RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Okay, in fighting against the gigantic economic stimulus package, the Republicans in Congress have essentially bet against it working. Instead of stepping up and offering alternatives, they stonewalled and resisted and did their level best to stop any package.
So, if the economic stimulus package fails, and we're left even worse off, they can say "We told you so!" and essentially fiddle while Rome burns. A pretty Pyrrhic victory.
If it succeeds, they've lost just about any relevance in the political process that they had. They've lost the presidency, both houses of Congress, the battle to have any hand in saving the economy, backed the failing Iraq War for far too long and advocated bad economic theory in their trickle-down economic theories.
Why keep fighting just to attempt to win an ideological victory? Is it that important to be proven correct? Why not actually realize that something needs to be done, swallow your ideology and dig in, even if it means backing something that is against what you normally believe in? At least the final product would be more akin to what you would like, instead of totally contrary to your opinion?
I don't get it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, look at it from the other direction James.
1) They have offered alternatives, but been frozen out of the entire process. The first thing the house did this term was undo all the bipartisan proposals that the Republicans put in post 94.
2) If this is so phenominal, why are the Democrats wanting bipartisan? VP Biden said if everything goes right, it's a 70% chance of working. If it was so good, why lament your opposition is not joining in?
|
They did offer an alternative.
It was rejected pretty much of out of hand.
A little bit was incorporated, reducing the spending about $100 billion or so, but massive amounts of the pseudo-direct earmarks remain, and they felt they could not reasonably support that.
As for it being a pyrrhic victory if/when this package crashes and burns, what exactly are they supposed to do? They cannot pass and implement an alternative plan, that is not how things work. That leaves them with nothing but stating opposition and . . . waiting. That certainly sucks for them, and will very much suck for the rest of us if/when they are proven correct, but that is how it goes.
As for losing relevancy, apparently you did not get the memo, but the Iraq War has not failed. Iraq just had another election, and the extremists lost pathetically. It is still far from perfection, but it is equally far from the cut-and-run defeatism the Democrats were harping on during the campaign and when they opposed the Surge.
Contrasting with that are the reports coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hate of the U.S. is up in Afghanistan, and the Taliban have seized control of at least one province in Pakistan and are threatening more. Obama intends to stick his neck into that, and the Democrats are blithely following after him. What will happen if that blows up their faces, particularly with Obama thinking he can just get Muslims to like us by talking nice, seemingly oblivious that intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be as offensive to the same groups as intervention in Iraq was?
No, what they are doing is very simple, and fully in line with the past. The party that won the Presidency typically loses seats in the Legislature during the mid-term elections. If the Democratic plan fails, or even simply does not work as well as it being touted, the backlash could be as severe as it was when the Contract on America was taken out. As such, the Democrats are very much putting all of their eggs in one basket just as the Republicans are, and refusing to swallow their ideology just as you accuse the Republicans of doing.
|
Essentially they crying sour grapes. They lost their toys and are pouting.
They unknowingly are setting themselves up to be completely out of touch with Middle America. They are stonewalling the stimulus package to help Main Street, after they fell over themselves to help their cronies on Wall Street. If they disagree with this package they have failed America by refusing to offer their own plan. If it succeeds they have ensured they will viewed as out of touch and irrelevant. If it fails they will be seen as uncaring in the first place.
They have backed themselves into a corner that will be difficult to get out of. Either they do not mind if Middle America dies a long lingering death, or they do not care. That is the image they are painting for themselves.
The funny part, is the Recession is doomed to end. They always do. IF we look at THIS recession what we see is that we are in fact recovering from a period of abnormal growth and employment. Until 15 years ago 5% was the Natural Unemployment rate. It was believed it was impossible for unemployment to fall BELOW 5%. The world economy is not in recession it is correcting for over prosperity. It is so horrible because it has been so long since we saw a normal economy. We actually believed that an over prosperous economy was sustainable!
Sure, I'm one of the victims of this correction, but I'll survive.
|
|
Contrasting with that are the reports coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hate of the U.S. is up in Afghanistan, and the Taliban have seized control of at least one province in Pakistan and are threatening more. Obama intends to stick his neck into that, and the Democrats are blithely following after him. What will happen if that blows up their faces, particularly with Obama thinking he can just get Muslims to like us by talking nice, seemingly oblivious that intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be as offensive to the same groups as intervention in Iraq was?
