Obama: Nation can't afford bickering over stimulus

[red states rule]

So objecting to the pork and political payoffs is now considered "bickering"

Pres Obama may want to look at polls showing support for the mega pork bill is falling as the voters learn what is in it



Obama: Nation can't afford bickering over stimulus
Christina Bellantoni

Saturday, January 31, 2009

President Obama Saturday morning called on the Senate to quickly pass his more than $825 billion economic stimulus plan, saying Americans "have little patience" for political bickering and noting that while the bill isn't perfect, it can jumpstart job creation.

Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address it is "good news" the U.S. House passed his bill this week, though he did not mention that zero Republicans voted for it.

"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk. With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington," he said.

The president said the measure will "begin the long, hard work of lifting our economy out of this crisis," but added, "No one bill, no matter how comprehensive, can cure what ails our economy. So just as we jumpstart job creation, we must also ensure that markets are stable, credit is flowing, and families can stay in their homes."

Mr. Obama used the address to announce that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner soon will lay out his plan for the more than $300 billion remaining of the financial bailout package Congress passed late last year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/31/obama-nation-cant-afford-bickering-over-stimulus/

[PostmodernProphet]

lords.....what the nation can't afford is the stimulus.....

[Kathianne]

So objecting to the pork and political payoffs is now considered "bickering"

Pres Obama may want to look at polls showing support for the mega pork bill is falling as the voters learn what is in it



Obama: Nation can't afford bickering over stimulus
Christina Bellantoni

Saturday, January 31, 2009

President Obama Saturday morning called on the Senate to quickly pass his more than $825 billion economic stimulus plan, saying Americans "have little patience" for political bickering and noting that while the bill isn't perfect, it can jumpstart job creation.

Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address it is "good news" the U.S. House passed his bill this week, though he did not mention that zero Republicans voted for it.

"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk. With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington," he said.

The president said the measure will "begin the long, hard work of lifting our economy out of this crisis," but added, "No one bill, no matter how comprehensive, can cure what ails our economy. So just as we jumpstart job creation, we must also ensure that markets are stable, credit is flowing, and families can stay in their homes."

Mr. Obama used the address to announce that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner soon will lay out his plan for the more than $300 billion remaining of the financial bailout package Congress passed late last year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/31/obama-nation-cant-afford-bickering-over-stimulus/

No, the problem is coming from the time frame, see if the people know what they are really talking about, they will be pissed, so push the damn thing on through...

[red states rule]

No, the problem is coming from the time frame, see if the people know what they are really talking about, they will be pissed, so push the damn thing on through...

Kathy,one of the big big selling points on the bailout is that the infrastructure and green tech, gets little of the overall funding - compared to the huge checks being given to state governments and social programs

The truth is not living up to the hype

[Kathianne]

Kathy,one of the big big selling points on the bailout is that the infrastructure and green tech, gets little of the overall funding - compared to the huge checks being given to state governments and social programs

The truth is not living up to the hype

Terry, though I appreciate your educating me, my point still stands. Obama wishes to get this passed through quickly, before the masses actually understand it.

[red states rule]

Terry, though I appreciate your educating me, my point still stands. Obama wishes to get this passed through quickly, before the masses actually understand it.

Not trying to educate you Kat - I agree

and the polls prove you right


snip

Public support for the economic recovery plan crafted by President Obama and congressional Democrats has slipped a bit over the past week. At the same time, expectations that the plan will quickly become law have increased.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan, roughly one-third of which is tax cuts with the rest new government spending. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% are opposed to it and 19% are undecided. Liberal voters overwhelmingly support the plan while conservatives are strongly opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to _42

[theHawk]

"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk. With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington," he said.



In other words, "it was fine when we used partisan posturing against Bush, but now I'm in charge so its not."

[avatar4321]

You know, its disturbing when politicians presume that we cant discuss and debatewhat they plan on doing to. Its a clear sign that they are up to something no good.

[hjmick]

Seems to me that we can't afford not to argue over the stimulus. That bloody thing is so loaded up with pork it borders on silly. According to Peggy Noonan, a WSJ analysis says that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.

[red states rule]

Seems to me that we can't afford not to argue over the stimulus. That bloody thing is so loaded up with pork it borders on silly. According to Peggy Noonan, a WSJ analysis says that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.

There is so much pork in that bill, even the people in Saudi Arabia are holding their noses

[Kathianne]

Seems to me that we can't afford not to argue over the stimulus. That bloody thing is so loaded up with pork it borders on silly. According to Peggy Noonan, a WSJ analysis says that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.

