crisis and the funding was crucial to keep families in their homes.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) voted against the spending bill. When it passed, he announced that he had "secured" $1.7 million in the legislation for a citrus-research project and a mental-health program.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) also opposed the omnibus bill. After it passed, he announced that it included $570,000 for hybrid-fuel trolleys in Miami Lakes. "I am proud to have secured these federal funds to ensure that all residents of Miami Lakes can have easy access to parks, schools, shops and businesses," Mr. Diaz-Balart said

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759908731101583.html. Kit Bond (R-MO) slammed President Obama’s recovery and reinvestment plan. Bond said “Unfortunately, this bill stimulates the debt, it stimulates the growth of government, but it doesn’t stimulate jobs,” Bond insisted.

However, today Bond is touring Missouri to tout the very stimulus plan he railed against. In a press release, Bond boasted about an amendment he included in the bill to provide more funding for affordable housing — and that will create jobs.

“This is the type of emergency stimulus spending we should be supporting — programs that will create jobs now and help families,” Bond said.

http://www.twine.com/item/12160f85t-5g/hypocrisy-alert-republicans-tak
e-credit-for-the-stimulus-plan-after-they-voted-against-it-crooks-and-liars

I went to several sources to get those I have listed; I'm sure I missed some, and might have duplicated others--I didn't want to take the time to hunt them all down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As to cap and trade, in the past some Republicans HAVE favored it:

Quote:
John McCain (Republican), favors cap and trade systems for controlling greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change.

http://www.e-belrose.com/ArticleCapTradeFuture.htm Huckabee has come out in support of "economy-wide" cap and trade, in a Bloomberg article on Huckabee's support for the McCain sponsored bill.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13511_3-9868418-22.html

The poor sucker who wrote that last one was sure off the mark (but of course before the election, we didn't know the Repubs would become the "party of no" and reject everything THEY had proposed/co-sponsored because Obama agrees with it: "One things for sure, post Super Tuesday with Governor Mike Huckabee far behind, Mitt Romney out, and McCain the all but crowned Republican nominee, the US is getting a cap and trade system for carbon."

I didn't bother to hunt up more Repubs in favor of it, but that's sufficient to counter your claim that "I have never heard any Republican or Conservatives" supporting it. How they're talking about it NOW isn't the point; at one time they supported the idea. They supported "cap and trade" specifically, mind you, not just generalized pollution reduction measures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

The fact is that, however left-leaning Maddow is, she digs up FACTS to support her position

Not a popular technique, I conjure.

I like Rachael. She's from my home town, and we miss her local show. But so happy that she's got a (waaaay) bigger audience now.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Glad to hear it, Chris. Given she's dismissed out of hand by the right-wingers here, it's bothered me that, while many left-leaning pundits aren't much better than those on the right, I've always put Maddow a bit above as she digs out the FACTS on stuff she reports, doesn't just either parrot the party line OR even make things up the way Faux News' guys do.

Everyone leans, but I don't put her in the same category as Olbermannm and (gawd forbid!) Ed Schulz! I wish there WERE sources on the right that I could trust, as I'd like to hear what those would have to say, but I can't buy anything out of the Faux News people; once they had faked the number of people at those protests/conventions, they pretty much lost any credibility they might have had wiht me. Never known Maddow to make any deliberate lie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:32 AM

MINCINGBEAST

egads. totally unfair to place maddow's name in the same paragraph with olbermann or schulz. those two are beck's peers, not hers. i mean, i am suspicious of anyone credulous enough to believe in anything, especially politics, but maddow has always struck me as "on the up and up." plus, she's actually entertaining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:41 AM

Niki, there's a bigger picture here than perhaps you are seeing in respect to Republicans. They have tasted un-likely victory in 2 Governor's races (Va. & NJ) in November, and then the big win in Massachusetts. Why would they now want to "work" with Obama, or Pelosi, or Reid on anything? Or honestly ask yourself why Obama would now want to work with them? The answers are purely political, and that's just how it is. It also seems a bit disingenuous to me to blame Republicans for Democrat's inability to pass legislation. Did Reid not have to "coerce/bribe with taxpayer dollars" his own fellow Senate Dems to get them on board with him? Republicans need not have even showed up in Congress for the last year. Democrats had filibuster-proof majorities, with Obama ready to sign anything they could give him. Their own in-fighting doomed it to failure. Obama and his inner circle have for one year been in perpetual "campaign" mode. They seem to relish creating "enemies", enemies like Fox News, US Chamber of Commerce, Insurance companies, Tea Partyers, etc. They seem to like to fight more than they like or know how to lead. It is no wonder that Republicans have few, if no options other than to fight back in campaign style of their own.