Well at least Obama has hasn't forgotten who actually caused 911, like Bush did. You know, Twin Towers collapsing killing American civilians? Caused by Bin Laden and his Taliban cronies... the event that Iraq played no part in... the war that Bush gave up on and turned over to the UN to lead...
|
|
Essentially they crying sour grapes. They lost their toys and are pouting.
They unknowingly are setting themselves up to be completely out of touch with Middle America. They are stonewalling the stimulus package to help Main Street, after they fell over themselves to help their cronies on Wall Street. If they disagree with this package they have failed America by refusing to offer their own plan. If it succeeds they have ensured they will viewed as out of touch and irrelevant. If it fails they will be seen as uncaring in the first place.
I seem to recall the Democrats having more than just a little to do with the Wall Street bailout. Indeed I recall them being more than thrilled to pass the original four page version with no oversight, no doubt expecting they would soon control distribution of that money. It was only resistance from Congressional Republicans that reined it in as much as they did, and that was still not enough as evidenced by the current bouts of posturing over it.
They have backed themselves into a corner that will be difficult to get out of. Either they do not mind if Middle America dies a long lingering death, or they do not care. That is the image they are painting for themselves.
And what pray tell have the Democrats done if this failed? Either they do not care to actually read legislation before passing it/allow members to read legislation before voting on it, something they claimed they learned their lesson from with the USA PATRIOT Act, or they show that all they have to sustain themselves is frenzied economic fearmongering, and that they will not present a functioning plan as a real recovery would threaten their control of Congress.
The funny part, is the Recession is doomed to end. They always do. IF we look at THIS recession what we see is that we are in fact recovering from a period of abnormal growth and employment. Until 15 years ago 5% was the Natural Unemployment rate. It was believed it was impossible for unemployment to fall BELOW 5%. The world economy is not in recession it is correcting for over prosperity. It is so horrible because it has been so long since we saw a normal economy. We actually believed that an over prosperous economy was sustainable!
Sure, I'm one of the victims of this correction, but I'll survive.
No, that is the sad and pathetic part; sad for ordinary people who will see the country mortgaged for unneccessary spending programs to puff up Democratic egos, pathetic for the Democrats as they have now locked themselves into turning this recession around by the mid-term election. I am sure someone figured that they did not get burned by opposing the surge in Iraq so they will not get burned by this, but that sort of disconnected logic rarely pans out.
Well at least Obama has hasn't forgotten who actually caused 911, like Bush did. You know, Twin Towers collapsing killing American civilians? Caused by Bin Laden and his Taliban cronies... the event that Iraq played no part in... the war that Bush gave up on and turned over to the UN to lead...
So Obama provoking the total conquest of nuclear armed Pakistan by the Taliban is acceptable because he remembers something Bush allegedly forgot?
Somehow I just do not see it.
Why keep fighting just to attempt to win an ideological victory? Is it that important to be proven correct? Why not actually realize that something needs to be done, swallow your ideology and dig in, even if it means backing something that is against what you normally believe in? At least the final product would be more akin to what you would like, instead of totally contrary to your opinion?
I don't get it.
Why should Republicans 'swallow their ideology' and make like Democrats? The Democrats sure didn't 'swallow their ideology' when it was the Republicans in control. Personally I feel that the Republicans HAVE 'swallowed' too much of the Democratic platform. The TARP is a perfect example of this. Its ridiculous failure is now being trumped by an even more ridiculous 'stimulus' package, which is essentially like taking out a huge high-interest credit card in our descendant's names and running it up to its max limit. It's NOT the right thing to do. It is totally fiscally irresponsible. And for the record, I think both mainstream parties are just as guilty of this spendthrift behavior.
I don't think this is an 'ideological' fight. I think that the passage of this bill will have long term detrimental effects on our country for decades to come. If I lived in Maine I would be volunteering my time to anyone who opposes Collins and Snowe. The same goes for Specter in PA. I am not a big fan of McCain, but his description of this bill as 'generational theft' is particularly apt.
Now noises are being made about keeping all those 'unfortunate' people who signed off on stupid ARMs in their houses. So the idiots who spent all their equity on vacations and new furiniture, didn't think ahead past the tip of their nose, didn't read the documents they were signing, and are now crying because their rates have reset to the stratosphere will be also at Congress' door looking for a handout.
Governmental money doesn't appear out of thin air. Someone has to pay for all of these programs, and guess what? It will be us, whether we want to acknowlege it or not.