Borders? However nothing really silly about it, if it passes many a tear will be shed.

[Yurt]

There is so much pork in that bill, even the people in Saudi Arabia are holding their noses

:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

There is so much pork in that bill, even the people in Saudi Arabia are holding their noses

omigorsh.....I think we just stumbled on the reason no devout Muslim could ever become a Congressman......proximity to pork......

[Joe Steel]

So objecting to the pork and political payoffs is now considered "bickering"

Pres Obama may want to look at polls showing support for the mega pork bill is falling as the voters learn what is in it



Obstructing economic rescue is treason.

What do you think the polls will say about that?

[red states rule]

Obstructing economic rescue is treason.

What do you think the polls will say about that?


What do I have to say? The more people learn what is int his mega pork bill, the less they like it

snip

Public support for the economic recovery plan crafted by President Obama and congressional Democrats has slipped a bit over the past week. At the same time, expectations that the plan will quickly become law have increased.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan, roughly one-third of which is tax cuts with the rest new government spending. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% are opposed to it and 19% are undecided. Liberal voters overwhelmingly support the plan while conservatives are strongly opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to _42

[PostmodernProphet]

Obstructing economic rescue is treason.

What do you think the polls will say about that?

right now they say the majority don't think the stimulus package is "economic rescue".......

[5stringJeff]

Obstructing economic rescue is treason.

What do you think the polls will say about that?

In your world, disagreeing with the party line is treason. Don't you have a gulag to guard somewhere?

[red states rule]

In your world, disagreeing with the party line is treason. Don't you have a gulag to guard somewhere?

Joe and others must have forgot about this

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”

It was screamed by Hillary Clinton

[Joe Steel]

What do I have to say?

You can say Rasmussen is just a rightwing hack.

The truth is:


1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.

2) When pollsters also provide an explicit "do not have an opinion" option, as NBC/Wall Street Journal and (presumably) Rasmussen do, support falls to the mid-40 percent range and (on the NBC/WSJ poll at least) opposition also falls proportionately.

3) When the questions provide more information on how the $800 billion (or so) will be spent, usually specifying a combination of tax cuts and transportation, education and energy projects," support grows to mid-60 low-70 percent range.

4) Only one question -- again from NBC/Wall Street Journal -- poses explicit arguments for and against the proposal, and it produces a slightly higher level of support (57%) than the first category of questions that mention only the overall price tag and omits a specific prompt for "no opinion."

5) Every question shows net support for the proposal.

Economic Stimulus and the Many Faces of "Public Opinion" (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/economic_stimulus_and_the_many.php)

[Joe Steel]

Joe and others must have forgot about this

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”

It was screamed by Hillary Clinton

Dissent and debate is patriotic. Distortion and deceit isn't.

[red states rule]

You can say Rasmussen is just a rightwing hack.

The truth is:

You can say it - I won't

and I guess you will dismiss the CBO report as biased as well


Here’s the e-mail the CBO debuty director sent out last night:

From: Bob Sunshine
Subject: CBO Cost Estimate for House Stimulus Bill (H.R. 1)
Sent: Jan 26, 2009 9:56 PM

This evening, CBO released a cost estimate for H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was introduced today in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1 would specify appropriations for a wide range of federal programs and would increase or extend certain benefits payable under the Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and nutrition assistance programs. The legislation also would reduce individual and corporate income tax collections and make a variety of other changes to tax laws.

Assuming enactment in mid-February, CBO estimates that the bill would increase outlays by $92 billion during the remaining several months of fiscal year 2009, by $225 billion in fiscal year 2010 (which begins on October 1), by $159 billion in 2011, and by a total of $604 billion over the 2009-2019 period. That spending includes outlays from discretionary appropriations in Division A of the bill and direct spending resulting from Division B.

In addition, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the provisions in Division B would reduce revenues by $76 billion in fiscal year 2009, by $131 billion in fiscal year 2010, and by a net of $212 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

In combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $169 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in 2010, by $174 billion in 2011, and by $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

The budgetary impact of the bill stems primarily from three types of transactions: Direct payments to individuals (such as unemployment benefits), reductions in federal taxes, and purchases of goods and services (either by the federal government directly or indirectly via grants to states and local governments). CBO estimates that impacts from the first two categories of transactions would occur fairly rapidly. In the third category, CBO estimates slower rates of spending than historical full-year spending rates in 2009 for a number of reasons:

The bill’s enactment would likely occur nearly half way through the fiscal year. Previous experience suggest that agencies have difficulty rapidly expanding existing programs while maintaining current services; the funding in H.R. 1 for some programs is substantially greater than the usual annual funding for those activities. Spending can be delayed by necessary lags for planning, soliciting bids, entering contracts, and conducting regulatory or environmental reviews. Agencies face additional challenges in spending funds for new programs quickly because of the time necessary to develop procedures and criteria, issue regulations, and review plans and proposals before money can be distributed. Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in funding and resulting increases in outlays. Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, states, and other recipients of funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to spend added funds quickly as they expend their normal resources. The seasonal nature of some spending also affects the speed at which activities can be conducted; for example, major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid disrupting classes.

