Forum Home | Login

stevendedalus

Join Date 11/2003

Fearful Republicans

Why does the "other" party play into FDR’s "fear in itself"? How can the party of states’ rights object to bailing out the states desperately cutting budgets to the detriment of their financial status? What better way to kick off the economy than to assist locales in Medicaid, school budgets and repairs, community colleges, and a host of other ways to reduce unemployment roles and deterioration of infrastructures? Apparently, the party perceives aid as just another road to perks rather than common good investments. If we truly want to stimulate the economy, we cannot ignore the needs closer to home.

Furthermore, in light of the huge deficits on the federal level, it strikes me as hypocritical to hold states to balanced budgets.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ahhh thats all find and dandy.... but money for condoms? And did you not notice that very little of the money is actually going to "stimulate" the econ, but instead going to things like "organic"grass, ACORN and all that other fun stuff... add into the fact that we now need MORE gov oversite....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Strange. Every time someone tries to cut spending we are told how people will be thrown onto the streets and orphans will be starved.

Fear is a tool that knows no partisanship.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

'Kick off' the economy may be all too correct a turn of phrase, I'm afraid (pardon the pun - the 'afraid' pun, that is).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Interesting view, steve, funny how the tables have turned and now you claim we don't want to approve a bill when at one point the Democrates voted against funding the troops. Sounds very hypocritical of your part to criticize us for the same thing your party did.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Furthermore, in light of the huge deficits on the federal level, it strikes me as hypocritical to hold states to balanced budgets.

You are correct here but your point is the reverse of where the hypocrisy lies. It is hypocritical for the states to be held to a balanced budget while the federal government is allowed to have huge deficits. The move shouldn't be to allow states to run deficits, that would be disaster, but to get the Federal Government to have a balanced budget.

In hard times everyone, including the government, needs to make cut backs. That means that the government should be looking for programs to shut down not ways to start new programs in the name of "stimulating" the economy. This "stimulus" bill is going to do nothing for the economy and everything for growing the government to even more astronomical proportions. Government is not the answer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Strange. Every time someone tries to cut spending we are told how people will be thrown onto the streets and orphans will be starved.

From your lofty perspective, I imagine it would be difficult to notice the impoverished.

very little of the money is actually going to "stimulate" the econ,

As usual picking out trivia to suit the argument.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm afraid (pardon the pun

Afraid indeed to undo Reaganomics.

we don't want to approve a bill when at one point the Democrates voted against funding the troops.

Ridiculous accusation. They never abandoned the troops.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting stevendedalus,

reply 6

Strange. Every time someone tries to cut spending we are told how people will be thrown onto the streets and orphans will be starved. From your lofty perspective, I imagine it would be difficult to notice the impoverished.

very little of the money is actually going to "stimulate" the econ, As usual picking out trivia to suit the argument.

what? what he states is a fact. Very little indeed is going to the fixing of the econ and instead lining the pockets of specail intrest groups. Does Acronneed that money? theres a whole list of things that is not in that to help the "economy"

Successfully updated karma reason!

Strange. Every time someone tries to cut spending we are told how people will be thrown onto the streets and orphans will be starved.

It's amazing how every bit of spending, regardless what the project is, always just manages to save so many people from being homeless and would immidiately cause great disaster if not done.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As usual picking out trivia to suit the argument.

Really? Please check the following link and try to explain how any of the items listed are going to stimulate the economy:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html

The items in that list are just a sampling of the items that the republicans want out of the bill. Yes this article is a few days old and I think the republicans successfully got one or two of these items removed but most of them still remain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

As usual picking out trivia to suit the argument.

That's $Trivia,000,000,000.

Billion here, billion there, pretty soon you're talkin' serious trivia. To paraphrase a famous dead Democrat.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Every $ billion infusion will get a good deal of it back by circulation. That's how the eonomy works whther it be welfare checks or science research.

Successfully updated karma reason!

$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. Sounds weird but I think it has something to do with incentives to produce domestically.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.This I am against and wrote a blog about it.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). Sounds reasonable and would put some people to work, though I question "design" and not actually building.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. A definite job producer.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. Rooms to Go will love it..

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.What's not to like?

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. Anything improving health I'm for.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. Can't just leave shit lying around anymore.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Every $ billion infusion will get a good deal of it back by circulation. That's how the eonomy works whther it be welfare checks or science research.

No it won't. For every dollar spent by the government you will be lucky if 25 to 50 cents makes it into the actual economy.

How does $650 million for the digital converter coupon program stimuluate the economy? It won't because the only reason they need that money is that the original program was horribly mismanaged (ie wasteful).

How does $88 million for a new polar ice breaker stimulate anything?

How does constructing a new headquarters for the DHS stimulate the economy?

What about $75 million for smoking cessation activities?

The list goes on. I'm not saying that these items aren't needed at some point down the road but they have no business being in a stimulus bill that should be focused on picking the economy up out of the recession by creating real jobs which none of the items on that list do.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting stevendedalus,

reply 13

$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. Sounds weird but I think it has something to do with incentives to produce domestically.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.This I am against and wrote a blog about it.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). Sounds reasonable and would put some people to work, though I question "design" and not actually building.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. A definite job producer.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. Rooms to Go will love it..

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.What's not to like?

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. Anything improving health I'm for.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. Can't just leave shit lying around anymore.

The first one was stopped because it was inefficient, what has changed that all of the sudden makes it worth spending money on?

The second one doesn't stimulate the economy at all and has since been removed from the bill as far as I am aware.

The polar ice breaker will create limited jobs, certainly not work the $88 million investment at the moment. Whether it is needed down the road is a different issue, but it doesn't belong in a stimulus bill.

The DHS building will create some jobs for a couple of years but that is unlikely to provide lasting stimulus.

How does buying cars for federal employees stimulate the economy? Again whether it is needed is debateable but it certainly doesn't belong in a stimulus bill.

Preventing STDs doesn't stimulate the economy. Again I agree that the money may be needed just not as part of this bill.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). Sounds reasonable and would put some people to work, though I question "design" and not actually building.

Wait a minute. Isn't the arctic ice gone? Can sail right across the northern edge of Canada now - 'proof' the AGW crowd's been throwing around, after all. How did BO miss this opportunity to save money?

On a more general note, only the Republicans (and a few Democrats) are bothering to look at whether any of the provisions have intrinsic value (as opposed to a simple opportunity to throw money and create new constituencies). 'Stimulus' is a political, not economic, term; also known as pork on steroids.

Successfully updated karma reason!

known as pork on steroids.

Nevertheless, one's pork is another's bacon for the family breakfast.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

Nevertheless, one's pork is another's bacon for the family breakfast.

Gonna be a very expensive breakfast when the kids in that family eventually get the bill.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: