THIS WEEK, Washington lawmakers are debating a new stimulus bill in hopes that it will jump-start the American economy. The plan calls for almost a trillion dollars in government spending.
With companies struggling and staggering job losses, it is obvious that America needs to do something. That is why President Barack Obama is pushing lawmakers to have the stimulus bill adopted this week.
But the rush to get something done could cost America more in the long run.
Our country has already spent $350 billion on the Troubled Assets Relief Program, and it is hard to know where that money went and what impact it has had.
Should Washington take some extra time and thoroughly evaluate the stimulus bill to determine how the money will be spent and try to guarantee taxpayers some assurances of success?
People are comparing the stimulus bill to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies of 1933. Our country is in a similar situation. The country was entering the Great Depression and FDR was elected by an overwhelming margin. In FDR’s first 100 days he put the New Deal policies together. The goal of the program was to put people back to work and it did — by building America’s infrastructure.
Obama is calling for a similar plan to get people back to work. But we wonder if the work world of today is not drastically different from the 1930s. In the ’30s, there was much higher unemployment and people were not afraid to work hard-labor jobs to put food on the table.
Today the unemployment rate is not as high as it was in the early ’30s, and we question whether a laid-off New York executive who made a six-figure salary would come to Kansas to repair roads.
Over the years, American workers have become lazy and have left America’s hard-labor jobs for migrant workers. Emporia just completed many road projects from bridges to roundabouts. And the work was primarily done by migrant workers.
So will the stimulus bill help the American workers or just be a good deal for the migrant workers?
Rushing to pass a trillion-dollar stimulus plan with few assurances of success is not wise. Perhaps the best investment the country could make right now would be for lawmakers to invest some extra time in evaluating the plan.
History will determine what kind of deal we got from the new stimulus plan.
Christopher White Walker
Editor & Publisher
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
February 11, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Excellent points, Chris. Thank you.
February 11, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
Finally, thank God, the Gazette has someone who will state the obvious. If necessary pass a small(like $50 billion, small only to government) plan to deal with things like unemployment right now, and spend some time getting this right.
February 11, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
To Observation and Chris: I never thought I'd see the day that I agreed with Chris, but I always say what's on my mind and YEAH Chris. If you think this package is good for anyone you're nuts. There is more pork in this than Tyson's and Seaboard could sell in 20 years. The thing that bothers me the most is the national health care that is in the bill that is being slid through as a stimulus package. I personally don't want or need the gov. telling me how to pay for my insurance. If you really care or know what to do without a liberal telling how to think, look it up.
THERE IS NO CATASTROPHE. It has been created by the people that are in power in the gov. and the media. The only reason the banks are in trouble is because the gov. forced them to make loans to people who didn't qualify to begin with.
As far as making jobs for the people who have lost theirs, how many white collar, computer nerds, car assembly people are really going to go work construction, IE WPA. I would suggest that anyonre who agrees with Observation take a look at history and tell us the last time socialism or communism worked. That is exactly where the messiah and his illk are taking us. If it worked, Cuba and Venzulla would be the power in our neighborhood and Canadians wouldn't be coming down here for health care. I paid attention when the messiah said we need to pass this, I say he's pounding sand up our butt. And anyone that agrees with him is the one that, in Obsrvations words is standing in our way of coming out of this with dignity.
February 11, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Wow. It appears someone turned on the lights in Liberal Town. Good editorial, Chris.
February 11, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I only ask this to all who complain about the amount of pork spending that is added to any bill.
Who is to blame for the addition of pork to any and all bills introduced to congress, the president, congress, the special interest lobbyists who throw tons of money, expensive gifts and favors at all politicians, Republican, Democrat, Conservative and Liberal alike, to buy our elected government officials influence and vote, for nothing more than special interests own selfish, greedy benefit, or is it we, the taxpayer and voter, who is to blame for allowing the bribing and corruption that is and has existed, thrived and grown in our government ?
February 12, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well..... our new administration PROMISED us no pork, and Pelosi & everyone else PROMISED us the most ethical administration & congress in history. We can't control that much of what they do (not easily, anyway) once they get in office, all we can do is go by their campaign promises, most of the time. Of course, we COULD look at their past history, like for instance, if we don't like pork, we could vote for someone who has a history of being against earmarks both in words and actions..... but they lost the election, so, you're right, methusla, we have only ourselves to blame...