This is the first cost estimate that CBO has prepared for H.R. 1 in its entirety. A previous preliminary estimate that has been widely cited addressed only the budgetary impacts of an earlier version of the provisions contained in Division A, at the request of the House Committee on Appropriations.

The CBO cost estimate can be found on our Web site at:
link

Bob Sunshine Deputy Director
Congressional Budget Office


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf

[Joe Steel]

You can say it - I won't

and I guess you will dismiss the CBO report as biased as well

Here’s the e-mail the CBO debuty director sent out last night:

From: Bob Sunshine
Subject: CBO Cost Estimate for House Stimulus Bill (H.R. 1)
Sent: Jan 26, 2009 9:56 PM



This is just a an analysis of the spending.

What's the point?

[red states rule]

This is just a an analysis of the spending.

What's the point?

IF you would have read the report, it shows how much of the pork is back loaded and wil not enter the economy until 2010

Here is another source -



http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/stimulus28/stimulus28.jpg

The pace of spending as well as the package's size has made it difficult for Republicans to support Obama on his first legislative effort. They complain that the package includes too much spending, not enough tax cuts and not enough jobs.

When Obama used patriotic terms to defend the inclusion of $200 million to spruce up the National Mall in a closed meeting Tuesday with House Republicans, Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois told him he shouldn't "wrap yourself in the flag," according to Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.

Republicans have pounced on that proposal, along with money for the National Endowment for the Arts and to help Americans convert to digital TV, as spending run amok. Obama agreed to remove expanded family planning, even though the CBO estimated it would save $700 million, to meet GOP objections.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pushed back Tuesday after Obama's two meetings with House and Senate Republicans. "You can make a very credible case … that reconditioning the National Mall will create jobs, probably through spending in small businesses," he said.

However, late Tuesday, the $200 million appropriation for the Mall was dropped from the House bill, Politico reported.

The administration defends the longer-term proposals as necessary. "We also must look to the future and begin the process of reinvesting in priorities like clean energy, education, health care and infrastructure, so that the United States can enhance its long-term growth and thrive in the 21st century," White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a letter to House leaders.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-27-stimulus_N.htm

[Joe Steel]

IF you would have read the report, it shows how much of the pork is back loaded and wil not enter the economy until 2010

Here is another source -



Boil it down. What's your point?

Are you saying the public doesn't support the stimulus because the benefits don't come soon enough?

Would they support it if the benefits were immediate?

[red states rule]

Boil it down. What's your point?

Are you saying the public doesn't support the stimulus because the benefits don't come soon enough?

Would they support it if the benefits were immediate?

Joe, are you playing dumb, or are you really that dumb

The more the publics sees the pork and BS in this bill - the less they support it. Thanks to talk radio and the internet, the truth about what is in this bill is getting out. that is why Dems wanted to rush it through before people could find out what is in it

Obama said the goal was to rebuild roads and bridges - yet about 3% of the $1 trillion goes for that purpose

Most of the spending is back loaded. It will not happen until 2010. How will that help now?

[avatar4321]

Dissent and debate is patriotic. Distortion and deceit isn't.

So you finally admit your unpatriotic.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, are you playing dumb, or are you really that dumb

The more the publics sees the pork and BS in this bill - the less they support it. Thanks to talk radio and the internet, the truth about what is in this bill is getting out. that is why Dems wanted to rush it through before people could find out what is in it

Obama said the goal was to rebuild roads and bridges - yet about 3% of the $1 trillion goes for that purpose

Most of the spending is back loaded. It will not happen until 2010. How will that help now?

The data say you're wrong.

Some spending will be immediate. Some will be deferred. We get some benefit now and some later. What don't you understand?

[red states rule]

The data say you're wrong.