Here's an intersting article on Sen. McCain's take on the stimulus bill and the Democrat's 'bipartisan' claims: The Hill Article
No matter what your opinion of McCain is (and mine is fairly low), you cannot say that he is a partisan Republican. The fact that he doesn't feel this is a bipartisan bill (and the fact that his more modest proposal died a quick death in the Senate) argues that it is one again politics as usual in DC and nothing has changed except the party in power.
|
Here's an intersting article on Sen. McCain's take on the stimulus bill and the Democrat's 'bipartisan' claims: The Hill Article
No matter what your opinion of McCain is (and mine is fairly low), you cannot say that he is a partisan Republican. The fact that he doesn't feel this is a bipartisan bill (and the fact that his more modest proposal died a quick death in the Senate) argues that it is one again politics as usual in DC and nothing has changed except the party in power.
It has been said that John McCain never met a bipartisan compromise that he didn't like. However, even more than listening to John McCain, lets kisten to what Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economic advisor, has to say.
In this age of electronic money, investors are no longer seduced by a financial 'dance of a thousand veils.' Only hard and accurate information on reserves, current accounts, and monetary and fiscal conditions will keep capital from fleeing precipitously at the first sign of trouble.
Fiscal stimulus is appropriate as insurance because it is the fastest and most reliable way of encouraging short run economic growth at a time when a serious recession downturn would pressure American families, exacerbate financial strains, raise protectionist pressures and hurt the global economy.
Poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured. This suggests close attention to three issues:
First, to be effective, fiscal stimulus must be timely. To be worth undertaking, it must be legislated by the middle of the year and be based on changes in taxes and benefits that can be implemented almost immediately.
Second, fiscal stimulus only works if it is spent so it must be targeted . Targeting should favour those with low incomes and those whose incomes have recently fallen for whom spending is most urgent.
Third, fiscal stimulus, to be maximally effective, must be clearly and credibly temporary – with no significant adverse impact on the deficit for more than a year or so after implementation. Otherwise it risks being counterproductive by raising the spectre of enlarged future deficits pushing up longer-term interest rates and undermining confidence and longer-term growth prospects.
Taken together these criteria suggest the desirability of a programme of equal payments to all those paying either income or payroll taxes combined with increases in unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed and food stamp benefits. Such a programme could be implemented quickly and would largely benefit those most likely to be cut off from credit markets and with the most urgent need to spend. It could easily be made temporary. Ideally, further stimulus would be provided by measures to reduce future deficits and increase long-run confidence.
How large should a programme of fiscal stimulus be? It depends on what else is done to help the economy – a subject to which I will return soon. But a $50bn-$75bn package implemented over two to three quarters would provide about 1 per cent of gross domestic product in stimulus over the period of its implementation. With some multiplier effects the total impact would be in the range of 1 per cent of GDP over a year. This seems large enough to take some burden off monetary policy and yet unlikely, if properly implemented, to risk substantial damage given flexible monetary policy if the economy proves stronger than expected. After many months of behind-the-curve policy, moving to implement such measures seems more prudent than waiting till the necessity of even greater ones has been unambiguously established by further pain.
It seems that Congressional Republicans may be listening more to Democrat advice than it seems like.
I do not think it is within human capacity to 'swallow your ideology'.
I do not think it is within human capacity to 'swallow your ideology'.
Is it within poodle capacity? ;)
Is it within poodle capacity?
We are fickle creatures with a short…hey look! A duck!
I think my life must be what it's like to be nibbled to death by ducks.
As much as I disagree with the Republican party platform, I think it's important to recognize that the Republicans (as well as the Democrats) were elected to represent the opinions of the people in their districts, and that the actions of the Republicans, in both the Congress and the Senate, very closely reflect the opinions of the people whom they were chosen to represent. Granted, those opinions are in the minority right now, but then again, so are the Republicans. So while I personally think that the Republicans' tactics are largely misguided and focused on the inconsequential, I nevertheless am comforted by the fact that even in a government that is almost entirely dominated by one political viewpoint right now, the minority opinion, upon which our government was founded, is still being heard.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . a poodle will chase it.
Are those feathers?
I got your feathers right here.... BRING IT!!!!
Go ahead...ignore me...everyone else does....
|
|
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?
|
|
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?
Yes, it is too much. But I've often thought the news concentrates too much on trivia and not on actual news, so this is not exactly a surprise.
This has nothing to do with upholding ideology. The Republicans are simply doing what they should be doing, fighting the stimulus packages, which are a mistake. The government is panicking right now. The "stimulus" bills, including the one Bush pushed forward, is the equivalent of a financially troubled household maxing out a bunch of credit cards to pay their house bills.