February 12, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Well if "we" is all the voters no matter who they voted for, then yes "we" are to blame. We all, however, didn't vote for the porky pigs that are against pork with one side of their face and love it with the other. I for one voted for Chuck Baldwin so I really don't want to be included in the "we" in which you speak. I'm not a smart man but this time I can say I wasn't fooled. I've said it before and I'll say it again Pres. Obama is a great politician as was Pres. Clinton, they can convince (most) people to follow them with eloquence of speech. This reminds me of the whole "definition of is" thing that Pres. Clinton did. Apparently Pres. Obama and the Democrats have a different definition of pork than the rest of us. Being a Christian I don't have any dietary restrictions because of my faith so I have had my fair share of pork and I can recognize it when I see it. I just thought of a new slogan for Obama's big stymy-us package: Pork the other white lie.
February 12, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Good one, seriouslyfolks! :)
February 12, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
To tell the truth, I haven't seen a politician yet that doesn't like pork and I do mean no politician and there have been 44 of them in the White House and countless numbers in Congress.
As I see it as long as so called " Special Interest" individuals, groups of individuals and Big Business is allowed to hire professional lobbyists to buy politicians and their influence and votes, the pork stampede will continue to be the rule in government and the pork barrel will just get fatter and fatter and the working taxpayer will get leaner and leaner until he or she becomes extinct. And then What ?
February 12, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Ugh who let Ann Coulter loose in here? I am not gonna defend this bill because there is waste in it, I'll give you that. But all I here is talk of Dems did this, Dems did that, the truth is that there is no finger to point, had McCain won we would be in Iraq longer, bleeding money that way, or fighting the "war on terror". I fail to understand why people on these forums defend Bush and the decisions made during the last administration, they took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history, all the while INCREASING government size and spending. My point is, if we are gonna throw stones, lets through them both ways, both deserve it. For me all I can do at this point is trust that this will work(none of us have crystal balls or the foresight to see the future) and if it doesn't, well I be right there with you in voting for a conservative in 2012 provided they don't feed us some halfwit from the frozen north.
February 12, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I would venture a guess that the reason people are pointing at the Dems for the pork bill, is because the vote in the house was 0 Repulicans for, all but 10 Democrats for. The vote in the Senate was all Dems for, and, 2 or 3? Repubs for. So, in both houses, we have approx 3 repubs for, all the rest against, and in the neighborhood of 350 Dems for, 10 against. I think that is where the talk of Dems this & Dems that comes from.
This "largest deficit in history" is going to last about as long as Mark McGuire's home run record. As a percentage of the GDP, it was actually higher under Roosevelt & Truman (highest in our history). And Bush left office with it approximately at the same level (% of GDP) as it was during the middle of Clinton's era.
February 12, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
So what? One could say the Iraq war was the repub's pork war, it has cost approx 875 billion to date and estimated to to have cost our economy 3 billion, plus the worst part of it, lives of our soldiers, for what?
Then the bailout, "I have abandoned free market principles" this is what Bush said, and the result is worse than the current bill, 350 billion wasted, and for what? When do we see returns on that?
My point is not to slam the republicans my point is this, bush started his term in black, ahead of the game, %GDP on what he left in comparison to Clinton is irrelevant, this is not Bush vs. Clinton. This is about Bush starting the office with a surplus and look where it ended? Republican president, republican congress till 2006 and look at this crap, these are supposed to be the conservative, small govenment people, and people are saying this bill is out of control? Where were they a few years ago when the same crap different story was happening on the conservative watch?
I can't stand Frank, I can't stand Pelosi, I agree that there is a lot in this bill that is very questionable, but all I ask is this, if we are gonna throw stones, we stand back to back and throw them at the RIGHT AND LEFT, conservatives are every bit as guilty as the liberals.
February 12, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Now I know you have so much hatred for George Bush (who is now out of the picture) that you are willing to sit by and watch Obama destroy America. Of course you would vote against him next election if there were too much rubble in your yard. I can understand that. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He failed, plain and simple. Facts are facts, he had a surplus when he took office, a republican congress until late in his 2nd term, had all the tools to do things his way yet him and the republicans that followed him did everything that they stand against during his tenure, destroy America? We were in pretty good shape until his tenure, I know this, if I have 250k in a 401k in 2000 and I have nothing in 2008 I did something bad wrong, anyone can agree with this, especially when they are supposed to be the conservatives. Yeah I'm way off base here, shame on me for holding republicans to their word, shame on me.
I have a good feeling that by the end of Obama's term we will have a feel for if this worked or is working, I don't have your crystal ball to see into the future and know that "he is destroying America", all I can hope for at this point is that he does a better job then the last guy.
As for your assertation of my partisanship, you have no clue, label me what you want, I tend to think of myself more as "best man for the job" type of guy, I care less for labels, but keep flinging them if it makes your small mind feel better.
February 12, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
So what? One could say the Iraq war was the repub's pork war, it has cost approx 875 billion to date and estimated to to have cost our economy 3 billion, plus the worst part of it, lives of our soldiers, for what?