Some spending will be immediate. Some will be deferred. We get some benefit now and some later. What don't you understand?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/stimulus28/stimulus28.jpg

We have a $14 trillion economy

Look how much is spent now

Most of that are handouts lie food stamps and unemplyment benefits

Not much help for the economy

[Joe Steel]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/stimulus28/stimulus28.jpg

We have a $14 trillion economy

Look how much is spent now

Most of that are handouts lie food stamps and unemplyment benefits

Not much help for the economy

Completely wrong.

Food stamps and unemployment benefits are the best kind of stimulus; the money goes to persons who will spend it. That's the whole point of stimulus.

[bullypulpit]

Why do you and your fellow travelers hate America, Red?

Tax-cuts are all well and good, but more and more are people losing jobs and, you know, if they're losing paychecks to have their taxes reduced on tax cuts become irrelevant.

And there's this...

<blockquote>In 2008, 4.2 million Americans had to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Republican proposal would lower marginal tax rates for individuals, but would not reduce AMT rates. Current law requires you to pay the greater of the two rates, so many of those receiving this lower marginal rate would now be held liable for the AMT.

There is no question that Congress needs to — and will — act to prevent the number of taxpayers hit by the AMT from growing to an estimated 26 million this year. However, we confirmed with the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation that 26 million people would still be forced to pay the AMT this year under the GOP bill. Essentially, their tax bill would give with one hand and take away with the other, leaving 26 million families without the tax cut they promised in their bill. - Matthew Beck, House Ways and Means</blockquote>

[GW in Ohio]

My thoughts on the stimulus package?

1. The Republicans are completely off base in holding out for tax cuts. We can't do tax cuts at a time when we're asking the federal government to fund an economic turnaround. My guess is these guys have so little they can identify as a "GOP position" that they're clinging to this tax cut thing 'cause they're so bereft of ideas. I do believe tax cuts can stimulate an economy that is basically healthy. But this is hardly a healthy economy.

2. The Democrats are including entitlement spending in the bill, like health care stuff. Yeah, we need health care for people, but a higher priority right now is getting people back to work. The Dems need to lay that stuff aside for now. Entitlements are a drain on the economy for years to come. Save them for when the recovery happens.

3. We need to get behind a stimulus plan now. Both Republicans and Democrats (but especially Republicans) need to cut out the partisan posturing and wrangling and get a plan in place. The longer they delay, the more people will lose their jobs. Tax cuts and health care entitlements are less important than putting people back to work.

[PostmodernProphet]

We can't do tax cuts at a time when we're asking the federal government to fund an economic turnaround.

???....here is your error....the Democrats want to do an economic turnaround by spending money we don't have on projects that won't stimulate the economy......the Republicans want to do an economic turnaround by reducing the amount taken FROM the economy which WILL stimulate the economy....we aren't asking for tax cuts INSTEAD OF an economic turnaround....



We need to get behind a stimulus plan now. Both Republicans and Democrats (but especially Republicans) need to cut out the partisan posturing and wrangling and get a plan in place.

both cutting taxes and increasing government spending are stimulus plans....the difference is, your's won't work, our's will......

[PostmodernProphet]

And there's this...

<blockquote>In 2008, 4.2 million Americans had to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Republican proposal would lower marginal tax rates for individuals, but would not reduce AMT rates. Current law requires you to pay the greater of the two rates, so many of those receiving this lower marginal rate would now be held liable for the AMT.

There is no question that Congress needs to — and will — act to prevent the number of taxpayers hit by the AMT from growing to an estimated 26 million this year. However, we confirmed with the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation that 26 million people would still be forced to pay the AMT this year under the GOP bill. Essentially, their tax bill would give with one hand and take away with the other, leaving 26 million families without the tax cut they promised in their bill. - Matthew Beck, House Ways and Means</blockquote>


are you pretending that the Democratic plan cuts AMT or any other tax?.....the solution is simple....cut taxes even more by enacting changes to AMT.....

[Classact]

Here's what I'd do... The problem with our system of capitalism is government has mixed compassion into government and it has the same result as was experienced in early America... go to the link and scroll down to What happened? (a couple inches on the sidebar and read http://mises.org/story/336

To compound the problem of compassion in government the government has encouraged "non-productive" members of society to vote, this causes a race to the bottom and reverses the hard work ethic necessary to support capitalism.

Government should not issue out compassion, compassion should be left for family, church and community so they can sort out the lazy bastards not deserving of compassion. Build you home below sea level, beside a river that floods, on an earthquake fault, beside a volcano then buy insurance from an insurance company and not look to the government to bail you out.