The Republicans have been pushing their solution, which focuses on what they're good at: basic economics. The answer is to cut expenses, cut taxes, and hold on tight. People are looking for a quick fix, and there isn't one. I'm betting the stimulus bills will actually do more harm than good, like what happened in Japan in the 80s during their crash when the government tried to prop up banks and only ended up prolonging their recession for a good decade or so.
The Democrats need to learn from history and look back at Reagan's presidency. He inherited a similar economy and did what the Republicans today are proposing.
Keep in mind that this massive stimulus bill is just the latest one. Obama is proposing more to follow. It's really insane.
The Republicans are simply doing what they should be doing, fighting the stimulus packages, which are a mistake.
No disrespect intended, just wondered regarding the source of your knowledge, to make such a definite statement regarding so controversial an issue. Given that top economists and economic historians fall on BOTH sides of the issue -- if you indeed know the truth of it, wouldn't we all be better served if you made it a point to convince Bernanke of the error of his ways?
Or is this along the lines of some people "knowing" that anthropogenic climate change is fact, and others "knowing" that it's a massive hoax -- and none of them with any training in climatology whatsoever?
Personally, I tend more to fiscal conservatism than either major party seems to, but as to this issue, I have absolutely no idea if the stimuli will work. I was led to believe that no one else did, either, including its supporters.
Talking points for 2010:
8 billion dollar maglev from LA to Vegas....
Well, if you turn it sideways and squint at it, you could call it building infrastructure...
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?
Continuing the thread derailment:
As one still cautiously optimistic about the Obama administration, I'd say it was too much about six months before election day.
But then again, I have similar complaints about the 24 hour news networks in general. There's an entire world out there to hear about, and they've got every hour of the day to find it. So why am I reduced to listening to trivial facts about Obama, both positive and negative, along with torrents of celebrity "news" which I don't give a poodle's behind about? Where has real journalism gone? It's all banality or punditry, and I'm sick of both.
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?
Out of curiosity, if you wanted to take the conversation so wildly off topic, why not just start another thread?
Something I find interesting is how so many people have focused on the fact that house republicans didn't vote for the "stimulus"/"spending" bill. Why is the fact that not all house democrats voted for it, not something that is discussed? I mean if the house democratic leadership couldn't even convince everyone that has theortically similar ideological beliefs, why should people who have different ideological beliefs vote for it?
Or is this along the lines of some people "knowing" that anthropogenic climate change is fact, and others "knowing" that it's a massive hoax -- and none of them with any training in climatology whatsoever?
So, are you saying that people can't have an opinion on climate change unless we have a degree ?
No disrespect intended, just wondered regarding the source of your knowledge, to make such a definite statement regarding so controversial an issue. Given that top economists and economic historians fall on BOTH sides of the issue -- if you indeed know the truth of it, wouldn't we all be better served if you made it a point to convince Bernanke of the error of his ways?
Or is this along the lines of some people "knowing" that anthropogenic climate change is fact, and others "knowing" that it's a massive hoax -- and none of them with any training in climatology whatsoever?
Personally, I tend more to fiscal conservatism than either major party seems to, but as to this issue, I have absolutely no idea if the stimuli will work. I was led to believe that no one else did, either, including its supporters.
The source of my knowledge is my own opinion, which I believe is still allowed. If no one has any idea if the stimulus will work, and yet it's supporters can assert that it will in fact work, then as a detractor I feel entitled to voice my opinion that it won't work.
Obviously, no one knows for certainty, myself included, if it will work. However, I believe it is a major mistake. Frankly, at best, I think it will have a minimal effect on stimulating the economy and just give us a bill that will take 30 years or so to pay off.
|
|
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?
BUT WHICH IS IT?!? TELL ME!!! I HAVE TO KNOW OR I WON'T BE ABLE TO SLEEP OH GOD WHICH IS IT?!?!
Talking points for 2010:
8 billion dollar maglev from LA to Vegas....
If anyone else knows LA, this could be a HUGE moneymaker for LA and increase travel to Las Vegas considerably. However, it would also be the biggest party train evah!
Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?
I understand there is some dispute over the quality of a recently revised game.
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?BUT WHICH IS IT?!? TELL ME!!! I HAVE TO KNOW OR I WON'T BE ABLE TO SLEEP OH GOD WHICH IS IT?!?!