Please give us an edit button!
I meant to convey that the cost to our economy is put at 3 trillion, not 3 billion.
February 12, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Among the 29 Dem senators who voted for the Iraq invasion: Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, & Reid, just to name a few of the more well-known names.
In the house, there were 81 Dems that voted for it. So, while it could be considered a "Repub" war, it was not so nearly one-sided as you suggest, not like our current porkchop.
Congratulation, goodoleboy, you're finally getting it. For quite a few years now I've seen everything thrown all one way and from one side. And yes, quite a few of us WERE complaining that Bush was starting to spend like a liberal. Sorry they didn't put that on MSNBC. I saw and heard quite a bit of grumbling, some of it coming from me. I agree that he began to abandon core GOP values, as much of the party did. And they are paying for it now. But at least I stuck with the facts. I didn't go off the deep end over forged high-school grades of a 2.2GPA (you couldn't have gotten into the honor society with that, Snopes debunked that one pretty fast), planted stories about not knowing Africa was a continent, stuff like that. Nor did I buy into the he's a Muslim hype, or the fact that just because Biden finished 506th out of 688 in his class makes him smart. (Sarcasm).
I agree 100% to the letter with your last paragraph. Too bad you didn't feel that way the last 8 years.
For what? Is any war ever worth the cost? The soldiers themselves believe in their mission. They are there, they see the Iraqi's that appreciate them every day, the media hunts out only those that support their point of view to report on. Someday, if a thriving democracy in the Middle East begins to spread to other countries, and quelches this insane jihad in its roots, will it have been worth it? If Iran gets nukes & starts to use them, will having a military presence on their front porch be worth it?
The final arbiter, as always, which tells us if anything at all, ever, was truly "worth it", is......as always.... history.
February 12, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
But yet, Roosevelt left office with the highest deficit compared to GDP in history, and you claim his policies "worked".
How confusing.....(sigh)....
February 12, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
" can't stand Frank, I can't stand Pelosi, I agree that there is a lot in this bill that is very questionable, but all I ask is this, if we are gonna throw stones, we stand back to back and throw them at the RIGHT AND LEFT, conservatives are every bit as guilty as the liberals."
This was the "last paragraph" I was referring to - 100% spot on.
February 12, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm not so sure, Observation. I think the tactics we employed the first few years WOULD have ended up with it being a never-ending struggle, but I think Patreus has got us at least pointed down the right track. That is the danger - will we abandon them at this crucial time? I'm hopeful, at least, maybe my optimism is unwarranted, but I think there is at least a chance now. I don't know the answer, I hope and pray that this fledgling democracy can survive there. Then, they'll have about roughly 230-some-odd years before they destroy themselves, based on our history.
I remember when O'Reilly interviewed Ted Turner on his Vietnam views. He asked him what about the 2-3 million that were slaughtered as soon as the US pulled out. His answer: "Well, I didn't really think much about it. The news media didn't report on it so we really didn't think about it."
February 12, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communismm"
This is a quote that is supposed to be attributed to Karl Marx, but it doesn't appear that he made it. Anyway, the shoe fits. Here's one of my own. "When the band plays, someone has to pay for it." Creating more debt because we have overspent is not "paying for it". The so called "stimulus" is not just putting off the invevitable, it will only make it worse.
February 12, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
When did this become about Bush? Who brought him up? What does he have to do with the stymy-us package? Is the taste of Republican blood still in someones mouth and they are jonesing for more? Well, that well is pretty much dried up, not to many Republicans left to throw rocks at.
You can tell what kind of tree it is by it's fruit and if someone constantly sounds like a liberal Democrat, well that fruit kinda lets me know what kinda tree that is. In all fairness not all liberals are fruits, some are nuts to. Sorry I couldn't resist, it was just too easy.
February 12, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Anyone seen the current cover of Newsweek? Scary stuff!!
February 12, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
observation- Yea, you got me, I am not that old, I need to correct my number to 13 in the white house starting with FDR.
Boy, you are the only one who caught that. Ha, Ha.
Have a good night to night and a better day tomorrow, all !
February 12, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Seriouslyfolks
You think that just because Bush is gone now and the Republicans lost Congress in 2006 that they are now not responsible for the legislation and decisions they made that are still affecting us today? It is what it is sir, that does not make me a liberal, that makes me a pragmatist. I criticize both sides sir, not just one, like so many here.
February 13, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Among the 29 Dem senators who voted for the Iraq invasion: Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, & Reid, just to name a few of the more well-known names.
In the house, there were 81 Dems that voted for it. So, while it could be considered a "Repub" war, it was not so nearly one-sided as you suggest, not like our current porkchop."
