Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- johndiggity0
and in news from the people we elected to run this country:
"Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts."
- Oh look, you have vapors over $700,000. Never said shit about trillions wasted in Iraq. Go faint somewhere else.Dr_Sparkleshine
- of course. that makes it all ok. great fucking logic.johndiggity
- troll.johndiggity
- buuzzzzzzzDr_Sparkleshine
- That was my point going over your tiny, tiny headDr_Sparkleshine
- ukit0
This is a surprisingly reality based analysis by one of Bush's former speech writers.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/…
"In New York, Republican feuding lost the party a seat in the House of Representatives. At stake in Florida is not only a senatorship -- but very possibly Republican hopes for 2012 as well.
The battle in Florida pits Gov. Charlie Crist against former Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio. Both men claim to be conservative, pro-life, tax cutters. On the issues, they would seem to agree far more than they disagree.
But on one issue they have disagreed passionately: President Obama's fiscal stimulus. Squeezed by his state's desperate fiscal condition, Crist endorsed and campaigned for the Obama stimulus. Inspired by his conservative ideology, Rubio opposed stimulus.
Now Rubio is the darling of conservatives nationwide. Just this week it was announced that he would give the keynote address at next year's annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. He has been profiled on the cover of National Review, endorsed by the Club for Growth, and feted by radio talk show hosts.Crist -- who as recently as 2008 topped the libertarian Cato Institute's list of favorite governors -- has been consigned to pariah status. Here's the significance of the Florida contest: Every state except Vermont is legally required to balance its budget.
With revenues collapsing in 2008-2009, every Republican governor in the country eventually accepted federal funds. (The two most vociferous objectors -- Alaska's Sarah Palin and South Carolina's Mark Sanford -- were either physically or mentally checking out of their jobs.)Are all these Republican leaders, including such outstanding figures as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi, now disqualified for future races?"
I think this gets to the fact that this new wave of Republicans, who claim to be experts at free market economics, are not being very realistic in their critiques. A part of the stimulus wasn't intended to create new jobs, but to do exactly what Frum describes, save states from tanking during the crisis. What were they supposed to do at that point? People need to think carefully about the shitty situation the Rs left us in before even considering voting them back in.
- johndiggity0
the stimulus amounts to nothing more than a payoff to unions for getting obama elected. if they really wanted a stimulus, they would have simply lowered taxes, sent check to the public, or a combination of both, putting more money in people's pockets. not one non-union or non-government job was created or saved by this bill.
- Interesting concept. Love how you GOPs treat "unions" like a dirty word.Mimio
- why am i gop? i said nothing about republicans.johndiggity
- and it's also fact that the uaw and teachers unions among others donated to obma's campaign.johndiggity
- guilty conscious?johndiggity
- What about the construction industry? One of the largest employers in the nation?DrBombay
- Doesn't line up with you ideology, so you omit it?DrBombay
- who do you think is behind any state or federal infrastructure improvements? union backed construction workers.johndiggity
- We're all in it together, government workers or notukit
- ukit0
They did - about a third of the stimulus was tax cuts. It basically amounted to a check to the public, but staggered over time by small tax cuts each week in your paycheck.
Another huge part of it, like I said, was to fill in the gaps of state budgets where they were going to have a huge shortfall and wind up in a CA-style budget crisis.
So maybe stimulus wasn't even the best name for it, the actual "stimulative" parts were only a couple hundred billion, and a lot of that hasn't been spent yet. It's more accurately a bailout for the state govs, made necessary by the shit Bush got us into.
- johndiggity0
there was a $15 difference in my paycheck. that's neither a stimulus payment, nor a tax cut. and california and ny are still up shit's creek and not getting bailed out by the federal government. in fact, rahm emanuel said the whitehouse would not intervene into states on the brink of bankruptcy, california specifically. and last i checked, i don't think bush was involved in setting the budgets for either of those states, or any of the other ones under water.
- you still have a paycheck...DrBombay
- so i should feel guilty that i have a job is what you are saying?johndiggity
- I guess the question is what are you complaining about?ukit
- employment is at 10% and billions of dollars is being spent in the name of economic recovery with little to no accountability or results to show.johndiggity
- accountability or results to show.johndiggity
- and it's our money as taxpayers.johndiggity
- and our country. that's what the fuck i am complaining about.johndiggity
- JohnDiggity = Glenn Beck dittoheadMimio
- mimio=lemmingjohndiggity
- ukit0
Yeah I didn't get any tax cut (too rich apparently;)). But extra money in your paycheck obviously is a tax cut or tax credit or whatever you want to call it, $15-$30 x 26 weeks is about equal to the stimulus Bush sent out the year before the election. So there's your tax cut, kind of hard to make the argument that that's what Obama should have done when that is what he did.
