Members Thunderbroom Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Link Is the world gonna end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Republicans need to remember who crossed over. When they retake the house/senate, they can be relegated to mop duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Republicans need to remember who crossed over. When they retake the house/senate, they can be relegated to mop duty. Well, an elephant never forgets right? Yeah, right. this whole thing pisses me off more than I can even express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pickdust Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Not sure what to think about the whole thing........but........for sure the whole T-Broom/C7 Avatar thing is FREAKING ME OUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted February 10, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Below is part of an opinion piece at Bloomberg. There's a link to the Senate bill within the article. A snippet:The bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 We're going to need a metathread for this bill before long. Regardless, it's horrible, horrible piece of legislation. I salute every Senator who voted against this abomination. It's not even an "economic stimulus" bill - it's just a bunch of earmarks strung together and a load of pork. Many of the "jobs" it creates are just gov't make-work jobs. This is the worst spending bill I've ever seen. I thought Bush's $700B bailout bill (which ended up being more) was bad enough, but this is much worse. In the other thread, people were making fun of the fact that everyone seems to think he/she's an expert on the economy. After all, everyone thinks they can do better than the President. In this case however, it's not just being an armchair quarterback. Saying this bill is a horrible idea isn't like saying "the Cardinals would've won the super bowl if I was the coach." It's more like saying "if you stick your hand in a fire, you'll get burned." This bill is totally the wrong thing to do. Gov't spending cannot and will not mitigate an economic downturn. A market needs to reach its natural bottom before it can recover. Having the gov't come in and distort the market will only prolong the agony and postpone the inevitable. The basic concepts for a proper solution aren't too complicated. Cut taxes, especially on investments and business. Drastically cut spending and the size of gov't. Eliminate existing bureaucracies, don't create new ones. Don't interfere any more in the market. No more bailouts. Dismantle Freddie and Fannie. If you want the economy to recover, let bad business models fail and let good ones succeed. Of course, the healthcare provision in the Senate bill has some pretty bad implications, especially since Doctors will have to start complying with what the federal gov't deems "cost effective." I suppose if you want to get people off Social Security, that's one way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 And this is in an Economic Stimulus package? What is it stimulating? Nothing more than socialist garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I need to check for permanent IRS changes... I'm sure there's some ass-rapin' going on in this piece of BS, just like in the last bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sounds like a good deal to me. Obama is just working campain promises in needed legislation. So far he's doing better than GBW in that department. This is what the people wanted, this is what they will get and it is precisely what they {censored}ing deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chris-dax Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 ...It's not even an "economic stimulus" bill - it's just a bunch of earmarks strung together and a load of pork... See that's where you are so wrong, J...the president clearly stated numerous times last night in his campaign spe...uhh brutal grilling by a watchdog press...that there is not 1 earmark in the entire bill!! He further congratulated himself repeatedly for making sure it is earmark free. That's what Katy Couric says as well... I rest my case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 This is what the people wanted, this is what they will get and it is precisely what they {censored}ing deserve. I was thinking about this the other day- where are all the mindless masses in the celebrity and under 21 crowd proclaiming BO as God Himself putting in their $.02 about fixing the economic climate/crisis? Where are the MTV commercials saying "Thanks for electing BO. Now wtf is he going to do to save your parent's jobs? And get your country out of debt in your lifetime? How do you feel about him lying to you about Iraq, and sending 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan?" I've yet to hear Madonna, Green Day or Fall Out Boy have a press conference on the matter, to date... I haven't heard Chris Rock spout his opinion yet... But hopefully it'll be on his next HBO special- if he can get one, that is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sounds like a good deal to me. Obama is just working campain promises in needed legislation. So far he's doing better than GBW in that department.This is what the people wanted, this is what they will get and it is precisely what they {censored}ing deserve. I can't disagree with you on that. Still sucks for those of us screaming in the wilderness though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members In Absentia Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 We're going to need a metathread for this bill before long. Regardless, it's horrible, horrible piece of legislation. I salute every Senator who voted against this abomination. It's not even an "economic stimulus" bill - it's just a bunch of earmarks strung together and a load of pork. Many of the "jobs" it creates are just gov't make-work jobs. This is the worst spending bill I've ever seen. I thought Bush's $700B bailout bill (which ended up being more) was bad enough, but this is much worse. In the other thread, people were making fun of the fact that everyone seems to think he/she's an expert on the economy. After all, everyone thinks they can do better than the President. In this case however, it's not just being an armchair quarterback. Saying this bill is a horrible idea isn't like saying "the Cardinals would've won the super bowl if I