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, I knew this come up, and I am glad you siad something. Lets rewind back to when this vote came up, I remember a good many of the Dems opposed the vote but were labeled "traitors to their country" and "unpatriotic" and "insert label here" for not supporting the troops. The Bush administration took advantage of the faith of the people and their patriotism and used that as a tool to get his votes for that war, and people wonder why the public hates him so much? So when you use their names, guess we should also fault all the republicans who voted for the gigantic 700 billion TARP pork chop that up until now has done nothing for us. At least the stimulus has funds diverted to states and tax cuts, not just a blank check to the bankers.
February 13, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
But yet, Roosevelt left office with the highest deficit compared to GDP in history, and you claim his policies "worked".
How confusing.....(sigh)....
America recovered did it not? Or did someone just wave a magic wand and make it all go away? When I am talking deficit I am talking about straight numbers, it is what it is, the largest deficit in history. You can toss numbers at me from 80 years ago, and I am sure I can spin a few back, but that does not change the fact that what I said still holds true no matter what. We owe more now then we ever have, and it happened on a conservative watch.
February 13, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
For what? Is any war ever worth the cost? The soldiers themselves believe in their mission. They are there, they see the Iraqi's that appreciate them every day, the media hunts out only those that support their point of view to report on. Someday, if a thriving democracy in the Middle East begins to spread to other countries, and quelches this insane jihad in its roots, will it have been worth it? If Iran gets nukes & starts to use them, will having a military presence on their front porch be worth it?
The final arbiter, as always, which tells us if anything at all, ever, was truly "worth it", is......as always.... history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there indeed have been wars worth the cost, wars that HAD to be fought. Imagine the world today if we had never entered WWII. The Iraq war is not one of these, it was started on false pretenses and now that this has all come to light the people of this country now see they were lied and that their tax dollars and sons and daughters lives were taken for nothing.
Democracy in that region is a fairy tale, has a 100 years taught us nothing, the people of that region have a different belief structure and take on life than we do, it is arrogance on our part to think that we can go in and change the way a whole region believes, it makes for great speeches but it is just not practical.
Soldiers are given orders, they are trained to follow orders therein lies why they believe in the mission. These are the people that I feel for the most, they have no choice. Its sad how many people I know personally that have been to Iraq, or read about, or seen interviewed, all say the same thing, "it's a waste of lives and resources". I just had a friend that I went to high school with come back and tell me all about how the Iraqi's "thank us". I am not discounting that some do actually approve of what we are doing and thank us but its not a united front. I am proud of soldiers that heed the call, even if the call is given by some lying POS politician. They go and do their job regardless and that is admirable on any level. but you will never sell me or the people of this country on this war, North Korea would have been 10X's more believable than this steaming pile of BS, it was never even supposed to be about democracy in first place, it was supposed to be about WMD's, guess we should just try installing democracy's everywhere, whether they work for those people or not eh?
February 13, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
open_eyes et al, I'm not an economist, but I sure have done a lot of reading of late with regard to that discipline. I know open_eyes kept asking when? How long? I found a special report from Casey Research that I have yet to complete reading but will today. It's 9 pages long, and I even printed it out because I want to study this report. Here are a couple of teasers:
What the economy needed
in 1933, and what it needs even more so now, is vast
deleveraging: using assets to pay down debt. Like a
household with finite income and too many credit
cards, there comes a time when the piper has to be paid.
Getting more credit cards only temporarily makes the
problem go away, and surely makes it worse.
The time will come, and probably during 2009, that
the only way the U.S will be able to fund its deficits
is to create money by printing
it. The Treasury will have to sell
bonds, and, in the absence of
foreign buyers, the Fed will have
to print the money to buy them.
The consequence will be runaway
inflation, increasing interest rates,
recession, and inevitable tax
increases on all Americans.
The era of runaway U.S. consumerism is over, and
the piper is demanding payment for past American
overindulgence — at a time when the U.S. government
itself is broke.
Finally, here is the last paragraph in this report:
But, as always in times of crisis, investment opportunity
will exist. In a political economy, there will be plenty
of opportunities to take advantage of distortions
introduced by misallocation of assets by government;
certain sectors will boom while most others collapse.
And as always, the best opportunities will be not where
the herd goes, but where the well-informed go.
So, we need to keep well-informed. Here's the link:
http://caseyresearch.com/pdfs/2009011...
February 13, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy
You do sound like a liberal, read your posts. That's what we have to go by. I am not going to just take your word for it when you say you're not, sorry I don't know you well enough.
Please don't call me sir, I work for a living.
This discussion is about Obama's stimulus package and whether it should be rushed ,carefully thoughtfully implemented, or implemented at all. Bush wasn't in the discussion until you brought him up. Does that not seem like something a liberal would do?