The dumbest thing in the world is the government setting a minimum wage, it is establishing a false wage. Look to third world bartering systems that look more like the NY Stock Exchange for setting the value of a product or service. If a wage doesn't rise to a living wage it is because the government has caused it to happen. In the case of America we allow third world labor to enter our workforce by the millions that are willing to work for less than a living wage and it trickles up the food chain of the working class. Business loves cheap labor so they encourage the government to allow illegal workers, the government loves to dole out compassion for votes so they pass out gifts to illegal workers and allow them to vote for them. The cure is enforcement of employment law, no fences necessary, just send an employer to jail for a couple decades that hires an illegal worker and the illegal’s will all run back to their homeland. Then the legal workers can compete like the third world or NY stock exchange with the employer as to the wage they will perform the task and it trickles up the working class with no minimum wage necessary.

The only other thing that needs changing is the Wimpy rule; remember Popeye cartoon and Wimpy that would gladly pay Tuesday for a hamburger today? Law needs to be perfected that limits credit to poor people, poor people should not use credit because credit is like a tax. If you are poor then you cannot afford to give 20% of your income to a bank or financial institution because that makes you even poorer. Require all credit to be backed by collateral and the poor would be 20% richer.

[GW in Ohio]

???....here is your error....the Democrats want to do an economic turnaround by spending money we don't have on projects that won't stimulate the economy......the Republicans want to do an economic turnaround by reducing the amount taken FROM the economy which WILL stimulate the economy....we aren't asking for tax cuts INSTEAD OF an economic turnaround....



both cutting taxes and increasing government spending are stimulus plans....the difference is, your's won't work, our's will......

Actually, the difference is, the Democrats' stimulus package will be the one that gets passed. It's in the Senate now, and enough GOP senators will vote for it (after getting concessions) to pass it.

And all those GOP clowns in the House who voted against it will be seen as vulnerable obstructionists if it starts to succeed by the 2010 elections.

[PostmodernProphet]

And all those GOP clowns in the House who voted against it will be seen as vulnerable obstructionists if it starts to succeed by the 2010 elections.

funny.....the folks who voted against TARP don't look like "obstructionist" clowns at the moment.....they look like folks who were a heck of a lot smarter than the idiots who voted FOR it......

[OCA]

our's will......

Its never worked in the past without running up a huge friggin deficit(don't say its spending by Demos that causes the deficit because Bush had a Repub congress for 6 years and in that 6 years he ran up a huge deficit).

So hows it going to work this time?

[red states rule]

Actually, the difference is, the Democrats' stimulus package will be the one that gets passed. It's in the Senate now, and enough GOP senators will vote for it (after getting concessions) to pass it.

And all those GOP clowns in the House who voted against it will be seen as vulnerable obstructionists if it starts to succeed by the 2010 elections.

Pork and political payoffs will not work. The cost per job is insane. One project has a cost per job of $10 million

How are the Republicans who voted against the bill obstructionists? In the House, Pelosi does not need a single Republican vote

Are the 11 Dems who voted against it also obstructionists?

[PostmodernProphet]

Its never worked in the past without running up a huge friggin deficit(don't say its spending by Demos that causes the deficit because Bush had a Repub congress for 6 years and in that 6 years he ran up a huge deficit).

So hows it going to work this time?

fool......so cutting taxes is going to run up a "big deficit" and spending a trillion dollars we don't have isn't?........and that Bush and Republican spending.....I remember the democrats complaining about all the budget "cuts" and the lack of spending during those six years.......they really wanted to reduce spending didn't they......lol........

[red states rule]

Can some lib out there explain exactly how this is change and why we should believe in it?

[red states rule]

Don't forget the $500,000.00 for a dog park in Sunset View Park!

[OCA]

fool......so cutting taxes is going to run up a "big deficit" and spending a trillion dollars we don't have isn't?........and that Bush and Republican spending.....I remember the democrats complaining about all the budget "cuts" and the lack of spending during those six years.......they really wanted to reduce spending didn't they......lol........


Fact is deficits have been ran up under Repub administrations and reduced to a surplus under Demo administrations.

Argue that one.

[OCA]

Fact is deficits have been ran up under Repub administrations and reduced to a surplus under Demo administrations.

Argue that one.

*the sounds of silence*

[red states rule]

*the sounds of silence*

speaking of sounds of silence :laugh2:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21174

[PostmodernProphet]

Fact is deficits have been ran up under Repub administrations and reduced to a surplus under Demo administrations.

Argue that one.

simply stated....between the Pelosi/Reid bailout of the banks and the auto industry and the new stimulus package, the Democrats are proposing to outspend the entire Bush administration in it's first month....