was the coach." It's more like saying "if you stick your hand in a fire, you'll get burned." This bill is totally the wrong thing to do. Gov't spending cannot and will not mitigate an economic downturn. A market needs to reach its natural bottom before it can recover. Having the gov't come in and distort the market will only prolong the agony and postpone the inevitable. The basic concepts for a proper solution aren't too complicated. Cut taxes, especially on investments and business. Drastically cut spending and the size of gov't. Eliminate existing bureaucracies, don't create new ones. Don't interfere any more in the market. No more bailouts. Dismantle Freddie and Fannie. If you want the economy to recover, let bad business models fail and let good ones succeed. Of course, the healthcare provision in the Senate bill has some pretty bad implications, especially since Doctors will have to start complying with what the federal gov't deems "cost effective." I suppose if you want to get people off Social Security, that's one way to do it. I don't think you could be any more right if you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members no-logic Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I like my wife's economic stimlus package. She says give every American working family $250,000 and let 'em go spend it anyway they want. They'll buy houses, cars, pay off debt, etc. It would get the economy going in a hurry and would probably cost about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 I like my wife's economic stimlus package. She says give every American working family $250,000 and let 'em go spend it anyway they want. They'll buy houses, cars, pay off debt, etc. It would get the economy going in a hurry and would probably cost about the same.But the socialists wouldn't be able to do a big government power grab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members In Absentia Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I like my wife's economic stimlus package. She says give every American working family $250,000 and let 'em go spend it anyway they want. They'll buy houses, cars, pay off debt, etc. It would get the economy going in a hurry and would probably cost about the same. I like it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_165551.html Administration officials were greeted with sarcasm and laughter Monday night when they briefed lawmakers and congressional staff on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's new financial-sector bailout project, according to people who were in the room. The laughter was at its height when Obama officials explained that the White House planned to guarantee a wide swath of toxic assets -- which they referred to as "legacy assets" -- but wouldn't be asking Congress for money. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a bailout opponent in the fall, asked the officials to give Congress the total dollar figure for which they were on the hook. The officials said that they couldn't provide a number, a response met by chuckling that was bipartisan, but tilted toward the GOP side. By guaranteeing the assets, Geithner hopes he can persuade the private sector to purchase a portion of them. Congress may be able to do little more than laugh. The Federal Reserve, in extreme situations, is allowed to intervene in the financial markets in dramatic ways. The Fed jumped into the markets long before the $700 billion bailout passed through Congress by guaranteeing toxic assets held by CitiGroup and Bank of America. The White House still has roughly $350 billion in Congress-appropriated TARP funds to use, and the officials told the group Monday night that it planned to use $50 billion for foreclosure mitigation and further amounts to shore up bank balance sheets. The officials also said that a review of the bank's books would be undertaken to determine whether they could handle an even more severe economic downturn. People briefed on the meeting also said that the White House proposed expanding the Temporary Asset Lending Facility (TALF) by up to one trillion dollars in order to shore up the market for credit card and auto loans. It would be a joint project of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury's TARP funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 King Hussein is right about one thing; it is going to get worse, a lot worse. You get what you vote for. I agree completely with Burdizzos. Hope I didn't just stigmatize you, sir. More corporate welfare, not rep. More 'free' {censored}. At least that's what the masses believe. Let the money roll in, yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 It would get the economy going in a hurry and would probably cost about the same. Right now, the stimulus package is costing every American citizen around $3,000 each (actually a bit less). For it to cost "about the same", the average household would have to consist of around 80 people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chunky-b Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 In case you are curious, here is the vote tally: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061 I am proud that both of my senators voted NAY to this BS!!! The Republicans that crossed over are both from ME and Arlon Specter from PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's good to see the republicans become fiscal conservatives now that the democrats have control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Please. Oh wait, that's not as funny this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Please. Oh wait, that's not as funny this time. Especially since I'm serious this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's good to see the republicans become fiscal conservatives now that the democrats have control. Yup. where were they the better part of the last decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 My feelings are that the biggest difference between a recession and a depression is whether the banking system stays intact. The original 700 Billion stabilized the banks and eventually the banks will want to make money off of loans again, that's how banks actually work. We just have to let the system relax after the big scare. It's almost as if the Government is trying to milk the crisis for all it's worth before we recover too much to relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.