But since you brought up Bush, one of the reasons people hate Bush is because he lied to the American people. Did Obama not lie when he promised no passed pork from his desk? Another reason people hate Bush is, he used scare tactics to get things done. Isn't Obama doing the same thing with trying to push the package through? Your response to this will tell the tale.
February 13, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"They are terrorists but I don't think they are totally brainless. I think the totally brainless are the naïve far left, right here in America."
I think the totally brainless are the ones that are convinced that Iraq is the one that attacked us. Bin laden claimed responsibility, no one has ever proved that Saddam was in league with him, Al Queda is in Iraq because America decided to dangle our soldiers right in front of their very noses. Why come over here to kill Americans when you can drive few hundred miles? Never mind the fact that by occupying Iraq, part of their "holy land" we only strengthen their resolve to hate us even more, its like teasing a mad dog and wondering why it bites you. This is not a right or left thing, its a common sense thing, we were after WMD's, there were none, now all of a sudden it's about democracy, tell me this, if this war was started on that predicate do you think it would have gotten the votes, I think not.
The numbers
war cost= approx 875 billion
war cost estimates to our economy= 3 trillion
TARP Bailout that has done jack and ***=700 billion
Bush stimulus=170 billion
so about 4.75 trillion on the repub watch?
Brainless would be not seeing that this all was steaming pile, pretty funny that both the right and left can agree on that.
February 13, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The Dems listed above are all big boys (and girls), adults, they are responsible for their own votes, especially those that had privy to the much of the same intelligence information that Bush had. Apparently none of them were as smart as you, goodoleboy (who among this planet, politician or otherwise, apparently is?). I don't see too many Repubs being strong-armed into this stimulus bill, going along with the wishes of the Messiah.
America recovered, did it not - is about as lame as it gets, I knew that would be thrown out there again. The more I dig into it, the more economists & evidence I find that support the belief that America would have recovered much sooner had FDR's massive spending/deficit policies not been put in place.
By your thinking, EVERYTHING works. Because eventually everything turns around, sooner or later. If we go into a depression for 6 months or 20 years, eventually we will recover, and come out of it, and you will say "America recovered, did it not, or did someone wave a magic wand and make it go away", so therefor it doesn't matter WHAT Obama does, because whatever he does...... it will work. Next time I get a cold I'll just have a witch doctor chant over me, eventually when the cold goes away I'll give him all the credit, because.... "I recovered, did I not?" LOL. EVERYTHING works. All you gotta do is wait it out long enough.
Dang, my house sure is cold today. Normally I would turn up the heat, but instead I think I'll open the fridge & spread ice cubes all over the room. Some might claim my actions will PROLONG the coldness, but I'm willing to bet by July my house will be nice & toasty, so, hey, at that time, I'll just say "It recovered, did it not??" My ice cubes worked! Nobody waved a magic wand! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Democracy in this country at one time was a fairy tale. And it was by no means a united front. We should have thrown in the towel long ago.
I'm not trying to "sell" anyone on this war. Get over it. The best thing to do now, is to figure out the best way to exit it. The BEST way, not the WORST way. (And don't forget Libya when you throw out the WMD argument).
Thanks for the info & link create, good find. Nice to read reason on here again.
February 13, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thoughtful post, goodoleboy. Yeah, the Iraqis thank us because they still have their oil. In the meantime, we have spent precious lives and tons of money on their "democracy."
February 13, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
No I brought up Bush because I am sick of the blatantly obvious right wingers here that sit here and rip on a guy that has been in office less than a month like has was Bush. And still fail to realize that Bush was a bad president.
Lets get this straight, I don't like a lot of the provisions in the stimulus either, but I am not gonna start declaring that the man is destroying America, and making us communistic. Hell a lot of what the incumbent did was in fact communistic in nature yet nothing is said about that.
Facts are facts
Our deficit was 5.6 trillion in 2000, in 2008 it was 11.3 trillion, that over an %100 increase. There is not any left or right in there, it is raw numbers that tell the tale.
PS I fail to see how calling a fellow "sir' is derogatory term. It is sign of mutual respect among gentlemen. But to each his own I guess.
February 13, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"The Dems listed above are all big boys (and girls), adults, they are responsible for their own votes, especially those that had privy to the much of the same intelligence information that Bush had. Apparently none of them were as smart as you, goodoleboy (who among this planet, politician or otherwise, apparently is?). I don't see too many Repubs being strong-armed into this stimulus bill, going along with the wishes of the Messiah."