And, on the subject of "brazen hypocrisy"....how far back do you want to go? One quick example :

Clinton is inaugurated as President, and shortly thereafter fires almost ALL Justice Dept. attorneys, around 90+ of them. The media is silent. Almost no outcry from anyone.

Bush comes in and fires a few Justice Dept. attorneys. All hell breaks loose in the media, and Dems want hearings!

Is that hypocrisy?

I could draw similar comparisons to the level of outrage, or types of descriptions of Iraq War Protesters versus Tea Party Protesters. Much of it has to do with your political perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:53 AM

Repos cave in on themselves- Dems win; Dems cave in on themselves- Repos win.
Either way we lose.

The AVP Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

I could draw similar comparisons to the level of outrage, or types of descriptions of Iraq War Protesters versus Tea Party Protesters. Much of it has to do with your political perspective.

Whoah there, protesting over peeps getting ghosted IS NOT equivalent to protesting over higher taxes or a f***ed economy.
IMHO, of course.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

JS: Rejected, sorry. Tho' it doesn't relate to the topic at hand, and nobody's refuted the hypocrisy these Republicans have shown blatantly, I'll answer your remarks:

Nobody ever mentions that the Dems won some seats, the Republicans won some, the Tea Partiers gave the Dems an election...everything is about Brown and the governors' races. Doesn't prove anything to me. One bad candidate who sat on her ass explains Brown.

As to why they'd want to work with the Dems; for the good of the country, maybe?? Just an idea. They've drawn a line and the sand: "NO", and said openly they'll filibuster everything--even things, it has been shown, that they agree with! It's the first time in history that a 60-seat majority has been required to do ANYTHING, and that sickens me. It's not "just how it's done".

Sure, the in-fighting doomed everything; everyone knows the Dems are more independent thinkers and don't follow the party line like Repubs--they have moderates, y'know? This is a bad thing? The simple fact is that if even ONE Republican voted with their brains and/or their CONSCIENCES, some things would have gotten done.

The problem with the Dems this entire time, leaving out the Republicans' determination to vote against everything, has been the Blue Dogs. I don't go so far as to call them DINOs, but the Dems having an ACTUAL "big tent" made this a problem...as opposed to the Repubs, who demand their people follow party line "or else". I'll take the bad with the good in that respect, and yes, I can blame the "Party of No". They put politics above EVERYTHING and stated flat out they were going to defeat anything Obama favored.

The Dems have been willing to compromise in the past, so things have gotten done. Compromise has it's advantages, and is necessary for Congress to get anything done.

I understand what's really happening, and blaming the Dems for not being able to get anything done all by themselves doesn't hold water. "Takes two to tango", remember? You're right, the Republicans might not have been there this past year, given their stated intent--that makes it GOOD???

All this has been hashed out several times here. Hypocrisy about the stimulus is the question, however, and nobody's yet refuted the facts Maddow put forth...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

I could draw similar comparisons to the level of outrage, or types of descriptions of Iraq War Protesters versus Tea Party Protesters. Much of it has to do with your political perspective.

Whoah there, protesting over peeps getting ghosted IS NOT equivalent to protesting over higher taxes or a f***ed economy.
IMHO, of course.

The laughing Chrisisall

Perhaps for some, in their honest opinions, it is equivalent. The issues are not at the same level for me either, but much of the name-calling and Presidential disrespect unfortunately is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

JS: Rejected, sorry. Tho' it doesn't relate to the topic at hand, and nobody's refuted the hypocrisy these Republicans have shown blatantly, I'll answer your remarks:

Nobody ever mentions that the Dems won some seats, the Republicans won some, the Tea Partiers gave the Dems an election...everything is about Brown and the governors' races. Doesn't prove anything to me. One bad candidate who sat on her ass explains Brown.

As to why they'd want to work with the Dems; for the good of the country, maybe?? Just an idea. They've drawn a line and the sand: "NO", and said openly they'll filibuster everything--even things, it has been shown, that they agree with! It's the first time in history that a 60-seat majority has been required to do ANYTHING, and that sickens me. It's not "just how it's done".

Sure, the in-fighting doomed everything; everyone knows the Dems are more independent thinkers and don't follow the party line like Repubs--they have moderates, y'know? This is a bad thing? The simple fact is that if even ONE Republican voted with their brains and/or their CONSCIENCES, some things would have gotten done.

