mr_genius

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) I would like to take issue with the above premise that Reagan was a good president. If creating unprecedented deficits, wrecking the economic structure of the country, spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the federal government, all while contributing to high unemployment is a good President, then I agree. If not, then sorry - he was pretty bad. if this is coming from an Obama supporter... I must remind you that the current administration is telling us deficit spending is good. Obama will likely destroy any deficit spending record. The economy had major gains during Reagans years, even though he was history's greatest monster. Now were these economic gains due to deficit spending? unlikely.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-needs-up-...b-14392493.html GM going for 30 billion in bailouts by end of next month

Endless bailouts http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_...e/autos_bailout honestly, this is never going to end. they will be right back in a couple months after this 5 billion is gone

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) There's a way out of that using the Federal Reserve. i don't know about that. if you can stop rampant inflantion and unemployment with a quick fed reserve move why didn't Jimmy Carter wave that magic wand? well if you want a weaker dollar i believe you shall recieve your wish; a weaker dollar does lower the cost of US goods. but our currency could take a nose dive, which would offset any potential gains.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 06:15 PM) Basically a win on the stimulus plan IMO means we avoid a deflationary spiral. what about an inflantionary spiral with high unemployment, a weakened US dollar, and run away deficts?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) Of course I don't actually expect them to turn the money down, that'd be borderline retarded (eh, for now I'll ignore the fact that a lot of the red states use more federal money than they contribute). Just looking for some consistency is all. I was doing the same thing a few months ago when Palin was screaming "SOCIALISM" after she bragged in front of the RNC that she gave Alaska oil revenue back to the taxpayers, and at the same time Alaska is basically the welfare baby of the union. By her own narrow (and silly) definition that's socialism. I also apply the same principle when Republicans start having a fit about Democrat spending, because they're apparently concerned about the budget, but their solution is to cut taxes. Both will blow a hole in the deficit, what's the difference? (Not a question directed at you mr. g, since I know you'd say the Republicans are being stupid too) Basically what has happened is the Republicans aren't in control anymore and they needed to 're-invent' the party. They have decided economic conservative approach is a good one right now. Of course, this is a fairly bizarre transformation as GW Bush and the GOP Senate was completely reckless and fiscally unsound. Now I think this stimulus is much more to do with giving out money to pro-Democrat special interest and paying back bribes than an economic fix. But I don't trust the Democrats at all, don't trust the GOP either. The bank bailouts where much worse than this stimulus spending Obama got through, the GOP is just postering. The GOP nationalized the banks for f***s sake, I don't know why they think people will buy this new 'transformation' they claim to be having.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) testable predictions. kind of like "The stimulus will save or create 4 million jobs". Even if there is a million jobs lost Obama can, of course, claim there would have been 5 million lost without his plan. Therefore he saved 4 million. Impossible to guage it, but he'll claim a win no matter what.

and the plot thickens

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) I actually like Gov. Sanford and think Begala is a shameless Kool-Aid drinker, but he really does have a point. Find me a Republican governor who opposes the stimulus but won't take any of the federal money. They might if they are given legal assurances they will not be paying for any of it with federal taxes. States that do not take the money shouldn't be forced to pay in; this could be worked out in the form of lower federal taxes on residents in states that do not take the money. That will never happen though, therefore there is an obligation to try and salvage some of this money.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) I'm sure people here will hate the messenger, (Paul Begala) but within this partisan article, there is a valid argument. If you think that the Stimulus is such a horrible thing, don't take it. Actually, that is not really a valid argument. If the federal government is taking money from taxes, without local support for federal actions, representatives have a obligation to try to get some of that money back to their constituents in any way possible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 05:00 PM) That one I'm not sure I'd agree with. If they need TARP funds, they probably need to be spending less money, not more. I could see not allowing outsourcing overseas, but not allowing them to terminate employees seems like a dangerous railroading to me. They can release employees, just can't replace with with H1B visas and such unless there is no one that in the US that can fill the position I guess. Probably doesn't have much teeth to it though, I would imagine. probably in response to an AP story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_...foreign_workers