It has nothing to do with me or my intelligence, stop being so coy. I dunno if remember but at that time everyone in America wanted revenge, wanted justice and Bush used that to get the war enacted. I agree they are big boys and girls and should have voted no, but they made their minds up to follow their president even though they did not agree with him(and I doubt they had all the intel he did). None of that still changes the fact it was WRONG. If you remember there were people, and journalists and others that said it was wrong and they were cast off as "traitors" and "unpatriotic" by everyone screaming for justice, there were a hell of a lot more people out there than just me that thought it a bad idea. Damn me for actually following through on my convictions. Wish all those right wingers denouncing this bill would have done the same with the TARP bill, at least this one will actually help a few folks making less then 6 figure salaries. But hey they are big boys and girls right?
As for your argument on that past, we been though this, we can toss analogies all day, you have your research I have mine, I'll agree to disagree because neither of us are winning this one.
February 13, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Using a pure number as our deficit really doesn't make sense given the size of our economy. Small countries don't measure their deficit against ours. Larger economies can absorb much larger deficits. Any economist will tell you that comparing deficits is meaningless unless you compare it to the size of the economy. Gee, if only we had deficits like we had..... back when we only had 13 states....
Oh, and when you say nothing was said about much of what the incumbent did...... don't forget about the many things here said about what the incumbent did. Apparently you just joined these boards recently, and didn't read the many complaints about TARP when it was first proposed. Or have a very short memory. Or selective, at least.
This came out in 2006.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqi-of...
I also have an article somewhere (can't find it right at this second) detailing how vast numbers of barrels of all the chemicals needed to mix together for many WMD's were found at agricultural places & bases throughout Iraq, labeled as "pesticides". None of them had any use as pesticides, however, and by themselves were fairly innocuous, but they were all the ingredients needed. Many of them were in military installations... what did they need with vast amounts of "pesticides" in the middle of the desert?
But, once again, I let myself be dragged off course. Yes, many of us here (even though we don't think of Republicans as "precious", as you refer to them) - are criticizing Obama, & his plans, & predicting doom & gloom. And when he says one thing and does another, we point it out. We are not part of the media lovefest with him, like, for instance, Patrick Kelley. But to the best of my recollection, nobody has labeled him Satan, resorted to name-calling (other than the Messiah). And even those criticizing have still said they certainly hope this works.
Quite a different tone than what we've been accustomed to for 8 years. Or are we not allowed to criticize now? Once they get the "Fairness Doctrine" back in, we probably won't, so we better do it inow.
February 13, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I also have an article somewhere (can't find it right at this second) detailing how vast numbers of barrels of all the chemicals needed to mix together for many WMD's were found at agricultural places & bases throughout Iraq, labeled as "pesticides". None of them had any use as pesticides, however, and by themselves were fairly innocuous, but they were all the ingredients needed. Many of them were in military installations... what did they need with vast amounts of "pesticides" in the middle of the desert?"
Per the title of this article then "Too much of a rush?". Maybe we should have thought about it a little more, we knew a few others likely had the same if not worse capabilities, lets invade them too then after we fail we can sell those invasions to the people on the basis of installing democracy.
February 13, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Using a pure number as our deficit really doesn't make sense given the size of our economy. Small countries don't measure their deficit against ours. Larger economies can absorb much larger deficits. Any economist will tell you that comparing deficits is meaningless unless you compare it to the size of the economy. Gee, if only we had deficits like we had..... back when we only had 13 states...."
So what do you want to do, adjust it for inflation? Measure it according to GDP?
Under the Bush Administration, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent,[considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000.
So with that in mind our deficit sky rockets? Almost makes you wonder if the guy wanted to start a war to try a stimulate the economy. Pure number or not a %100 increase in deficit is absolutely horrible, any business doing this would be dead and gone long ago.
February 13, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That's the whole point of the article. Let's not rush. Since spending like there's no tomorrow has not worked in the past, (I'm going with the economists, not you) let's spend like crazy too then after it fails we can sell that spending to the people on the basis of saving the economy.
(And don't forget Libya).
But I still hope it works. I have no choice, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Of course, it may take 20 years, but according to your logic, there is no failure. Whenever we come out of it, then it worked. So I guess I need to quit worrying. I'm so relieved now - LOL
February 13, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Apparently you just joined these boards recently, and didn't read the many complaints about TARP when it was first proposed. Or have a very short memory. Or selective, at least."
Not selective in the slightest, I remember reading it, I just think it kinda odd how that bill at 700 billion did next to nothing, but now everyone on the right is opposing this new bill that bloated as it may be will actually do something for "Main Street". All I can say is that if it works this will be death the of republican party in this country, they will have no credibility left to run on period, and that is not good at all for this country.