[Kathianne]

simply stated....between the Pelosi/Reid bailout of the banks and the auto industry and the new stimulus package, the Democrats are proposing to outspend the entire Bush administration in it's first month....

Actually thanks to GW, they started out tied, then are adding to it.

[OCA]

between the Pelosi/Reid bailout of the banks and the auto industry


Who proposed the bailout?:laugh2: I think your ideology is getting in the way of your facts.

[Yurt]

Who proposed the bailout?:laugh2: I think your ideology is getting in the way of your facts.

so this new bailout is all bush? is that your contention?

[DannyR]

so this new bailout is all bush? is that your contention?Trying to obfuscate the issue?

He was very clearly replying to the comment about the previous bank/auto industry bailout being owned by Pelosi/Reid... never mind it happened on Bush's watch too (and was strongly supported by him!)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/18/white-house-considers-managed-bankruptcy-automakers/

[OCA]

so this new bailout is all bush? is that your contention?


Who originated the idea of TARP? Oh yeah......................it was the Bush admin. Who took over portions of banks? (a socialist move if there ever was one) Oh yeah..................it was the Bush admin. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Who originated the idea of TARP? Oh yeah......................it was the Bush admin. Who took over portions of banks? (a socialist move if there ever was one) Oh yeah..................it was the Bush admin. :laugh2:

so obama and the dems have absolutely no responsibility for this new bailout? obama is not personally pushing this new bailout?

who gives a hoot if bush did it, obama does not have to push or implement this new bailout.

but i know, you libs love the: its bush's fault!!!!

[OCA]

so obama and the dems have absolutely no responsibility for this new bailout? obama is not personally pushing this new bailout?

who gives a hoot if bush did it, obama does not have to push or implement this new bailout.

but i know, you libs love the: its bush's fault!!!!

Yurt.................hiding from and obsucation of the truth is not an admireable trait.

I never took you for a total hack partisan like RSR or Kathianne but you are sure moving that way.

BTW the bill was passed and the money in the account before Obama took office, it has to be doled out.

[Yurt]

Yurt.................hiding from and obsucation of the truth is not an admireable trait.

I never took you for a total hack partisan like RSR or Kathianne but you are sure moving that way.

BTW the bill was passed and the money in the account before Obama took office, it has to be doled out.

i am talking about the current bailout, the one obama is pushing. it has not passed. how can you claim it has passed when obama is still pushing it? what are you talking about? i am real curious as to what you are talking about given your accusations.

i thought that was the topic of this thread, not bush's bailouts.

[OCA]

i am talking about the current bailout, the one obama is pushing. it has not passed. how can you claim it has passed when obama is still pushing it? what are you talking about? i am real curious as to what you are talking about given your accusations.

i thought that was the topic of this thread, not bush's bailouts.

You see, you are misinformed. Obama is pushing for a JOB CREATION bill, the second half money for TARP, which was created by the Bush admin., has been released and must be doled out.

Obama is not currently proposing any bailout bill.

It saddens me that you excuse Bush, who did nothing but pay off CEO's and allow AIG one hell of a vacation but punish Obama for trying to make REAL economic progress, shows some serious partisanship on your part.

[DannyR]

i thought that was the topic of this thread, not bush's bailouts.As if any forum thread ever stays on topic! :laugh2: You jumped into the middle of the conversation. OCA's comments about the Bush bailout were in response to this post, where Postmodernprophet tries to label the "Pelosi/Reid" bailouts as something separate from the Bush administration:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=346224&postcount=45

[Yurt]

TE=OCA;346555]You see, you are misinformed. Obama is pushing for a JOB CREATION bill, the second half money for TARP, which was created by the Bush admin., has been released and must be doled out.

Obama is not currently proposing any bailout bill.

its a bailout...it is money borrowed to bail us out of this situation. you can call it job creation, but it is an economic bailout.


It saddens me that you excuse Bush, who did nothing but pay off CEO's and allow AIG one hell of a vacation but punish Obama for trying to make REAL economic progress, shows some serious partisanship on your part.

what is truly sad is that you accuse me of excusing bush. i did not support his bailouts, but i will excuse your ignorance on that as you don't post as often. however, i would like you to prove how my comments in this thread equate to excusing bush. if you can't, do the honorable thing and retract your statement.

i am not going to suckered into supporting obama's bailout by some jackboot liberal thug tactics you enjoy using...show some "partisanship"....groans....i suppose next you will call me an obstructionist and unpatriotic for voicing my dissent.

quaint

[Yurt]

As if any forum thread ever stays on topic! :laugh2: You jumped into the middle of the conversation. OCA's comments about the Bush bailout were in response to this post, where Postmodernprophet tries to label the "Pelosi/Reid" bailouts as something separate from the Bush administration:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=346224&postcount=45

thank you thread police...whats my fine and can i pay you next tuesday

[Kathianne]

Actually thanks to GW, they started out tied, then are adding to it.