The problem with the Dems this entire time, leaving out the Republicans' determination to vote against everything, has been the Blue Dogs. I don't go so far as to call them DINOs, but the Dems having an ACTUAL "big tent" made this a problem...as opposed to the Repubs, who demand their people follow party line "or else". I'll take the bad with the good in that respect, and yes, I can blame the "Party of No". They put politics above EVERYTHING and stated flat out they were going to defeat anything Obama favored.

The Dems have been willing to compromise in the past, so things have gotten done. Compromise has it's advantages, and is necessary for Congress to get anything done.

I understand what's really happening, and blaming the Dems for not being able to get anything done all by themselves doesn't hold water. "Takes two to tango", remember? You're right, the Republicans might not have been there this past year, given their stated intent--that makes it GOOD???

All this has been hashed out several times here. Hypocrisy about the stimulus is the question, however, and nobody's yet refuted the facts Maddow put forth...?

Niki, you're a smart gal. You must know what's going on. I don't have a problem with most of what you said, and the other points are well taken. Remember what Badger said?...crime & politics being fluid. It's all just a game now. The field generals are calling the shots, and there will likely be no cooperation until the elections in November. It's election time for them, even though we the people really don't want to think about it. If you don't care about those previous election results, then do you care or acknowledge the current polling trends? Poll after poll finds support for Obama's programs sinking, and throngs of Dem incumbents are running way behind their Republican challengers. The Dems know it, and they're trying to find a solution. Support for Obama by Independents is now in the 20's. Bashing Tea Party, or Sarah Palin, or "obstructionist" Repubs, or Glenn Beck 'aint gonna cut the mustard come elections in my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Perhaps for some, in their honest opinions, it is equivalent.

Aye, there's the rub.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ah, you added to your post.

Okay, as far as hypocrisy goes, of course it's there on both sides. The thread is about the hypocrisy of voting no on the stimulus, then both lauding it and taking credit for it. It exemplifies how the opposition is voting no whether or not what they're voting on would be good for the people they represent, and is a current example of politics taken too far.

Of course it has to do with perspective; but the united determination to force a filibuster on ANYTHING now is unprecedented and abusive of any sense of responsibility, and that's simply fact.

Ooops, missed your last one. EVERYONE knows what's going on, the Republicans have said it loud and clear numerous times. What they're doing MAKES it a total game; completely refusing to compromise or vote for what they know is good for their constituents, measures they actually support or have supported or even CO-SPONSORED is reprehensible, that's what I'm saying. It IS uprecedented, there IS no excuse for it, and they were doing it from minute one. I'll bet you dimes to donuts when the situation is reversed (even without the Repubs having a supermajority), Dems will compromise on things. It's the whole concept of our government, and the Repubs are stomping it into the ground.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Ah, you added to your post.

Okay, as far as hypocrisy goes, of course it's there on both sides. The thread is about the hypocrisy of voting no on the stimulus, then both lauding it and taking credit for it. It exemplifies how the opposition is voting no whether or not what they're voting on would be good for the people they represent, and is a current example of politics taken too far.

Of course it has to do with perspective; but the united determination to force a filibuster on ANYTHING now is unprecedented and abusive of any sense of responsibility, and that's simply fact.

Ooops, missed your last one. EVERYONE knows what's going on, the Republicans have said it loud and clear numerous times. What they're doing MAKES it a total game; completely refusing to compromise or vote for what they know is good for their constituents is reprehensible, that's what I'm saying. It IS uprecedented, there IS no excuse for it, and they were doing it from minute one. I'll bet you dimes to donuts when the situation is reversed (even without the Repubs having a supermajority), Dems will compromise on things. It's the whole concept of our government, and the Repubs are stomping it into the ground.

I think political opportunism will always trump an accusation of hypocrisy....at least that's how many of them see it. You're right that it is an unprecedented situation. I'm not smart enough to know how all of it will play out. Pundits on tv seem pretty confident in their predictions. I never am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:35 AM

I don't really watch Fox News or MSNBC. I get most of my news from the internet. Funny enough actually, from here.

Anyway, the stimulus is working? The economy is recovering? Last I'd heard it was still doom and gloom. Although I remember something about a bikini graph of job loss, but I was dismayed there was still no job growth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:35 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jong

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007
031402194.html

"The summary way she (Reno) announced the move was, indeed, unusual if not unprecedented. But a turnover in the top prosecutorial jobs with a new administration (Clinton) taking power -- was not (unprecendented). As we wrote at the time, "These are political appointees who owed their jobs to the last administration and have expected to be replaced ever since last November's election. It would likely have happened earlier had the Clinton administration not made such an adventure out of the appointment of an attorney general." And so President George W. Bush, properly and unsurprisingly, replaced all but a few U.S. attorneys during his first year in office."