In terms of the states, obviously CA's problems are unique, all I'm saying is a major part of that bill was money to state governments to prevent them going bankrupt, in the context of the collapse. If dozens of state governments can't pay their employees and provide services then obviously there is going to be a huge ripple effect from that in terms of the overall economy. Interesting how no alternative is offered to that from those criticizing. Anyway, read Frum's piece, he explains it better than I could.
- lowimpakt0
this isn't politics. this is greed.
- johndiggity0
my point is that the bush stimulus check for roughly the same amount did nothing to jumpstart the economy, so not sure why obama thought giving incremental payments for the same amount would have a vastly different effect.
the effect of the stimulus in the first place was not to prop up ailing state and local governments. it was to stimulate economic growth and spending. in fact a report from the center for economic policy and research says that state and local budget deficits to the tune of $100 billion a year will offset the stimulative effect of the president's american recovery and reinvestment act. dollars used to cover deficits will have no stimulative effect.
- Well OK...but you said two posts up you wanted him to send a "check to the public"ukit
- ukit0
I disagree...even putting aside the aid for the states (which I'd argue was necessary), you can pretty clearly see that the economy is improving. Think back to last winter...the DOW was tanking and people were actually arguing whether or not the government should nationalize the largest banks.
Fast forward 10 months, and we are back to GDP growth this quarter, the DOW is back at 10k...I agree the government can't do it all in the long run but IMO Obama made the right call in a difficult situation. It's easy to whine and complain - not that easy to provide actual solutions.
- shinpo0
Here's a little change of pace. The picture underneath represents what I assume to be an american kid (it doesn't really matter which country he is from). Whose fault and responsibility is it to help him and to have kept him from becoming a future heart attack statistic?
A) The parents?
B) The governments?
C) His own damn fault?
- How about all three. Takes a village you know...Dr_Sparkleshine
- ..or how about the evil capitalist ice cream truck driver pushing his corn syrup nutrition free wares on the hapless victim thereDr_Sparkleshine
- victim there.Dr_Sparkleshine
- Is it a shadow or does that kid have a mullet?Dr_Sparkleshine
- what Dr_Sparkleshine said...utopian
- mulletfooler2
- I'm sure you will find this equally hilarious when someone in your family gets cancer and their insurance co kicks them off coverageukit
- kicks them off coverage. shinpo, being all badass, will be like, sorry mom, it's your own damn faultukit
- A.blaw
- there is absolutely nothing wrong with what this image portrays, incites, or insinuatesversion3
- DrBombay0
GOP Congressman: Terror Trial Held In NYC To Attract Terror Attack Because 'Rebuilding Will Create Jobs'
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-…- not sure why this guy is getting a trial...johndiggity
- They should just put him in a concentration camp?DrBombay
- I love how these guys are perceived as a threat. Like it's gonna be like in Con Air or The Fugitive and they somehow escape a max security prisonukit
- escape a max security prisonukit
- And you never will get it. You're too simple minded to understand the intricacies of our governing.EightyDeuce
- directed at – johndiggityEightyDeuce
- Was he read his miranda rights?Mimio
- From a foreign policy perspective you would probably would want this guy to rot in jail.Mimio
- why is afforded the rights of a us citizen?johndiggity
- Ah Gohmert is just upset that no terrorists want to attack Texas. He can't get any of that rebuilding money.Dr_Sparkleshine
- and, i understand our "governing style" just fine. you, however, may want to brush up on the intricacies of the geneva convention and the classification of prisoners of war, enemy combatants, and spies/saboteurs.johndiggity
- convention and the classification of prisoners of war, enemy combatants, and spies/saboteurs.johndiggity
- http://news.yahoo.co…IRNlun6
- Your ideology always gets in the way, John.DrBombay
- In my opinion fox and the right wing cause far more damage mocking our courts calling them a circus that is unfit to try terror suspects.IRNlun6
- ... terrorists.IRNlun6
- Even a known terrorist gets a fair trial in America... does it make sense now?DrBombay
- it's not my ideology. it's law. from our supreme court (ex parte quirin): "Unlawfulcombatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals..."johndiggity
- likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals..."johndiggity
- tribunals..."johndiggity
- GOP + FOX = FEAR MONGERSutopian
- GOP + FOX = FEAR MONGERSutopian
- GOP + FOX = FEAR MONGERSutopian
- so my original point being, not sure why he should have a trial. as opposed to a military tribunal.johndiggity
- but then again, apparently i am a simpleminded redneck. what do i know?johndiggity
- Maybe to prove to the world that America is still a country of justice? Maybe we take the higher road.Dr_Sparkleshine
- I know how you republitards love to take the lowest common denominator route though. 'Murika, fuck yeah!Dr_Sparkleshine
- Terrorists have been tried in our civilian criminal courts many times. Original Trade Center bombers (who failed to bring the towers down), the case of Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick, and the case of the Puerto Rican terrorists many years ago. They were all tried and convicted in a civilian court of law . . .DrBombay