Uh huh, the almighty pygmy, OCA, calls me a partisan hack, with this post earlier than his.

Oh, the legend in his own mind. :boohoo:

[Yurt]

Uh huh, the almighty pygmy, OCA, calls me a partisan hack, with this post earlier than his.

Oh, the legend in his own mind. :boohoo:

i thought you disapproved of these types of posts....

[Kathianne]

i thought you disapproved of these types of posts....

Oh I do, but for some reason OCA wanted me to respond, pulling my name out of nowhere.

I certainly wasn't looking for any interaction without a topic, but alas.

[DannyR]

thank you thread police...whats my fine and can i pay you next tuesdayYou were either totally ignorant of what OCA was talking about, or intentionally being obtuse to bait him. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to explain your error. Once more I try and be nice and you just bite away. You here to actually debate politics or just to pick fights?

[red states rule]

Back to the topic


Looks like Pres Obama is fed up with people asking questions about his mega pork plan - so now back to campaign mode



With plan in hot water, Obama fired up
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 2/6/09 4:28 AM EST


With his economic stimulus bill facing a rockier path than he’d hope, a different Barack Obama emerged Thursday.

Gone was the conciliatory rhetoric and gentle wooing of the GOP.

Instead appeared a president sounding like the candidate he was a few months ago, passionately and unmistakably chastising Republicans and reminding Americans of the policies they so soundly rejected on Election Day.

In a fired-up, mostly impromptu speech to House Democrats in Williamsburg, Va., Thursday night, Obama accused his Republican critics of wanting to return to “the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin.”

“I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV,” he said. "If you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction. That’s what the American people called for in November, and that’s what we intend to deliver.”

It was new rhetoric delivered with a more insistent tone – one reminiscent of the final days of the campaign — and it offers a preview of the emphatic final argument Obama will make in the week before his self-imposed deadline to get the bill passed.

And, fittingly, it comes as Obama takes his case for the stimulus on the road.

The president is scheduled to hold his first White House news conference Monday and will then leave Washington early next week to hold campaign-style events centered on getting the recovery measure passed, according to a source familiar with the trip.

Sixteen days into his administration, Obama’s language and tone reflected a new urgency to put the self-inflicted wounds of his discarded personnel picks behind him and to ramp up his push to get the central priority of his new administration passed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18484.html

[Kathianne]

Back to the topic


Looks like Pres Obama is fed up with people asking questions about his mega pork plan - so now back to campaign mode



With plan in hot water, Obama fired up
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 2/6/09 4:28 AM EST


With his economic stimulus bill facing a rockier path than he’d hope, a different Barack Obama emerged Thursday.

Gone was the conciliatory rhetoric and gentle wooing of the GOP.

Instead appeared a president sounding like the candidate he was a few months ago, passionately and unmistakably chastising Republicans and reminding Americans of the policies they so soundly rejected on Election Day.

In a fired-up, mostly impromptu speech to House Democrats in Williamsburg, Va., Thursday night, Obama accused his Republican critics of wanting to return to “the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin.”

“I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV,” he said. "If you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction. That’s what the American people called for in November, and that’s what we intend to deliver.”

It was new rhetoric delivered with a more insistent tone – one reminiscent of the final days of the campaign — and it offers a preview of the emphatic final argument Obama will make in the week before his self-imposed deadline to get the bill passed.

And, fittingly, it comes as Obama takes his case for the stimulus on the road.

The president is scheduled to hold his first White House news conference Monday and will then leave Washington early next week to hold campaign-style events centered on getting the recovery measure passed, according to a source familiar with the trip.

Sixteen days into his administration, Obama’s language and tone reflected a new urgency to put the self-inflicted wounds of his discarded personnel picks behind him and to ramp up his push to get the central priority of his new administration passed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18484.html

I just saw this somewhere and thought it appropriate for the 'new' FDR:


Roosevelt: We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!

Obama: Be afraid. Very afraid!!

[red states rule]

I just saw this somewhere and thought it appropriate for the 'new' FDR:

So, you mean all the bipartisan talk was a charade?