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 07:47 PM) So, interestingly, the final version of the stimulus bill has an important amendment added to it, restricting executive compensation. It was added by Senator Dodd, and is actually much MORE restrictive than Obama/Geithner's original plans. Details: I applaud this, personally. Only, however, for companies received TARP funds, which is the case here. If it went past that, I'd be strongly against it. But in this case, we (the taxpayers) had to bail these people out. They now report to us, as far as I am concerned. The article also contains some laughably ridiculous criticisms from industry folks. I also noticed an amendment by Senators Sanders (I-VT) and Grassley (R-IA) which disallows companies using TARP funds to layoff workers and replace with outsourcing and such.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 07:35 PM) If its being installed in the Pentagon, that's a $50,000 stimulus right there. well, all spending is good spending

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) The U.S. government actually tracks these data through its unemployment surveys. It's considered underemployment; when people take jobs below their pay grade because they're the only things available. As of the Feb. numbers, it appears that roughly 5% of the work force fits in to that category. Like everything else in the job market, those #'s are at something on the order of a 20 year high. Those numbers are very high. With the current economic environment bringing in additional workers to the country does not make much sense. Especially H1B visa type employees, even though thats not what we're talking about here obviously. But still, I'm sure there are a lot of out of work individuals who would take a low paying job right now just to attempt to make ends meet.

well Obama is now making fun of Biden during big pres confrences, so i think we know who was right

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) When compared directly to Sarah Palin. well... it's a fitting comparison.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Hell, during the campaign people were even complaining about it in the Dem thread. I remember Biden being held up as 'an amazing' pick at the time around here. The Democrat posters were very defiant when confronted with facts that Biden is an idiot. They actually got extremely angry when he was criticized or mocked.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) There's a big difference between a new home buyer credit and the any home buyer credit the Senate put in. Ah I see, it's any home buyer now. Well I hope they put limits on it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:17 PM) I hope they keep the new home buyer credit in. I thought it was first time home buyer credit? There needs to be a limit even if it's not first time buyer. like you can only get this credit once every 10 years or something.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 05:34 PM) Am I allowed to link to Kos in this thread if it's just for data? Pollster Support level (previous where available) Gallup 52 (53) 2/4 CNN 54 2/7-8 Pew 51 (57) 2/4-8 Rasmussen 37 (42) 2/4 CBS 51 (63) 2/2-4 There is actually one pollster out there which has been showing 40% support for the stimulus package; Rasmussen. That however, has so far been the outlier. The trend lines are noteworthy, but the 15-20 point baseline difference suggests that Ras. is doing something fundamentally different in how they're asking the question or how they're sampling. And, as always, take note of which media organization chooses to cite the outlier the most heavily. i'm surprised it's that low with all the favorable coverage it's gotten. well besides the evil FOX news.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) I'm not going to call any of you out directly, but some of you need to dial the obnoxiousness down a notch. so someone just comes in here and trolls constantly can't catch some flack? that is going to make for a dull thread

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) He met with GOP members of the House and Senate on more than one occasion to get feedback and buy in. The bill had additional tax cuts added to appease them. The house version passed with a grand total of ZERO Republican votes. Obama lost his cool for 1 second and reminded people that he won the election. The bill is still terrible. Of course they voted against it. 11 Democrats in the house even crossed party lines to vote against.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:55 PM) I guess these are all extreme liberal news sources as well. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/27/...olitics_4755065 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44...1405&page=1 http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny...0,1560330.story http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/02/Oba...ress/index.html http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/Doc...cumentID=108989 http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-le...2009-01-15.html http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama-go...ulus/2688570997 http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/2...348/-1/yourprez http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...6FZMuwD95VNOS00 grats on learning how to post a list web links. you should pat yourself on the back. i clicked on one of the links and i have no idea what you are getting at. having a meeting about a pet project massive pork spending bill and then basically saying "I won, deal with it." isn't much of a negotiation. but he did win, and he got his spending bill passed. unfortunately it is going to compound the economic probems down the road.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) He pretty much called out GOP leadership. Who else would you call the leader of the GOP these days? Joe the Plumber? and the Rush Limbaugh hysteria sets in again. the truth is anyone in their right mind should oppose the spending going on right now.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:48 PM) Fox news is blocked at my work. Huffingtonpost obviously isn't. all you do is parrot that trash.