What made Bush's follow-on dismissal of attorneys so noteworthy:

"... there are also ample grounds for suspicion about improper motives, including the involvement of White House political aides and telephone calls from lawmakers to prosecutors about politically sensitive cases ..."

And from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary," "fundamentally flawed," and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions."

In other words, they were fired for not prosecuting politically pivotal cases Bush wanted prosecuted, or for investigating politically pivotal cases Bush wanted 'disappeared'.

DUH.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:41 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, Rue, I thought of that argument, and it's negates the point made. It just wasn't particularly pertinent to the subject at hand (hypocrisy), and it took me so long to research some of the posts I've made this morning, I ignored it.

But you're absolutely right, and it's the correct come-back to the question of firings. It's valid; firings are normal at the change of administration--firings such as Dumbya did and the whole mess surrounding them were an entirely different matter. Thanx.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:46 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I know.

It just burns me to see fallacies posted as 'facts' and go unchallenged. B/c the more often they get repeated without protest, the bigger the chance they will become common 'knowledge'.

And because ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with you on that point 100%. I wonder just how many of their gullible sycophants truly believe the march FauxNoise faked shows a million were there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Of COURSE it's political opportunism, hell-O.

And the bloody PERFECT chance to get the Dems to chase the Repubs off a cliff...

And then get that Coyote Moment, when we give em a little nudge and send em down right on after.

And it's goin about as well as any plan with so many unaccountable factors could be!

Get your shoulder to the wheel with a big happy grin, why don'tcha ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:53 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't really watch Fox News or MSNBC. I get most of my news from the internet. Funny enough actually, from here.

Anyway, the stimulus is working? The economy is recovering? Last I'd heard it was still doom and gloom. Although I remember something about a bikini graph of job loss, but I was dismayed there was still no job growth.

Let's see, unemployment down a tick in the latest report, GDP up around 5%, stock market up some 25% over last year, bailout money being paid back, the Federal Reserve actually made a $52 billion PROFIT (according to them; take that for what it's worth).

Things aren't great, no denying that. But they seem to be on the mend a bit compared to what Obama was handed last January.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:03 PM

Well, that's at least some good news. If the economy does turn around, we only have to worry about the national debt.

I liked in the state of the union how Obama talked about a freeze on government spending. I'm not sure how likely that is to happen, but I hope it does. I also hope they gut the budget to the bare essentials, like education, and I guess medicare and social security because you have to have those, even though they're costing us an arm and a leg right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:11 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, that's at least some good news. If the economy does turn around, we only have to worry about the national debt.

I liked in the state of the union how Obama talked about a freeze on government spending. I'm not sure how likely that is to happen, but I hope it does. I also hope they gut the budget to the bare essentials, like education, and I guess medicare and social security because you have to have those, even though they're costing us an arm and a leg right now.

Am I the only one who from the outset saw the "freeze" in the budget as being a political dirty trick to appease the Republicans?

He in essence said he wasn't going to spend MORE than this budget amount on these programs. What most seemed to miss entirely is that he also implied (if "freeze" means what I think it means, which is NOT "cut") that he's not going to spend any LESS on them, either.

I could do with seeing about a 50% cut in defense spending, myself. And put it towards the deficit, the debt, and infrastructure here at home.

But that'll never happen, because then he'd be "soft on defense"...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:21 PM

No, you're not the only one, and I DON'T like that he said freeze instead of outlining cuts for some programs myself. A freeze is better than nothing, but cuts are vastly preferable.

Like I said, the way we've been spending, I doubt it's going to happen. Presidents say a lot of things in the State of the Union that never happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ach. You guys still don't "get it", do you?

With apologies in advance to Niki for this

/threadjack

GOVERNMENT DEBT per se does NOT decrease the value of the dollar OR lead to inflation. It all depends on WHAT you direct your indebtedness towards. If you direct your spending towards items that make you more productive, then the enhanced productivity more than makes up for the debt. So if you invest in education (which makes people more productive), energy infrastructure (which makes everything more productive), transportation infrastructure (ditto), communication infrastructure (ditto), and health care (which reduces costs by eliminating the blood-sucking role of health insurances, which impoverished GM) then productivity goes up in the long run.