Pepsi, he's from Chicago.
If anyone else knows LA, this could be a HUGE moneymaker for LA and increase travel to Las Vegas considerably. However, it would also be the biggest party train evah!Talking points for 2010:
8 billion dollar maglev from LA to Vegas....
Or it could be reinforcing the idea for people to go to vegas and to lose their money. Just like the Cali legislaters who want to legalize "mary jane". Gee, I know, let's get people to smoke more, thus driving up our health care costs. Why that is a wonderful idea, that way even though we get more tax revenue, we just have to waste it on increase costs for lung cancer and such.
Pepsi, he's from Chicago.
Oh great! Here come the Pepsi crusaders. Look, I do not need someone dumbing down my cola and forcing me to use a battle bib. Choice of a new generation? Do you really think it is wise to insult a large segment of your consumer base?
Gah!
|
|
Pepsi, he's from Chicago.Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?BUT WHICH IS IT?!? TELL ME!!! I HAVE TO KNOW OR I WON'T BE ABLE TO SLEEP OH GOD WHICH IS IT?!?!
Actually the Time article says Coke.
Why that is a wonderful idea, that way even though we get more tax revenue, we just have to waste it on increase costs for lung cancer and such.
Yes, that money would be better spent on research of Cirrhosis of the liver.
So, are you saying that people can't have an opinion on climate change unless we have a degree ?
I'm saying that people who have no basis whatsoever for their opinion except something they heard on talk radio maybe should be more willing to admit that they're not omniscient. If climate scientists aren't totally sure (as all of them worth their titles readily admit), then why does every layman claim he has certain knowledge of the absolute truth? That's just plain silly. I'd say that nothing annoys me as much as Al Gore claiming to have all the answers (given that his movie proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he hasn't the vaguest clue about any of the science behind it) -- but almost all of the nay-sayers are just as bad.
I'm saying maybe people shouldn't be so quick to state their opinions as if they were facts... most especially when the experts have nothing resembling a solid case.
|
|
Okay, I'm got to take this completely off topic. I know that Barack Obama is a charismatic guy and everyone is taken with him right now. Today there is an article on Time.com about which is the favorite soft drink of the Obama White House, Coke or Pepsi? Haven't we reached a point of absolute craziness with Obama coverage? When is it too much, and why do supposedly serious news outlets engaged in reporting this kind of minutia? Isn't there anything else going on in the world that they could cover?Out of curiosity, if you wanted to take the conversation so wildly off topic, why not just start another thread?
Why bother? This thread was dead and so I brought life back to it. Notice that there has been a lot of new discussion about the OP that would not have happened had I started a whole new thread.
Obviously, no one knows for certainty, myself included, if it will work. However, I believe it is a major mistake. Frankly, at best, I think it will have a minimal effect on stimulating the economy and just give us a bill that will take 30 years or so to pay off.
Hi, Tom. I appreciate the reply.
To be honest, personally I suspect that you're exactly correct. But although some of the supporters may claim to "know" it will work, I'm careful about making no claim to "know" that it won't. Sort of a thing about not letting other people's (unfounded) opinions unduly influence mine, and staying open to being able to change my opinion as new evidence comes to light.In any event, I certainly didn't want to imply that you (or anyone else) isn't entitled to an opinion; in this case, I was misled by the way it was phrased.
I'm saying that people who have no basis whatsoever for their opinion except something they heard on talk radio maybe should be more willing to admit that they're not omniscient.
Well I don't base my opinion about climate change on what I hear on talk radio. I base it on an examination of the arguments coming from both camps (which doesn't require much more than a quick Google search). And with an admitted lack of omniscience, I still think that the arguments in defense of global warming are far stronger than the ones against it.
And just for the record, scientists aren't totally sure (as all of them worth their titles readily admit) about Einstein's theory of relativity either. Nevertheless, most of them would agree that his theories do a pretty good job of explaining how light and gravity work.
The same is true of scientists that study global warming. They recognize that their theories don't completely explain everything (which is hardly surprising, considering the complexity of global climate patterns). Nevertheless, they find that their theories do a pretty good job of explaining any number of observations made about rising global temperatures and climate change.
Given that, I don't see any reason to question scientists' reliance on theories about man-made global warming, any more than I question astronomers' reliance on Einstein's theories of general relativity.
What do you have against America?
Aside from us being a nation in decline? Not much...except for designer dogs like yourself. $2500.00 for a mixed breed dog! How do you sleep at night?