February 13, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"But I still hope it works. I have no choice, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Of course, it may take 20 years, but according to your logic, there is no failure. Whenever we come out of it, then it worked. So I guess I need to quit worrying. I'm so relieved now - LOL"
Ever stop to think it might just take 20 years because it just will? Short of another dot com like boom or something to like I a prepared to accept that it will, its min boggling I know, but the fact is NO ONE knows just what it will take or how long, else everyone could be so relieved.
February 13, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, measure the deficit according to GDP. Just like the economists do.
And I agree. I'm not happy about the deficits Bush ran up. Or that he started spending like a liberal. But I'm NOT going to blame him for the price of rice in China.
Wanted to start a war to stimulate the economy. Hmm.... good thought. Except you constantly complain about all that spending being wasted, killing our economy/adding to our deficit. Which is it? Are you now trying to say that wars are good for economies?
Back to the point of the article....
I'm just curious as to why we were all supposed to get our knickers in a bind over the size of Bush's deficit, and we're all supposed to look the other way and be accepting of Obama's which will soon dwarf Bush's. If I had my knickers in a bind over Bush's, then I should have it them in an even bigger bind over Obama's. NOT the other way around. Remember your "let's point fingers both ways fairly" statement?
February 13, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, then lets not do anything. About anything. Ever. 2 years, 10, 20, 50. It doesn't matter. Things eventually work themselves out. None of us can predict the future. Hey, if Iran nukes Israel, and 500,000 years from now, after the radiation dies down, and the state of Israel rises once again, then letting Iran get nukes worked. After all, it might take half a million years - because it just will.
In the meantime, a few of us are going to go ahead and try to find better/best ways of doing things, and, I know you hate to hear this, but... yes.... maybe even try to learn from past history.
I think some that were for the $700 billion are now realizing that it didn't work. And have decided that throwing gasoline on a fire isn't really the best way to put it out.
And then there are some who think we just didn't use enough gasoline......
February 13, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Explain how Obama's deficit will dwarf Bush's? TARP is almost equal to the bill on the floor now, tie that in with costs still being incurred to the war which should be attributed to the last administration. The budget was shot to hell before he ever took office, I am not defending the spending but I fail to see how it will "dwarf' what Bush did, I don't have a crystal ball for that.
February 13, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
The biggest spendning bill in our history "has" to be rushed through immediately. It is 1500 pages long and was not released in time for Congress to read it. Speaker Pelosi has to catch a plane to go to Europe, so it must be voted on today! Never mind that President elect Obama said that his administration would be open and that he would wait 5 days before signing any bill to give the public time to respond to the legislation. Oh well, it's business as usual with our government. The FDA is too busy collecting it's bloated paycheck to monitor our food production. The SEC and company is allowing rampant ignoring of our regulations and rampant manipulation of our markets. They must be too busy collecting their bloated paychecks, also. Maybe that's not the whole reason. Our government is full of Wall Street and federal reserve insiders that have contributed greatly to our problems. I doubt that they want to look too close at what they are doing. Be nice little sheople.
February 13, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Well, then lets not do anything. About anything. Ever. 2 years, 10, 20, 50. It doesn't matter. Things eventually work themselves out. None of us can predict the future. Hey, if Iran nukes Israel, and 500,000 years from now, after the radiation dies down, and the state of Israel rises once again, then letting Iran get nukes worked. After all, it might take half a million years - because it just will."
Rant much? All I said is that it might very take a long time to pull out of this, if someone comes up with a better way I am all for it. But to date I have not seen that many theories on alternate ways to make this it happen, just doom and gloom and criticism.
"I think some that were for the $700 billion are now realizing that it didn't work. And have decided that throwing gasoline on a fire isn't really the best way to put it out."
Blank checks are not the best way to handle things, maybe they realized that handing out money with virtually no string to the greedy bastards that started this is a bad idea, yeah I'll buy that.
February 13, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think we've seen theories on better ways to make this happen. QUIT spending like there's no tomorrow. (referring to both us AND the government, not just us). But, the doom and gloom, is that it's gonna happen, no matter what. We no longer have a choice in the matter. At least not for a couple more years. It may take a very long time, nobody knows for sure.
But at least I think we have learned a few things from history (sorry). Like don't write blank checks. More stringent oversights (funny how it was wrong when Bush proposed it in 2003, but now its the right thing to do). But in other ways we haven't. We complain about the fat cats spending government money to remodel offices, but look at how many remodeling of government buildings are in this pork. Why is it any different?
It seems alot of the same old same old, just with a new label slapped on it, and we're supposed to swallow it.
I found an interesting article - excerpt in my next post:
February 13, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
http://history.searchbeat.com/greatde...
The Great Depression is the period of history that followed "Black Thursday", the stock market crash of Thursday, October 24, 1929. The events in the United States triggered a world-wide depression, which led to deflation and a great increase in unemployment.