If on the other hand you spend your way into indebtedness through war and by supporting the gazillion profits of banksters and money-changers... well, then... productivity doesn't go up, it goes down, and your economy and your currency goes down with it.

If a company borrowed a ton of money to build a better production facility, purchase a promising technology, hire a top-notch manager, or invest in computerization/ automation, it would be thought of as very forward-looking (provided its investments paid off). Think of government debt as investment. It's only bad if it doesn't work.

/end threadjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:34 PM

KWICKO

Or if it's invested in the wrong thing, like wars, as you so aptly pointed out.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:53 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Anyway, the stimulus is working? The economy is recovering? Last I'd heard it was still doom and gloom. Although I remember something about a bikini graph of job loss, but I was dismayed there was still no job growth.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, it can still be getting worse even as an economy is getting better. It reflects the health of the economy in the recent past, over a period say 3-30 months ago (that's a guess, I'm not an economist - but it must be something like that!)

Here's an interesting article:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/p/unemploy_rate.htm

The predictions at the end are interesting:

Quote:
The Unemployment Outlook:
Unemployment is projected to drop slightly to 9.7% by the end of 2010, according to OMB's Mid-Year Budget Projections. By the end of 2011, it will fall significantly, to 8%. After that, it will decline slowly, falling to 7.5% in 2012, 6.5% in 2013, and 5.7% in 2014.

In other words it will take some time for the US economy to be fully on its feet again. Also interesting, a lot of economists have argued that the stimulus wasn't *aggressive enough* - but then with so many republicans (like the ones above) weighting the argument on the side of stupidity, a more 'aggressive' bill might not have been politically feasible.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:04 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
GOVERNMENT DEBT per se does NOT decrease the value of the dollar OR lead to inflation.

Err, but don't you have to service that debt (ie. pay interest on it)? That's not an efficient use of taxpayers money.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Er... not necessarily. IF the US government did not have to go thru the Fed to increase the money supply but simply amped up the printing presses, interest would not be a problem. That is the big difference between the Federal government as a borrower, and every other borrower... unlike everyone else, the Federal government can (in theory) simply create more money. (So can banks, but that's a story that would make your head spin.)

Look at the USA after WWII: We had accumulated a shitload of debt, not only for the war effort but also for relief of Great Depression. You would have thought that bc of that, our currency would have been in the shitter. But it wasn't: the USA enjoyed an unparalleled couple of decades of prosperity and the dollar was the de facto world currency.

Now, there are some unique reasons for that... one being that at that time the USA was the MOST productive nation in the world, and the other that the distribution of wealth in the USA was very FLAT ... but it is these very reasons that point to the solution of the problem of indebtedness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:49 PM

Quote:
Or if it's invested in the wrong thing, like wars, as you so aptly pointed out.

Ding!

When I was taking about debts and cutting program spending, I was looking mostly at the wars. Though it might still be nice to pay down the debt, just so outside influences can't manipulate the global economy and destabilize us further. Cutting other programs would get us more money to do that.

Didn't say anything about inflation.

Also, weren't most of the other nations involved in WW2 pretty torn up? That cuts into productivity as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, they were torn up. Hubby grew up in post-war Hungary. After the war, there was only one bridge left. It was a poor place.

We're in a different situation. There are a number of industrialized nations around the world. And instead of owing money to ourselves, we owe it to China.

Nonetheless, the value of your currency depends on the strength of your production, not on the number of pieces of paper floating around. Also, if the wealth distribution is evened out, savings increases and the debt can be transferred back to the USA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Why apologies, Sig? What you wrote is right on point and not far off the thread subject. Besides, don't get me wrong, all threads that go on for enough time end up far from what they started out as, I know that and have no argument.

I remarked that the thread was about hypocrisy with regard to the stimulus because, if we got into hypocrisy in general, we'd be going on forever; there's enough of that on both sides to fill a book...or two...or three. I just found this instance glaring enough to put it up.

My remark to Rue was by way of saying "I'm pooped" from finding specifics of the hypocrisy around the stimulus--she made an EXCELLENT point about the firings, I'd noticed it but wasn't willing to put more time and effort into starting on something else. I get totally worn out sometimes trying to find facts to back up points, but I believe in honest debating, as in backing up what you say, rather than hurling generalities with nothing valid behind them, as we know one or two of us do

But hey, what you wrote is 100% on point, and please don't think I'm trying to run the conversation and keep it on point--what we do here rarely EVER stays on point, and I enjoy that as much as anyone.

End of explanation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:38 AM