[OCA]

Uh huh, the almighty pygmy, OCA, calls me a partisan hack, with this post earlier than his.

Oh, the legend in his own mind. :boohoo:

You are, my statement stands as fact. One little comment in the mist does not excuse your irrational attacks on all thing Demo and lib nor does it excuse your blind eye towards most things Repub and conservative.

[OCA]

Oh I do, but for some reason OCA wanted me to respond, pulling my name out of nowhere.

I certainly wasn't looking for any interaction without a topic, but alas.


Kathianne is do as I say not as I do.................I feel for her students.

[red states rule]

speaking of sounds of silence :laugh2:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21174

****crickets still chirping***** :laugh2:

[OCA]

****crickets still chirping***** :laugh2:

*OCA still not responding to shit he deems dumber than fuck*

Like Ron White says "you can't fix stupid".

[red states rule]

*OCA still not responding to shit he deems dumber than fuck*

Like Ron White says "you can't fix stupid".

and you were talking about someones elses irrational attacks? :laugh2:

If it is dumber then fuck you should fit right in OCA

[OCA]

So, you mean all the bipartisan talk was a charade?

I think your favorite song is Chubby Checker's "twist and shout".

Obama is saying offer a viable alternative or stop the caterwauling and get the fuck out of the way of progress.

Repubs seem to be able to do neither................for years now. They drive the country into the shitter then expect people to listen to them, what balls!

[OCA]

and you were talking about someones elses irrational attacks? :laugh2:

If it is dumber then fuck you should fit right in OCA


I am the poster boy for rational and logical thought.

Don't you ever fucking work? You are on here 24/7, i'm sick of my taxes going to support lazy fucks like you.

[red states rule]

I think your favorite song is Chubby Checker's "twist and shout".

Obama is saying offer a viable alternative or stop the caterwauling and get the fuck out of the way of progress.

Repubs seem to be able to do neither................for years now. They drive the country into the shitter then expect people to listen to them, what balls!

Now I understand why you love Obama so much. Like you, he hates anyone who dares to ask questions, and disagrees with what he says

[red states rule]

I am the poster boy for rational and logical thought.

Don't you ever fucking work? You are on here 24/7, i'm sick of my taxes going to support lazy fucks like you.

Speaking of irrational attacks......

[OCA]

Now I understand why you love Obama so much. Like you, he hates anyone who dares to ask questions, and disagrees with what he says

Kind of like how Bush didn't like Plame's husband asking questions about the twisting of logic to go into Iraq so Bush outed her.

Offer a viable alternative or move out of the way, not that stupid shit that Johnny Lib offered up either.

[OCA]

Speaking of irrational attacks......

I'm always 1 up on you, that eats you alive, thats why the unoriginal crap from you today. Don't worry, I think my errrrr the gov checks always arrive on Fridays.

[OCA]

Don't you ever fucking work?

Well do you? Explain how you are here 24/7 and still support yourself. Don't give me the cancer bullshit either, I know some people with cancer and still getting chemo who still find the time and strength to work and contribute to society.

[OCA]

Well do you? Explain how you are here 24/7 and still support yourself. Don't give me the cancer bullshit either, I know some people with cancer and still getting chemo who still find the time and strength to work and contribute to society.


:laugh2:

chirp chirp

[Yurt]

You see, you are misinformed. Obama is pushing for a JOB CREATION bill, the second half money for TARP, which was created by the Bush admin., has been released and must be doled out.

Obama is not currently proposing any bailout bill.

It saddens me that you excuse Bush, who did nothing but pay off CEO's and allow AIG one hell of a vacation but punish Obama for trying to make REAL economic progress, shows some serious partisanship on your part.


its a bailout...it is money borrowed to bail us out of this situation. you can call it job creation, but it is an economic bailout.



what is truly sad is that you accuse me of excusing bush. i did not support his bailouts, but i will excuse your ignorance on that as you don't post as often. however, i would like you to prove how my comments in this thread equate to excusing bush. if you can't, do the honorable thing and retract your statement.

i am not going to suckered into supporting obama's bailout by some jackboot liberal thug tactics you enjoy using...show some "partisanship"....groans....i suppose next you will call me an obstructionist and unpatriotic for voicing my dissent.

quaint

well..............

[Yurt]

You were either totally ignorant of what OCA was talking about, or intentionally being obtuse to bait him. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to explain your error. Once more I try and be nice and you just bite away. You here to actually debate politics or just to pick fights?

:rolleyes:

get over yourself