- bring the towers down), the case of Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick, and the case of the Puerto Rican terrorists many years ago. They were all tried and convicted in a civilian court of law . . .DrBombay
- years ago. They were all tried and convicted in a civilian court of law . . . (PASTED)DrBombay
- Illegal aliens still go through our court system also. They aren't just executed because they aren't citizens.DrBombay
- yes, but none of those were unlawful combatants because the us was not at war.johndiggity
- you seem to be the one with the ideology problems here.johndiggity
- What war were we in before 9/11 again? Watch your sharp tongue, bitch.DrBombay
- Constitution also says declaration of war needs to be approved by Congress, interestingly enoughukit
- I don't remember that happeningukit
- i love how no one can engage in an argument without resorting to name calling.johndiggity
- BattleAxe0
we should clear all the bases in Germany, Italy , S.Korea and Japan and send all of them to Afghanistan
- To do what exactly?Dr_Sparkleshine
- To kill 100 al quaida members in neighboring Pakistan?DrBombay
- to save moneyBattleAxe
- pay them more for hazard pay and healthcare and funeral benefits? Yeah, that'll save moneyDr_Sparkleshine
- Simple mind.DrBombay
- so more troops = more troop deaths , not by default , look up how much all the bases run usBattleAxe
- Dr_Sparkleshine0
"Why is Barack Obama allowing these retreads from the Clinton era who went on to great riches on Wall Street to set economic policy for his administration? The fatal hallmark of this president’s financial policy is that it is being designed by the very people whose previous legislative efforts created the mess that enriched them while impoverishing the nation, and they now want more of the same. "
- name one Sect of Treasury that never worked in Wall St. , they are all crooks and croniesBattleAxe
- shinpo0
@ukit - In response to my post above:
I think that cancer and obesity are two totally different things. If someone got breast cancer then it would not be from anything they did. If someone died of obesity b/c they stuffed their mouth full of twinkies and mccdonalds everyday then it would be their own fault.
Plus I wrote "own damn fault" b/c that is what some people would say. I really just wanted to know how people thought b/c their responses reflect their political views for the most part I believe.
Personally I think the parents are fricking retards for letting their child, who has no clue of the consequences of eating like that will cost him in his future, destroy himself. They should held be responsible. Some people say the government should help the poor chap out, but the government didn't do it and his parents should fix the mess they made. Others would say it's his own fault, but I think he is too young to be held responsible for that. If he was older perhaps.
- Laying blame doesn't fix the problem though. If it was the parents poor lifestyle choices, why would you think they'd change?locustsloth
- change? And if you think punishing arguably bad parenting is gonna fly with anyone, you got another thing cominglocustsloth
- ukit0
What if they got lung cancer? Are you gonna be able to prove that they are responsible because they smoked a doobie at age 15?
There are plenty of people who get lung cancer who never smoke, and plenty who die of heart attacks who are not overweight. I get that you think you're being clever and funny, but it's really not when you have experienced something like this in your own life.
Besides, it doesn't have much bearing on the health care bill because it's not like obese kids are gonna get free ice cream or something.
- I really didn't post it b/c of the health care bill, but b/c it makes me sick to think that it happens all the timeshinpo
- blaw0
Children are the responsibility of their parents—to be cared for, protected and raised to become productive members of society.
The government's role is limited to cases where acting as loco parentis (such as at school) or when the child's immediate safety is at risk.
You can't blame the child, because kids want what they want, not was best for them long-term.
You can't make the company care, because you cannot control greed. This is not to say all companies are driven by greed, but that there is always at least one that is.
So it all comes down to what you can control—yourself and those for whom you are responsible.
- eieio0
why do people have the attitude that people in government or in companies are all of a sudden exempt from responsible choices or protecting people from making bad choices themselves? Anyone with this attitude should just bend over now and get it over with.
You can't control greed? YES YOU CAN! Thats the whole point about principled living and responsibility towards society.
- ukit0
Sure, it's the parents responsibility to feed their kid. Is anyone disputing that?
But on the other hand, what if you got cancer one day and the plan you were on, dropped you from coverage because it isn't cost effective for them. Is that also something you're OK with?
- sorry ukit the post I put up there really didn't have anything to do with health careshinpo
- the government option was really to show that they shouldn't be responsible for the parents idiocyshinpo
- Kind of a strawman argument though, no one's saying the gov should be responsible for what you feed your kidukit
- I'm more concerned with why the kid is walking around in the middle of the street in his underwearukit
- the thought had crossed my mind as wellshinpo
- shinpo0
^ I agree the companies should share in some of the responsibility b/c they know full well what their food or other products do to the end user, yet they sell them anyway for that dollar b/c they are cheap and if it hurts a few people then it doesn't matter