Many economists argue that the Great Depression was both caused and prolonged by government action. Richard Rahn wrote, "After the stock market crash in 1929, government revenues fell because of the drop in economic activity. The Hoover administration and the Congress increased taxes in a futile attempt to balance the budget. The tax increase only caused a further drop in economic activity, which enlarged the deficit even more.
Although the initial trigger event may not have been the result of government action, many have argued that incorrect economic policies turned the stock market crash from a momentary crisis into a decade long depression. In particular two policies have been singled out by economists.
The first is the tight money policies of the Federal Reserve which restricted the money supply. The second was the recourse to protectionism with measures such as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on imports in order to protect local producers who were being hurt by foreign competition. In response, many other countries also raised their tariffs, badly hurting US businesses that exported their goods. This led to a chain reaction of tariff increases which fragmented the world economy.
In the United States, Herbert Hoover was president, and he tried to do something about the situation without much luck. One of the major problems was that with deflation, the currency that you kept in your pocket could buy more goods as the prices went down. The other was that there had been no oversight in the stock market or other investments, and with the collapse, many of the stock and investment schemes were found to be either insolvent, or outright frauds. Unfortunately, many banks had invested in these schemes, and this precipitated a collapse of the banking system in 1932. With the banking system in shambles, and people holding on to whatever currency that they had, there was minimal cash available for any activities that would cause positive change.
In Germany unemployment increased drastically, fuelling widespread disillusionment and anger. Promising to fix the situation, Adolf Hitler took over the government there.
continued...
February 13, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
continued....
In 1933 the United States elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt to replace Hoover as president. With unemployment near twenty five percent of the workforce, he initiated a number of government programs to increase liquidity and provide jobs, which jointly are called the New Deal. Some believe that these actions helped bring the country out of the depression--though there is considerable controversy over the extent to which this is true--and provided some of the infrastructure, including roads that are still in use today.
Because the US was still in a state of depression when it entered World War II, it is hard to make a serious argument that the New Deal was a success. The reasons, however are open to debate. Some argue that the inherent instability of a market economy caused such a bad depression that even the well-chosen interventions of the New Deal could not correct it quickly. Others argue that because this longest depression in US history was also marked by the greatest degree of government intervention in US history, it is more reasonable to argue that government action worsened, rather than lessened, the severity of the depression.
It is known that Roosevelt's New Deal programs were initially struck down by the Supreme Court, so that his initial interventions in the economy were all halted. During this time the economy was on a slow improving trend. After the Court began to uphold his interventionist legislation, the economy took a sharp downward dip, which has been called a depression within a depression, from which it was only slowly recovering when the US entered WWII. Thus it is claimed that his intervention delayed the economic recovery that had been underway. This argument is supported by the fact that his programs significantly increased business costs and uncertainty about future government interventions, thus inhibiting business investment and hiring.
Many believe that it was government-induced World War II spending that restarted world-wide economic expansion, but this is at best only partly true. Germany and Italy had "recovered" prior to WWII by making massive military and infrastructure investments. The US moved to full employment during WWII through massive military investments, but also by shifting a very large percentage of the potential work force into the military. While this was necessary, it meant the US economy had not returned to natural market conditions, and when the war ended a period of readjustment was necessary when millions of soldiers returned home. One of the purposes of the G.I. Bill was to ease this transition. In countries such as France, England and the Netherlands, of course, the war caused tremendous harm, rather than being a source of economic revival. While war is always profitable to particular businesses, it causes social and economic dislocations that outweigh any stimulus effects it might have.
February 13, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy
"Hell a lot of what the incumbent did was in fact communistic in nature yet nothing is said about that."
I do believe I have said things very similar to this and stated that is why I voted for Chuck Baldwin. I do however hold out hope for the Republican party(Bobby Jindal 2012!!!!!!!!!!!).
"PS I fail to see how calling a fellow "sir' is derogatory term. It is sign of mutual respect among gentlemen. But to each his own I guess."
It's a military thing.
You aren't really making a good argument for the whole not being a liberal thing with your spewing of venom about all the right wingers. At least us right wingers are honest about who we are.
Bush is indeed Obama's left hand man. It's a magicians trick to make you look at their left hand while they do something to trick you with their right. As long as the memory of Bush is fresh in our minds everything is OK in comparison so we can't critique anything else. This is what I predicted would happen, I was hoping I was wrong but apparently not. To be fair it's not Obama that is using this method as much as it is his blind followers.
Bush was not given a free pass to do what he pleased without criticism and he shouldn't have been. I personally don't believe Obama should be either.
Can we get back on topic now?
February 13, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moving to a news forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
February 13, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )