The American Spectator

Norman Sharinsky| 1.28.09 @ 6:41AM

All projects private or public funded become pork barrel sooner or later. Investment bankers went to far with pork barrel they created for themselves, creating huge deficit for the rest of citizens.

What about selling mining rights in Alaska for say 10 years to China - buying back U.S. treasury bills from them?? That would balance the federal budget and allow further bail out....

Kimmy| 11.13.10 @ 7:07PM

[url=http://worldbook-encyclopedia.com]Education of Children

stu.b.con| 1.28.09 @ 7:49AM

The Big Lie comes to America. This will no more stimulate the economy than that picture some time back of Rosie O'Donuts hanging upside down stimulated me.
The truth is simple, this is designed purely and simply to entrench the socialist state. In essence a bloodless coup powered by creating and exploiting a crisis. And now I see this morning that the new brown shirts are once again going to attempt to shut down any dissent (I thought that was the highest form of patriotism?) with a "petition" to express their outrage at Rush Limbaugh. Well count me among the outraged, but I won't be signing their fascist petition. No, I will be exercising my freedom of speech and dissent. How many petitions will it take to shut us all down?

Jason| 1.28.09 @ 7:50AM

There's at least $200 billion of pure pork in that bill. Conservatives shouldn't touch it.
http://www.rightklik.net/

saleboter| 1.28.09 @ 8:03AM

Lets make sure BO and the Ds get all the credit for this turkey.

Bob| 1.28.09 @ 8:16AM

Peter, again you present misleading information. While I agree there is a lot of pork in the stimulus plan, you are disingenuous in not presenting some of the offsetting spending decreases, the largest of which are tax increases passed by the states to cover medicare and unemployment expenses. Whether you put them in a federal bill, or raise state taxes, the result is still that people will have to pay more. Higher tax rates at the state level will do just as much to worsen the recession as anything else. We all know the Democrats are trying to get a downpayment on their promised programs just as the Republicans have done for most of the past 8 years.

Your revisionist history of Reagan, while forgetting two succeeding Republican administrations -- one in which Republicans had complete control over the presidency and congress, is becoming boorish. The fact is that Reagan failed at reducing federal spending as have ALL Presidents, both Democrat and Republican. Here is the chart, in real dollars, of federal spending over time:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.html

One of the reasons we are in such bad shape today are the tax cuts of Bush2. They did not help the economy and only increased the deficit from the surplus left to him. For 6 years, he had a friendly congress to support him.

The real problem here is the nature of politics. Congress and the President are elected on what they give to their constituency, not what they take away from them. That's why they all spend and spending reductions cannot occur on discretionary items. So your solution is both disingenuous and unrealistic. Perhaps if you were an economist rather than a lawyer you would understand.

So please stop trying to fool people with your references to Reagan unless you can back it up with real numbers like spending, GDP, federal debt, etc.

All of this said, the ridicule approach that you use to berate specific budget items only serves to bolster those who don't know any better. Most of the electorate thinks that investments in education make sense. Most people will laugh at the thought that a one year payment to people would be more effective than giving them a 5 year job. A more effective approach would be a party that acknowledges and learns from the mistakes of the past -- including Reagan -- and presents a "tightening of the belt" approach to the electorate. Someone needs a grown-up in Washington.

Paladin kcs| 1.18.10 @ 6:50PM

Bob give credit where credit is do Clinton and the elitist defeatist party.They are sole owners of this turkey. True Bush the lionheart was fighting two war. Walked into 9-11-01 Again due to yes you guess it Clinton . Of course Uncle Tom (obama) the community organizer and Acorn have to share with Fannie and Freddy CEO's who were giving Millions to both Parties but Clinton was the one along with those in Congress on the right who thought that you can work with the scum on the left. But I digress Glass Steagal Act, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the banks who folded under pressure of ACorn with the Community reinvestment crap and giving out bad deals on home loans for people who should not have gotten them, But in the spirit of stupity no one but NYT SEPT 30 1999 "Said in an article that what happened in 2008, Was going to happen due to the loans in 01? Bush check on it and Barney Frank told him they're in great shape $$$ wise so your right Uncle TOM Inherited 588 billion in debt and quickly ran it up to what is it now ? How many trillions 14 maybe 16 just like the unemployment numbers and that giant Ponzi Scheme called Gobal climate change cooling heat what ever it's CAP and Tax. Open borders a way to keep the Ponzi scheme going ?? By the way do too goverment involvement in college where you most likly make a living spewing nonsense for the left . But guess why collage is so expensive these days? Could it be goverment involment driving up the price of education for those on the left who brain wash kids with the garbage they call education these days , Plus why your at it which wacky collage do you teach at there bob So tell me how you think Reagan hurt the Country again try your mind on Jimmy Carter and the great sweater revival of the 70's BY the way Bob your jerk forgive my Command of the Written word but I'm a soldier by trade not a leftiest weeny

Popeye| 1.28.09 @ 8:37AM

Socialism Marxism .. Socialism Marxism .. Socialism Marxism .. Socialism Marxism...
and a President who is also doing his best to weaken the US of A vis-a-vis the Muslim whackos. Those who voted this negro into office just because he is black should be horsewhipped.

IMKessel| 1.28.09 @ 8:38AM

"Liberal Democrats are now going to try to do it by passing out condoms."

Well, at least we get a sense of security while we get screwed.

Welcome to the new age of socialism.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.28.09 @ 8:59AM

Between the second phase of the $350 billion dollar boondoggle known as the TARP, and the proposed $825 billion dollar stimulus boondoggle known as the Obama Stimulus Plan to the public, Barack has managed to borrow the entire amount the Reagan administration spent in 8 years, and that's just for openers, yet the rabble complain about Reagan. They ain't seen nothing yet.

When wealth is redistributed by any government it's always an act of inefficiency. One of the main reasons for that is that about 80 cents of every dollar remains in the bureaucracies that distribute the federal largess.

In this case, the public is being entertained by the reasoning powers of a three ring circus, the White House, the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

Barack has already lied to the public on several occasions since taking office, the first time about lobbyists being in his administration (Peter Gibbs, "You have to bend the rules) to the promise of absence of pork in this bill.

Even if you buy into the paradigm that tax cuts will offset the pork, that isn't true. First, the tax cuts in the original proposal were to be 325 billion, and have now shrunk to 250 billion. About a third of that is tax credits, going to people with limited or no income. That will not spark an economy.

The U.S. Senate bill is over 900 billion dollars and by the time these three government entities get done playing three card monte with your money, who knows the final cost?

In the meantime, this takes me back to my career with the U.S. Congress. Early on I heard the statement that opened my eyes. I overheard a staffer at a budget hearing state, "Let's face it, this bill is nothing but pork, and it's traditional, buying your vote with your money."

That's all the Barack bill has become. A pork laden groaning vote buying scheme, once again going back on an Obama promise not to fill the bill with earmarks. No matter what you call them, that's what many of the spending proposals have become.

If the U.S. government doesn't stop spending and simply let the markets settle the issues, the U.S. dollar will become the financial equivalent of some of Barack's promises. Not worth much.

In the meantime here's the read of the day.
http://www.prometheusinstitute.net/philosophy/redistribution.htm

How Redistribution Errs
Prometheus Institute Philosophy

THE INFUSION OF WEALTH into the political and justice system has perpetually resulted in failures of the systems to perform their stated objectives. Powerful and wealthy lobbyists influence Congress to spend billions of tax dollars on projects having no resemblance to federal interest. Large businesses are able to persuade lawmakers into giving them legal loopholes and monopolistic rights unavailable to the smaller business. And seemingly guilty defendants, such as O.J. Simpson, are able to weasel out from under the hand of justice by the work of expensive and terribly efficient lawyers.

We then see, nearly every day, the pernicious effect wealth can have on the public sector. What then, is the logical alternative? Two methods are generally employed by well-meaning statists.

The first is to limit the application of money into the political or judicial realm. While this option seems beneficial on the surface, it actually causes the public sector to function more despotically and less democratically. How is a poor individual expected to successfully run for office, if not with the financial aid of wealthy supporters? How is a business able to participate in the democratic process, if not to be able to pay individuals to argue on their behalf? Why would a wealthy individual, one who has earned great success, not be able to most efficiently defend himself against frivolous charges and/or an intrusive state?

To leave money completely out of politics is to leave the state to function independently of the people, and to do so would facilitate only more unfairness and inequality. However, more attention must be devoted toward the second option.

Statists then move to limit the amount of wealth one can accrue. The argument, then, is that if financial clout is relatively more equal throughout the populace, that the negative effects of corruption can be eliminated.

The argument is short sighted. The problem inherant to corrupt governance is not that some people are able to wield more power, but that corruption exists and is pervasive. If the statists admit that corruption exists, and that wealth causes corruption, what benefit would result from simply increasing the number of individuals with the ability to participate in the corruption? Put simply, if money is the problem, spreading it around will not solve the problem.

Furthermore, if redistribution is enacted, ceteris paribus, the individual levels of corruption-inducing power will not be completely equal until wealth is fully balanced into a communist state. The problems with a communist state aside, the point remains that redistribution in itself is a highly inefficient solution to a serious problem.

However, an even more concerning auxiliary effect of redistribution is that, quite simply, it punishes the wrong party. The problem of corruption is not coterminous with the problem of wealth acquisition. There are two guilty parties in a corrupt payoff scheme. First is the individual who pays, and the other who receives. The latter, by logical conclusion, is the greater of the evils. The corrupt politician violates the public trust, while the ambitious businessman, while immoral, is so to a lesser degree.

Why would wealth be punished, without respect to its use? The power of wealth can be wielded for many beneficial endeavors, and even more non-corrupt endeavors.

Put simply, the wealthy man is not guilty of crimes he has not committed. To redistribute wealth is to take money against another's will. To do so is a punitive action. Why would the state, rather than dealing with its own problems of corruption, punish the individual who has done no wrong except achieve financial success?

The only efficient prevention of money's influence in politics and law is to reduce its ability to influence. It is not to reduce its prevalence or force its distribution. The state can combat the wealthy defense lawyer with more efficient district attorneys and public defenders. Congress can become more impervious to corruption with increased scrutiny of voting records, campaign contributions, and closed-door meetings. There are efficient solutions to the problem of corruption, but they all lie within the scope of the problem. Corruption is a problem not because money exists or people have it, but the legal system is incompletely independent of it.

The public sector must make strides to become independent of the private sector. This action will have numerous auxiliary benefits, but it will most importantly limit the influence of wealth.

However, to punish the wealthy is not only inefficient, but it is the most egregious miscarriage of the ideals of justice the state is entrusted to protect. In a court of law, to punish an individual unjustly is unlawful. In the public sector, legislation that acts congruently should be viewed with similar disdain.

If the unequal distribution of wealth is unable to facilitate corruption and unfairness in the public sector, it would exist as its basic purpose: a reward of productivity.

pat Spooner| 1.28.09 @ 9:16AM

Eventually what will the liberals do when they have confiscated 100% of the income private sector working people earn. It seems to me that at that point no one will work in the private sector and there will be no income to take and government spending will disappear, correct?

ort| 1.28.09 @ 9:27AM

A trillion dollars wasted in this pointless package still leaves obama and the dems a ways to go before catching up to the trillions wasted by bush and repubs in iraq.

james23| 1.28.09 @ 9:32AM

Its Morning in Socialist America!

Norman Sharinsky| 1.28.09 @ 9:35AM

Hey Popeye,

Why on earth you bring historical comparison to Socialism, and not for example to Great Depression which would be more suitable.
Alaska was purchased with Federal money, so I think goverment can sell it back (or lease) to China - THAT'S not Socialism. Clear your mind buddy, you are fixated on Socialism like a fundamentalist hick.

Tenn Slim| 1.28.09 @ 9:49AM

ALL
Within less than 48 hours, Pres Obama solved the issue of whether he would have a "Centrist" admin. No longer in doubt, a true Marxist/Leftist/Lewinsky style Modus Operandi.
No matter, the fat is in the fire. We have elected the Lefts Machine, with thier Pres. Now, we have to figure out how to survive. For the folks, here on the Big Muddy, the path is clear. Plant YOUR cotton, sow YOUR rice, harvest YOUR wheat, continue to be the stalwart folks that, yes, erred in November. Now we will carry the load til 2010. and try to find a leader, or leaders, that will return this country to the principles of Geo Washington, Tom Jefferson, John Adams, and even old Pres Harry S. Truman.
Semper Fi
end

daboss| 1.28.09 @ 9:49AM

Norm - nice way to get rid of a political enemy ... just sell the state. And you would have to sell it "back" to Russia ... not China. Assuming Russia does not invade it anyway in the future.

Anyhow, what happens when we go broke? Has anyone thought that far ahead?

And yes - forget socialism ... we are skipping socialism and going directly to fascism. And do not pass Go!

JP| 1.28.09 @ 9:50AM

Bob,
Since when did the GOP have complete control over Congress? They at most had 55 seats in the Senate. When you factor in Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, Arlene Spector, Lincoln Chaffe, Gordon Smith, Chuck Hegel, and John McCain in the Senate, thier majority was far from complete. Whatever Dems they picked up from the South was usually nullified by one or more of the above mentioned Senators crossing over the aisle. Fillibusters were the normal way the Dems did business from 2003-2006. From 2003-2006, the Dems used the filibuster more than anytime in history. I think you also forget Jim Jeffords (Vt), who crossed over in 2001. They few fiscally conservative budget bills that were crafted in the House were gutted by the time the Dems were finished with them. Yes, the GOP controlled the agenda and committees but never had the kind of control you seem to think of. Yes, much of this stemmed from very poor political leadership within the GOP, but that is another issue.

Also, 50% of the Reagan defecits were the product of the greatest peacetime military buildup in history (8% of the GDP). But, this also occured during an unprecedented increase in GDP ($2 trillion in 1981 to $8 trillion by 1989). Both discretionary and nondiscrectionary domestic spending increased under Reagan; however, he never enjoyed absolute Congressional majoritites. The GOP lost seats in the 1982 mid-terms, and lost thier Senate majority in 1986.

And please, remember one chart does not make a debate. Economic growth occured during periods of the 4 largest 20th Century tax cuts (Kennedy 1961, Reagan 1981, Clinton 1997, and Bush 2001-2003). The 1981 and 1997 tz cuts added an aggregate of $11 trillion of wealth to our nation in real dollar terms.

You seem blissfully unware that transferring such large sums ($2 trillion of TARP and Stimulus money ) from the private to the public spheres will have real world implications -none of which are good. The vasr majority of the stimulus bill has nothing to do with "stimulating" job growth or wealth creation. Follow Wall St this winter and spring, and see what investors think.

This isn't 1981 nor is it 1997. Federal Defecits total over $10 trillion (about to go to $12 trillion). Nearly $10 trillion of wealth disappeared since 2007, and interest rates are near negative. Yet, real estate and equities prices continue to plummet, and despite $750 trillion in TARP funds, banks are unwilling to risk any of thier equity vis-a-vis issuing credit. I think you too are unaware of the seriousness of this crisis; it is not business as usual. The Dems ascended to majority status partially because the GOP ran an institution that used taxpayers money like a favor bank. And what do the Dems do? The exact same thing but times 10, and during the worst financial crisis in 70 years. Forget about history and concentrate on the matters at hand.

Indiana Alex| 1.28.09 @ 9:52AM

Bob,

Every once in a while you say something that makes sense. Today is not one of those days. If you look at the actual statistics, you will see that Reagan reduced government spending as a relative percentage of the overall economy.

Of course no President (or congress, since the President hasn't the authority to spend dollar one) can actually reduce spending, net, given the growth in entitlements.

The best they can do is reduce government spending as a percentage of the overall economy. Caiming to have an economics degree, you should realize that this has the impact of reducing the size of government. (For the Democrats this means that government spending grows at a slower pace than the overall economy)

Bush did not do this, and squandered the 40% increase in productivity that his tax cuts produced. There are very few conservatives that agree with Bush's spending policies.

Bob, please, lay off the sauce this early in the morning.

And where did you get that degree from?

I know it wasn't Chicago.

Bob| 1.28.09 @ 10:11AM

Robert, while I agree totally about the boondoggles of stimulus and TARP, this is not a party issue -- both parties are equally guilty. The truth is that inflation has risen almost three times since Reagan so a direct dollar to dollar comparison of 1980 dollars with 2008 dollars is not as clear as you seem to make it.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/inflation_Cumulative.htm

Secondly, the fact that the Bush2 tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and increased the debt substantially -- both indisputable facts, have made this situation far worse.

For that reason, you blame Obama far too much for this stimulus plan. The Republicans are just as bad for recommending tax cuts that have never worked in the past and will only serve to make the debt worse.

For a minute, let's take blame out of this. If we do, then I would agree with your points 100%. The real question for we Republicans is how do we get both parties in Washington to be more responsible with our money. I'm in favor of balanced budgets as a way to make this happen. I also like short term reductions in the payroll tax as an effective method of increasing consumer spending. Real infrastructure also seem to make some sense. That would give us a stimulus bill of about half the size that we have.

The only way for Republicans to regain strength is to recognize what they've done wrong in the past and recommend ways to fix their strategy while being adults in the criticism of Democrat spending.

daboss| 1.28.09 @ 10:20AM

I have a novel idea – how about we cut spending? Yes – I am a radical libertarian constitutionalist but what the hell. I have to cut spending at home, our customers are cutting spending, companies are cutting spending why not the gov’t?

When do we get to this point: “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government”

Suggest everyone read the declaration and see how many of “the facts be submitted” apply today.

Bob| 1.28.09 @ 10:26AM

Actually, Indiana, just saying something doesn't make it true. Here is a graph of federal spending as a percentage of GDP as you stated. It shows that Bill Clinton did a better job than Reagan.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp.php

The main reason is that the economy (GDP) performed better under Clinton than Reagan. However, I would submit that using this as a measure is a bit misleading since over half of the budget is social security and medicare which is more related to age than the state of the economy.

By the way, where did you get your degree -- from a Cocoa Puffs box???? Only kidding as you actually make a decent argument that has a bit of truth in it. But I would submit it doesn't have much to do with Reagan or Clinton policies. GDP is more a function of private enterprise and neither Democrats or Republicans ever reduce budgets. We give far more credit to government for the performance of our economy than they deserve. I'm a big proponent of keeping government out of economic manipulation and letting the market work its way through.

TennesseeVolunteer| 1.28.09 @ 10:37AM

Call us names if you will. this is even bigger than bush/Obama. It is about big government or small government.
Example#1 My company is providing products to a construction company who builds affordable housing for potential homeowners, WHO HAVE ALREADY QUALIFIED FOR LOANS!
the construction loans are provided by the government because there isn't much profit in these size and price of houses but there is a ready market. Once the person buys the house, the government loan is paid off and rolled over to the next house to be built. It is a good program and should work. But the problem is that the non profit charities who oversee it (to keep the greedy businessman from stealing) won't release the lines of credit for construction because they don't want to overload themselves! They make almost 15% for overseeing the building but make nothing on the house until it is started. Of course, they get their fees first, the builder last.
The non profit is now holding 5 approved loans, they have not started a new house in a year. We have 14 families who have been in their jobs over 6 years each and are pre qualified to buy one of these houses. And, by the way, these are 'green' houses that will save them about 50% on their utilities compared to a typical home.
Whats wrong with this picture? Well, the salaries for all of the employees at the non profit are paid from a different grant, they have no incentive to start anything new, other than doing the right thing! To Any citizen in this great country, does this make any sense? Is this any way to run a railroad? You want to go green but the process big government has put in place strangles any kind of progress. In this last year, they had an additional 12 families who were approved but have dropped away, went through the credit counseling, though they all had good credit scores but lost interest because there was no house available in their price range.
These are the reasons so many citizens of this country are against big government. We know that things are wrong but can't put our arms around it. we know that spending trillions of dollars that we don't have, just isn't what our parents taught us, and just doesn't seem right. You call us names, and attach all kind of bad intentions to us when we don't agree. I didn't agree with this spending when Bush did it, i don't agree with it now.
I won't give up trying to provide my own business and if I go down in flames, I'll get right back up. but calling me names and trying to make even bigger government the saviour, when I know in my core that it is wrong; well, I won't stay quiet. There are a lot of us out here. We're not much in love with any government right now. We just want to be protected from crime, terrorists threat and stealing (whether from the banks,or the government).
Maybe it is good that all this has happened so we can get back to the basics and rebuild our country and our economy.

Norman Sharinsky| 1.28.09 @ 10:50AM

Torture, detention, illegal wars, lies were simply the surface effect of the Cheney/Bush era's deep and abiding aim — to realign the separation of US powers sufficient to give the executive arm of government, the presidency, an overwhelming authority that effectively destroyed the checks and balances of the three branches of government. Is changing all of this a Socialism?

Indiana Alex| 1.28.09 @ 10:51AM

Bob,

I don't think your graph really tells us much.

In five years prior to Reagan REAL government spending increased by an average of 4 1/2% while the economy grew by only 2%. By the time Reagan left office, the pattern was reversed, as the five year average annual growth rate in real government spending was just under 3%, while real growth in the economy averaged 4%.

And yes Bob, I got my degree from a Co Co Puffs box.

I am curius as to where you got yours though because much of what you say doesn't fit into any of the major theories taught in universities.

TIME TO THINK| 1.28.09 @ 10:59AM

This is no ordinary recession, or depression, this recession or depression calls for people to think.
The main question you should ask your self is not whay your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. JFK, knew this was coming, he warned all Americans and the world for that matter.

The time has come for us not to think of self, but the wider communities. Who do you know, what do you know, for that matter what have you got, how best to use the tallent you have, and your resources.

For example if you have people who have money collectively buy land, to grow food. If you shop find out about what others are doing in your community to shair a car shair the cost of petrol to go shopping. The land you are growing food on is distributed amongst yourselves.

If there are ones amongst you who are doctors help others with offering help. Those who have homes where they can shair, do so. I would advise people to come togeather to support others, and shair your skills, set up your own cottage industries, some can make things and sell it to one another. People need to draw on their skills, don't kill one another but protect each other.

You can fight back, but you need to think not of self but of community, work togeather. People who are un employed need to team up with others, and shair experiences, and discuss news ways of being self sufficient.

After all what do employers do, they do the same thing draw people in, pay them a wage to produce things to sell, collectively people can do the same.
The first thing stop worring about government, the government does nothing for the average person in America, they are driven by who to start wars with, and your children are the ones losing their lives fighting over Bull S..t.

Americans need to being to look at what is in their interest, your interset is to survive, and to protect the lives of your children. What are you gaining from sending arms to Israel to kill Arabs. The time has come for Americans to worry about Americans, and each country and their people to support the lives of your own citizens. What has anyone learnt from fighting in wars, except the death of millions of people each year, we need to learn to value of peace, and stability, and the value of education. Most important of all the value of life.

daboss| 1.28.09 @ 11:10AM

Norm – get a clue and put down the kool-aid.

Waterboarding is not torture. Detention is legal and advisable when you take prisoners of war. Unfortunately, those prisoners did not fight under the banner of a state – so you cannot apply the Geneva Convention to them. And you just can’t let them go …unless you want to quarter them?

And to be perfectly frank – I am pretty sure the Iraq war was legal – as a matter of fact is was technically the RESUMTION of hostilities because Iraq violated terms of the cease fire from the first gulf war.

Just like North Korea … pretty sure we are technically at war with them. We just have a cessation of hostilities (an armistice if you prefer).

Tim| 1.28.09 @ 11:25AM

The key for the Reps is to go after Corrupt Acorn and similar corrupt democratic get out the vote machines in a very big way.

Regardless of how much pork the Dems give their friends, if you don't have a corrupt get out the vote machine in place to drag criminals and dead people to the polls the Dems will loose big in 2010 and in 2012.

Bill Pearce| 1.28.09 @ 11:42AM

Gentlemen,
You are missing the main point of the “Stimulus Bill”.
The Obama supporters spent over a billion dollars to place Obama into the presidency. Like all investors they want a return
on their investment. The “Stimulus Bill” is nothing more than classic political payback. Do the math, 1000 to 1 return on investment.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.28.09 @ 11:42AM

Bob: You are better at being obtuse then factual. It isn't a question of whether a dollar is inflated or not, it's a question of it is being spent wisely. You always try to hijack the conversation and turn it into a question of what Reagan spent. You are truly lost in space. Professional Alinskybot.

Think First| 1.28.09 @ 12:29PM

Bob,
I understand what you are trying to say and you're getting it wrong from many different angles. The economy Reagan received from Carter was in double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Historically, whenever these factors rise the ONLY way it has turned around was when tax cuts to business get cranked up. Regulation was reduced to keep small businesses going without being buried in paper work. To get even some of these changes through Reagan had to compromise on many feel-good programs he wanted to get rid of outright.

What you're then left with is comparing what he wanted to do with what he was allowed to do. The choices he made created the turn around this country needed at that time despite a hostile congress. There are 2 government programs that have proven to create jobs and increase private sector spending. Defense and NASA. Many of the arts and education programs were too ingrained and buried with sweetheart deals which congress refused to let go. Remember it is CONGRESS that controls the purse strings, not a president. He can suggest, he can not implement without their approval.

By all measures I've seen, many at Heritage and other places for anyone to see, he succeeded beyond anyone's expectations and against the thinking of both sides at the time. This began to unwind when Clinton arrived because they more than doubled regulation on all business between OSHA, AIDA, etc. that increased the cost of doing business quite a bit. There are many things Clinton and Congress did that began to unravel all the progress made. For all the talk of balancing the budget, remember they all agreed that certain programs would not be included in the "actual" budget in order to hide the fact they hadn't balanced anything. There never was a surplus as it was a manufactured surplus which included monies they should not have touched anyway like SS funds they have never had a right to anyway.

There is a reason Congressional approval is in the single digits. Because people are becoming more aware it is Congress and not just the president that are causing the many problems we face. Yet they keep electing the same scoundrels to office.
Go figure...

Reality| 1.28.09 @ 12:35PM

America is not spending any money, they are printing money. The dollar is not money it's monoply money.

If I printed American dollars in my garage and buy 10 to 15 houses I got them free it's not money.

Anyone stupid enough to borrow monoply money to buy property, what make you think you own it you have never paid for it.

Bob| 1.28.09 @ 1:09PM

Indiana, I think you need to learn how to use data. Anyone can take a selected period of time to make an argument, but if you take a different period of time you come to a different conclusion. Do you take the low point of the Carter administration and compare it to a high point in the Reagan administration as you are doing? That is data bias, and if you had taken a course in either economics or statistics, you'd know that. The only way to get bias out of the data is to look at all of the data points graphed, as I've shown you. I could certainly make the numbers lie as you have, but I believe an honest discussion based on fact is far more important.

I'm not saying that Reagan did the wrong thing in lowering marginal income tax rates, but he didn't reduce spending. Furthermore, GDP did not grow anymore in his time than anyone else. That's why he increased the debt more than anyone except Bush2. Reagan passed on the cost of government to our progeny. Those are just facts and not interpretation.

ThinkFirst, if you look at the actual data, GDP grew faster under Clinton than Reagan. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any President, Democrat or Republican, has ever been successful in reducing the budget. There is a lot of revisionist history when Republican reactionaries talk about Reagan. Again, I liked Reagan, voted for him, and thought he was a good President primarily because of what he did with the Cold War and the psyche of this country. But he hurt this economy in the long run by increasing the debt so much. Right now, I believe our debt is our greatest economic problem. You can like someone without thinking that they were perfect, you know. Reagan was far better than Carter -- can we agree on that?

carolinem| 1.28.09 @ 1:21PM

Wasteful spending, out-of-control dumping of taxpayer dollars to special interests and treating taxpayers like serfs to do the bidding of the elite -- why are the Democrats trying to imitate the Republicans?

Robert Rosencrans| 1.28.09 @ 1:57PM

In the first link, observe how a special interest group who is funded by the taxpayers is advertising a position for a job applicant to fight anti-tax anti-growth forces. The second link ponders how many jobs the Obama stimulus plan will destroy.

http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/index.php?content=was-county

According to an employment advertisement posted on the popular website www.craigslist.org, the taxpayer-funded National Association of Counties (NACO) is currently seeking an applicant among whose duties will be to “combating anti-government/anti-tax efforts.” And I am pretty sure we know what "reestablishing a partnership between the federal government and America's counties" means.

The ad seeks applicants to fill the position of “Public Affairs Special Projects Coordinator”. The URL and text of the ad are as follows:

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/npo/1002884345.html
Public Affairs Special Projects Coordinator (Washington, DC)
Reply to: resumes@naco.org [?]
Date: 2009-01-22, 9:53AM EST

A national association representing county governments is seeking a Public Affairs Special Projects Coordinator to work on two projects. One project seeks to reestablish a partnership between the federal government and America’s counties. The second will focus on developing a national strategy for combating anti-government/anti-tax efforts. The ideal candidate should have knowledge of county, state and federal governmental structure and interrelationships; experience at the federal or congressional level; experience running issue or public service campaigns; and excellent oral and written communication skills.
Send cover letter, resume and salary history to resumes@naco.org.
PostingID: 1002884345

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2009/01/the_jobdestroying_stimulus_bil.php
How Many Jobs Will the Stimulus Bill Destroy?

Washington – As President Obama attempts to sell his stimulus bill as a job-creating force, the most important question to ask the new president is: How many jobs will his stimulus bill destroy?

The billions of dollars in projects contained in the stimulus bill must come from someplace. It doesn’t grow on trees, and it won’t materialize out of thin air. This money comes straight out of the private sector where it would be spent far more efficiently than anything the government will attempt. Already we are seeing the inefficiency and waste that plagues the government spending process—with pork projects being slipped in by the thousands.

“After months of promising ‘change,’ the pork-filled stimulus bill looks like business-as-usual on steroids,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Can anyone really argue that spending money on a water park in Miami and a beach in New Jersey will stimulate the economy?”

Democrats put their belief in the so-called multiplier effect—the notion that each dollar of government spending results in a dollar and a half’s worth of economic growth. There is no evidence to sustain this theory. If there were, why in the world would Congress stop the spending at a trillion dollars?

President Obama’s “green jobs” campaign is similarly flawed. Promoting “green jobs” through government subsidies will surely create new jobs, but it will destroy many more jobs as it willfully forces the nation to waste money to produce energy in an inefficient manner. These subsidies will consume resources that would have otherwise been available to be spent and invested in the economy.

“The stimulus bill is based on the totally backward idea that government can conjure up economic growth out of the clear blue sky,” Mr. Toomey added. “The source of wealth, income, and jobs lies not with the government but with production. The best way to stimulate the economy is to look for ways to restore the natural incentive to produce, and the best way to do that is to cut taxes. The Republican Study Committee’s proposal is an excellent example of what a stimulus bill should look like. President Obama’s spending frenzy is exactly the opposite.”

“These are serious times, and we cannot afford half-hearted opposition and tentative challenges. With the prospect of $1 trillion in mostly wasteful projects looming on the horizon, now is the time for our representatives to raise their voices and demand real change from our new president.”

Todd| 1.28.09 @ 2:36PM

Bob, why don't you explain to us why someone like yourself who claims to be a fiscal conservative yet you proudly voted for Obama because he is so "smart and intellectual" because he went to Harvard. Instead of actually discussing what is actually in this "stimulus" bill, you attempt to defend it by attacking Bush and Reagan's tax cuts as being the source of our debt problems rather than out of control Congressional spending which is absolute crap. To accuse the author of presenting misleading information for factually listing what is included in this "stimulus" exposes that it is you that is attempting to mislead people.

The last paragraph nails it and this so-called stimulus is exactly what he expected all along, this bill is a fraud of liberal big government spending and Obama will be exposed as the fraud he is soon enough though we will all pay the consequence of having this arrogant clown as our President. Let us see how he explains his way out of his promise to cut taxes for 95% of people, which was a lie to start with since about 40% of people pay no Federal taxes anyways.

Indiana Alex| 1.28.09 @ 2:54PM

Bob,

Talk about data bias comparing growth in the Reagan years versus the Clinton years.

Clinton inherited an economy coming out of a particularly mild recession, with, what 3% growth and low inflation? Not much of a challenge there is there?

I don't know of too many who would suggest that Carter was better than Reagan.

I'm guessing you are a Keynsian, which if you are actually a Republican, would make you of the Boskin, Dahrman, Brady ilk. Ugh.

Clearly not a monitarist, clearly not classical, so at least give some good "crowding out" insight on the impact of this "stimulus" on interest rates.

Terri| 1.28.09 @ 3:13PM

Can someone please explain to me why the government cant take all that money and divide it amongst each paying taxpayer? if that wouldnt stimulate the economy nothing will. Working people are losing thier jobs, soon there will be no taxpayers to pay for this.

JamesJ| 1.28.09 @ 3:31PM

Have Gun
Will Travel
Wake me when the revolution starts

Dai Alanye| 1.28.09 @ 3:33PM

I don't care how many economics degrees Bob has, he's a nitwit when it comes to historical analysis.

Reagan took a badly failing economy and turned it around, while simultaneously winning the Cold War.

The Republican Congress, elected in 1994, turned a sliding economy into a huge economic success. Clinton's only virtue was that he largely went along with the Republicans.

Dubya's relatively minor tax cuts pulled the economy out of the doldrums despite our having to fight a low-level war. But continuous over-spending and the housing fiasco have ruined the early good effect of his cuts.

What Obama and the Dems are now doing bears no resemblance to these earlier successes, especially since his "tax cut" is largely a misdirected fraud. If the Great Depression is any indicator, this huge pork bill will ruin the economy for several years. It won't be Obamanomics that gets us out of trouble, but more likely will dig us deeper.

Michele San Pietro| 1.28.09 @ 3:41PM

When Reagan was elected President, the crisis in America was much more serious than now. As usual, Democrats use shameful propaganda in order to rob honest people.

Thom| 1.28.09 @ 3:52PM

Bob said, "They did not help the economy and only increased the deficit from the surplus left to him. "

There was no surplus. There hasn’t been a true balanced budget for better than 5 decades. If you believe there was a surplus or that Clinton every had a balanced budget then by extension also believe that taking out a 30 year loan that leaves only 1/3 of your net income in your pocket while paying only the interest on the loan for 29 years is also running a surplus. That is exactly what this nation did with the Social Security System. Tens of trillions of unfunded mandated spending is coming down on this Nation for generations to come that there is no income for short of just taking a sizable portion of GDP with it. The bulk of Federal spending growth is entitlement spending that produces tens of millions of dependent people that have been taxed for their entire working lives but get no ROR on what they have been taxed on for the most part. Only the lower third receiving SS now have any chance of getting back what they paid in and the other two thirds subsidize them enormously. I couldn’t live long enough to get back what I’ve paid in. There hasn’t been a balanced budget, a surplus or even a practical means to get to one except in the minds of those that ignore programmed in unfunded mandates going back to the 1930s. If we had absolute fiscal discipline (spending equals income) from this point forward we would still be running a “deficit” in effect above and beyond because each and every year for the next 20-30 we are going to be losing the income from one generation and adding their expense (a net loss in revenue) to both Federal and State Budgets.

Stop the fiction Bob, there hasn’t been a balanced budget in my life time and that goes back to just after Truman delayed the programmed in SS tax hike to keep from hurting his reelection chances.

Todd| 1.28.09 @ 3:56PM

Excellent post Robert with some interesting links. The multiplier effect for government spending is a lie that the Keynesian's cultist are trying to brainwash the general public to accept with no evidence whatsoever.

Indiana Alex, I guess you are not familiar with Bob but he is on this site everyday saying the same dumb things about Reagan and his causing the deficits. This idiot will go on about Reagan causing these deficits but will say we are blaming Obama's too much for this fraudulent stimulus plan, that tells you everything you need to know about him.

Indiana Alex| 1.28.09 @ 4:07PM

Thanks Todd,

I'm guessing he was a member of the GHWB economic team. They REALLY hated Reagan.

Linda Lou Switzer| 1.28.09 @ 4:11PM

FEW are guilty.....ALL are responsible. "They" work 24/7 to destroy us ... how much time do any of us spend to keep ourselves free.........

EmpFab| 1.28.09 @ 4:14PM

The national government expands in this way because it can. It is in the political interest of too many people for this exponential growth to occur, and currently there is no political mechanism to stop it. The original U.S. Constitution envisioned the state legislatures as the political check against national government growth. The interests of the state legislatures were to be represented by the U.S. Senate, and the interests of the national government were to be represented by the U.S. House and Presidency. Now that the state legislatures no longer appoint U.S. Senators, they no longer have a voice in the national government: there is no longer a force or interest represented in the national government that is strong enough to stop this kind of unsustainable growth. We can not rely upon our existing structure to stop this. The only way to stop certain financial ruin is to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the competing voice of the states to a federal system.

http://seddigressio.blogspot.com/2008/05/repeal-17th.html

Jeff| 1.28.09 @ 4:16PM

I only see a few ways back to financial stability:
1) a dramatic increase in taxes and reduction in spending that will be painful and slowly bring us back to financial health.
2) a massive reduction in spending on our military, essentially forfeiting our superpower status.
3) a sale of Hawaii and/or Alaska and other strategic pacific islands to the Chinese and Japanese. Or maybe a 99 year lease like Hong Kong?
4) Default, and hide behind our military from all the people who loaned us money.
5) Let the Dollar drop until Asia goes on an American buying spree, essentially buying up all of our best technology.

Investment advice: when the world goes to hell, and you don't want to own anything denominated in any currency... buy guns.

brutus| 1.28.09 @ 4:28PM

Bob sure has a lot of time on his hands to spend educating us conservative infidels.

Pat| 1.28.09 @ 5:03PM

Why is stating the obvious considered analysis? President Obama reminded the Republicans that it was he, Obama, who was elected president. That means he gets to reward his followers with money, he can safely ignore those who don't like it and he isn't responsible to those who want to second guess him.

Main St. Charley saw the Republicans give Wall St. incredible sums and he wants some free money of his own. For grounding in basic Main St. economic theory, look at Detroit and their media advocate, the Detroit Free Press - they aren't confused by what a "stimulus package" is or does. Basically, money flows from Washington to Detroit and SE Michigan, they spend it and then ask for more money. For their part, they supported Obama with a fervor usually attributed to the Pope's support of the Church but without the humility. And, in their minds, they deserve it and are already happily bickering over how to spend it.

Now Detroiters know as much about Wall Street's derivatives or capital markets as they know about prudent union contracts, but that's not the point. Of course the money is flowing to those who support President Obama and to the favorite charities of his political allies - why wouldn't it?

If we must go through this silly practice of inventing rationalizations to justify rewards to the victors, the Free Press has created their own. Namely, Michigan and its taxpayers don't get as much back from Washington as they send in taxes. So, in their minds, they earned their stimulus billions based on past contributions and they want it. Simplistic maybe, Main St. economic theory definitely, but as rationalizations go, it's as good as any.

Randy| 1.28.09 @ 5:36PM

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever. One's man's pork is another man's middle class enticement to find another job since he lost his yesterday at Home Depot, Boeing, Nextel/Sprint, Catepiller, etc...But no, all we get from the right is cut taxes, that'll stimulate the economy. Cut taxes, fund defense spending, fund the prisons, cut some more taxes, boom, bust, boom, bust. The same tired refrain, from the same tired group of thinkers. The American Spectator has a subscription base of what 72,000? That many people lost their jobs yesterday in America. Time to throw some money at the middle class instead of the military, the Iraq reconstruction vendors, and corporate America. So your bill may be filled with pork, but at least Joe the plumber will see the investment, drive on the investment, send his kid to school in the refurbished investment, and yes maybe even take his child to a play where the actors are paid by the stimulus bill.

chris| 1.28.09 @ 5:38PM

All I want to know is how do I get a piece of the action. I can't beat'em so let's join 'em. How much can I get for an art project that stores carbon?

KG| 1.28.09 @ 5:58PM

To Bob: I agree that the problem is the runaway Gov't spending that no politician has the courage to address. However, to state that the Bush2 tax cuts did not work is myopic. The problem with this economy are the massively regulated industries being used by politician for personal and political profit. This entire collapse rests at the feet of the politicians who used FNMA & FDMA as voter registration dept. and made a tidy profit from them. Mr. Obama himself made over $1000 a day (time spent in the congress) from FNMA and managed to vote present everytime someone tried to reign in the impending disaster. But he was small patatoes compared to Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Schummer, Franklin Reigns, Jim Johnson, Jammie Garelick, Andrew Cuomo, etc. This economic disaster, that is about to be exaserbated by this bill, is the result of the people who are now lying to the American public about the cure. You can allow yourself to be distracted by the politics and the feel good nature of the words if that makes you happy. However, you are billing you children & grandchildren for your happiness.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.28.09 @ 6:24PM

Give a man a fish and he'll eat that day, give the public a stimulus bill and they'll starve for a decade.
http://netrightnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=247613:stimulating-debt-abandoning-hope-&catid=1:nrn-blog&Itemid=7

The unprecedented increases in public spending and financial commitments by the government that have been in enacted in 2008—some $10 trillion should this “stimulus” plan pass—are not based on any increase in revenues to the Treasury. They are based on a desire by politicians to exacerbate the self-same economic policies that caused the crisis to begin with.

Pause for a moment and think it through. Because this truly is unprecedented. Never before has there been such a radical, massive expansion of the financial obligations of the government—and thus the American taxpayer. If it fails, as ALG News has reported, the U.S. will be bankrupt. The resulting inflation will make Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic look like mere blips on the economic screen. And foreign nations will have no alternative but to abandon the dollar as the debris of history.

But there is another way. Other paths that the nation might take. Other roads that do not lead the American taxpayer to be shackled to an Everest of debt.

It was not government that invented the steam engine that powered factories and mills, locomotives and steam boats; it was the individual initiative of several engineers over the course of hundreds of years, including James Watt and Richard Trevithick. Nor was it government that forever revolutionized the process of making cars—and just about everything else that is manufactured; it was the initiative of Henry Ford and his assembly line that created millions of jobs and made the 20th Century the era of the automobile. And again it was not government that transformed and made more efficient the use of computers; it was independent innovators like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

These and countless other captains of industry are the true creators of wealth and opportunity. Not a bloated, moribund Big Government that does not even consider tapping this resourcefulness.

Instead, quite simply, government should have faith—and get out of the way of—the engine of the American economy. It should clear the path to economic growth. It should reduce the tax burden across-the-board. Slash the federal budget and reduce the burden that government poses on the economy. And it should restore sound principles of monetary policy.

The straightforward applications of these principles would place the responsibility for achieving prosperity back where it belongs—in the hands of each individual American.

Real wealth is created by the individual—by true captains of industry—who invents something of value that people want, need, and desire. Not by a government printing press and complex financial instruments that enable the state to spend far beyond its means. It is generated by aspiring entrepreneurs who need to expand in order to get their goods and services into the hands of consumers. Not by make-work government programs spinning off dead-end jobs.

That wealth destruction has occurred, and unemployment is rising, is a testament to the failure of the very policies now being proposed to “stimulate” economic growth. And it is now being deepened daily by a complete lack of faith by politicians in individuals and free enterprise. They have abandoned hope in the American dream. And their nightmare scenario is only beginning to unfold.

Overjoyed| 1.28.09 @ 6:33PM

I think it's just beautiful. Ya'll got bamboozled!

Robert Rosencrans| 1.28.09 @ 6:42PM

Here's the pork for Obama's home state. And this is only a portion of it.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32765&seenIt=1
Federal budget experts have identified at least $22.3 billion in tax cuts and increased spending for Illinois in the Obama administration’s $825-billion stimulus package now pending in Congress.

That includes nearly $4.5 billion for schools and $1 billion for highways, according to a detailed analysis by Federal Funds Information for States, a state-funded non-profit based in D.C. that studies federal spending programs.

Another more comprehensive study by the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, came up with similar numbers for those programs. But it also analyzed a larger set of programs, plus three of the bill's major tax breaks. About $6.9 billion of Illinois' share of the stimulus would come from the "Make Work Pay" jobs tax credit and increases in the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.

The rest of the state’s $22.3-billion total would come from increased spending, according to the center, led by $3.49 billion in additional Medicaid funds and $2.7 billion from a new state fiscal stabilization fund, which is expected to shore up state budgets for education and public safety. Read the full study here.

You May Also Like

* Ill. may get $105M for transit in stimulus bill
* Daley in D.C. wants Chicago's share of stimulus funds
* Obama becomes 44th president
* Illinois poised to get bigger bucks for roads, transit
* Ill. lawmakers split 9-9-1 on bailout bill

Suggested Searches

illinois - amtrak - dc wants chicago - stimulus funds - stimulus bill

Sponsored by

The state's total is likely to be far higher than either study indicates because they covered less than half of the proposed $550 billion in new spending and only a fraction of the $275 billion in tax cuts passed by the House Appropriations Committee last week, which the House plans to vote on Wednesday.

The analysis by the Center for American Progress included spending programs above $1 billion for which assumptions about allocating the funds could be made, or about two thirds of the spending in the bill, said Will Straw, the center's associate director for economic growth.

The study didn't cover federal spending that doesn't flow through state governments, such as science and research facilities, and it didn't include grants for which states compete.

Marc Jeric| 1.28.09 @ 6:50PM

How fast the progressives (read socialist, marxists, liberals, fascists, communists) rewrite the history! They say this recession is Bush's doing? After the Clinton recession of 2000-2001, aggravated by the 9/11 terrorist attack, we had 5 years of remarkable economic growth, low unemployment, low interest rates, kow inflation. Then came the Democrat victory in 2006, followed by this predictable recession caused by giving houses (under threats of fines and prison by Frank and Dobbs) to "underserved minorities" which could not meet their payments.

otto| 1.28.09 @ 7:32PM

The Republicans are making a huge error here. They are kidding themselves if they think it is not going to effective in generating economic activity and thereby stimulative to job creation. No doubt it has some stuff dear to democratic hearts but today the Republicans effectively voted to do nothing in the face of job losses of around 150,000 this week announced by major corporations and you can probably double that if you counted in all the small employers laying off workers. If we think this is going to earn us any plaudits in middle America we are out of our minds. And furthermore we did it after Obama engaged in a bit of elaborate kabuki theater of appearing to reach out to Republicans.

And as for the comment by
Marc Jeric| 1.28.09 @ 6:50PM

Buddy the housing boom happened from 2002 to end 2006. The Democrats didn't take over congress until Jan 2007. At some point we are going to have to grow up and stop parroting this nonsense. By any reasonable measure the performance of the economy during Bush's presidency was awful. It wasn't all his fault but a lot of it was.

otto| 1.28.09 @ 7:36PM

Robert Rosencrans| 1.28.09 @ 6:24PM
Give a man a fish and he'll eat that day, give the public a stimulus bill and they'll starve for a decade.

And while the GOP is stocked with crackerbarrel philosphers like this it's going to be out of power for a long time.

G| 1.28.09 @ 7:43PM

Watch FREE full length Movies, TV Shows, Music (over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, and FREE College Educations @ InternetSurfShack.com

Todd| 1.28.09 @ 7:52PM

Great post by Robert, one of the best I have read on this site whatever that fool Otto thinks. So please tell me Otto how money for STD's is going to stimulate the economy? This stimulus is nothing but a payout to liberal special interests, welfare payments disguised as tax cuts and payouts to the public sector unions with the miserable teacher unions getting the lions share. Tell me Otto, how is throwing more taxpayer dollars down the rat hole that is our public education system particularly in the cities going to help our economy? When it fails miserably, it will fall at the feet at Obama and the Democrats in Congress who will pass this monstrosity.

Todd| 1.28.09 @ 8:01PM

And another Otto, did you ever consider that these layoffs happening right now is because Corporations know that the economy is going to go into a further tailspin due Obama's policies and are bracing themselves for the worst? If they actually believed this stimulus would work and get the economy to recover, I would doubt people would be getting laid off left and right. The government will only get in the way of a recovery by stealing money from the private sector like what happened in the Great Depression.

Todd| 1.28.09 @ 8:02PM

another thing Otto

Alan Brooks| 1.28.09 @ 9:09PM

and certain libertarians think they can reform publik ed even though the funds go down the rathole.

btw, did any of you ever notice that the rathole is the dominant feature of life?

George True| 1.28.09 @ 9:17PM

For the first time in a long time, I am so proud of the principled stand the Republicans took today in opposing this corrupt stimulus debacle unanimously. Not one Repub voted for it. Finally, the Republicans seem to have gotten a successful spine transplant. Of course there was no chance of defeating this incredibly damaging and monumentally foolish bill. But now Obama and the Dems OWN IT. When it fails, and it WILL fail, the galactically stupid Dems will undoubtedly double down and pump another trillion dollars into Stimulus 2.0 sometime later this year or early next year. I am cautiously optimistic now that the Repubs will force them to own that one too. And it will fail even more spectacularly. And then we just may see some chickens come home to roost in 2010 for the Dems, to paraphrase the Reverend J. Wright.

Ya gotta love the Dems, they are their own worst enemy. The fact that "stimulus" packages such as this one have NEVER worked in this country or any other doesn't faze them. The fact that tax cuts for individuals and companies has NEVER failed to boost jobs, production, and the creation of capital doesn't interest them. Even though the Obamboozler fooled 52% of the voters, he just put the first nail in his political coffin just one week into his term, and he doesn't even realize it.

I also love how the Dems and their lapdog media syncophants are referring to part of the stimulus as a "tax cut". It is of course no such thing. If he had cut marginal tax rates across the board, THAT would be a tax cut. If he had reduced the capital gains tax, THAT would be a tax cut. If he had reduced corporate and business taxes, THAT would be a tax cut. But when you send a $1000 check in the mail to everyone, even those who didn't pay any taxes, that is called WELFARE. It is most assuredly NOT a "tax cut".

Darek| 1.28.09 @ 9:17PM

most of this just sounds like the deaf-and-blind speaking to each other. Since Marc Jerik puts "socialist, marxists, liberals, fascists, communists" all into one category, he obviously doesn't care about reality enough to know that the business cycle is dated by a non-partisan, private sector committee of highly regarded economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research. If he did, he would know that what he calls "the Clinton recession of 2000-2001" did not begin until March 2001. This is obviously a website for people who think providing health care for people unable to buy insurance is "waste." This is why you guys lost the election, and are going to lose many more. You may call it fascism, but it's really just democracy. And being outraged by the moronic Hannity/Limbaugh twins is NOT the same as trying to silence them. ALL are entitled to freedom of expression, and I wish the wacko conservatives on this site to keep expressing themselves freely. The educated and the young are appalled and moving to the left. Perhaps the time has come for the US to catch up with Canada and all other industrial democracies in the world.

G| 1.28.09 @ 9:35PM

Watch FREE porn movies involving Jeremiah, Bob, Interloper, Darek, Crusader and S.L. Toddard! Lots of gay sex and liberal nonsense @InternetSurfshack.com

ConfidentInTheFuture| 1.28.09 @ 9:48PM

I began your article thinking you were off base, then began to wonder if you're right at least in part. I'll be looking at the ideologically neutral collective judgment of the stock and bond markets over the next few months to see just how right or wrong you are.

Andrea Economos| 1.28.09 @ 9:54PM

If this isn't a case of "bait and switch", I don't know what is.

Alan Brooks| 1.28.09 @ 10:15PM

800 billion and change sounds better than 1 trillion.

1 trillion looks bad in the newspapers. but 800-something bil? alright.

Steve| 1.28.09 @ 10:23PM

If you can't see how helping with daycare will allow an out-of-work parent to find and go to a job, then there's just no helping you. Hint: Someone with no money can't afford daycare. Hint #2: Someone who has to stay home and watch the kids can't simultaneously be at a job.

tony| 1.28.09 @ 10:46PM

Bob:

A few weeks ago, you and I had a back and forth with respect to our qualifications to opine on certain matters. You made the point, as you do incessantly on these message boards that, as a mathematician, no one has the right to question your use or understanding of statistics. Then, you told me, an attorney from one of those wonderful northeastern schools that you attended, that you would not presume to question me on a constitutional matter. So here goes.

As a law student, I spent my 3 years essentially studying the US Constitution. In fact, during my first semester, I spent 4 1/2 hours per week for 13 weeks in a Con Law class. As any law student will tell you, that means a minimum of 9 hours per week outside the class studying Con Law. So I think it is pretty clear that I have a pretty good understanding of the document.

You continue to rag on Ronald Reagan for not cutting spending, but as any first year law student can attest, as well as anyone with a fairly sophisticated understanding of the 3 respective branches of government, all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the democrats control that half of the legislative branch during the 80's?

Reagan had bigger things to worry about than deficits, such as winning the Cold War and wiping out any and all vestiges of the Carter economy. Sometimes, in order to achieve a larger goal, you need to accept things that you would not ordinarily accept. Reagan cut deals with Tip O'Neill and the ultimate result was an end to the Cold War, a robust economy (regardless of your selective charts) and a restoration of American pride.

MBSS| 1.28.09 @ 10:56PM

you guys are such hypocritical douchebags. of course this bill is shit, but is it any better to gift billions to bankers for them to sit on it or invest in chinese banks. democrats are the worst, except for republicans.

BP| 1.29.09 @ 12:12AM

Steve get a life. Maye that person should have gotten married or kept their legs together. It is all about personal responsibility. And you leftists leave this country now this is the last place for us who have dignity and do not want nanny gov to take care of us. The rat hole is tuning into a black hole. You dems might just be at the begining of the end for your movement, that is if the public ever wakes up. Trust me I will smile when that evil is gone. Revelution will be the only other way.

tony| 1.29.09 @ 12:32AM

MBSS:

Very classy. You aren't Keith Olbermann by any chance, are you?

Frosty| 1.29.09 @ 1:23AM

Actually, I think that was Rahm Emanuel.

rocketraccoon| 1.29.09 @ 6:32AM

Bush, Cheney, Iraq, torture, blah, blah, blah...say what you want, leftists. Obama and his chums in congress are clueless and flailing. He's just attempting to parlay the socialist agenda he was too lazy to bring to fruition in Illinois. The only difference is that now he has the press and the rest of the rotten leftist faction in Washington to do his dirty work for him. Speaking of which...I actually DO work for a small company that produces something worthwhile and meets a payroll every week--neither of which Obama or Nancy Pelosi has ever done. So I don't expect much out of them in regard to keeping government out of our way.

Here's to watching the democrats crash and burn. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Gene Bailiff| 1.29.09 @ 10:01AM

Tell me how tax cuts have changed anything so far. Having worked in the Steel business for almost 30 years...yes short for a pension, I watched the company B.S. take, take, take and rarely invest it into the business wisely. When the standard in the steel industry was Basic Oxygen Furnaces, my company was building open hearths. Electric furnaces were the best way to go and they finally built a BOF. We built a top of the line coke oven to compete and the superintendent ran it to the ground in a short time despite the warnings from the company who built it. They made him plant manager for his good work. During the push for stimulus going to the car companies, the anti union people came out and made statements like we backed the Steel industry we have to do it for our car companies, this never happened. Better hope we never need steel the way it has been needed in the past.. ww2. I think the new stimulus package is way over the top, but the bank bailout seems to have worked fine for all at the top, yea right. I am sick and tired of all goverment left right and their agendas, how about ours, the american people.
BAIL OUT NO ONE Let the chips fall as they may

Robert Rosencrans| 1.29.09 @ 12:22PM

Here's some more cracker barrel philosophy. Give an illegal immigrant a fish and he'll eat that day, give him an economic stimulus and he'll stick around a lifetime.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Hill-Republican-Stimulus-aids-illegal-immigrants-2009-01-2938603597.html

Hill Republican: Stimulus aids illegal immigrants

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
The Associated Press 1/29/09

A top Republican congressional aide says the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure could steer government checks to illegal immigrants.

Republican officials are concerned that the Democratic-written legislation makes people who came to the United States illegally eligible for tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple.

A House-passed version of the bill and one making its way through the Senate both disqualify nonresident aliens from receiving the credits. But neither requires a worker to have a Social Security number to get the credits.

An economic aid measure enacted in February 2008 that sent rebates to most wage earners required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.

Jerry O'Neal| 1.29.09 @ 2:55PM

Good information...thank you

towgunner77| 1.29.09 @ 4:30PM

To the poster "Bob"

I am a student of economics. How in the world is spending on condoms going to stimulate the economy? And why the heck are liberals so obsessed with sex? The country is heading for depression, but wait, Pelosi to the rescue. ‘Never fret my little sheep you'll be able to get off on a state sponsored orgy’? What? Come on. I know your responses; I should read the fine print. But here is my quick-thought on that: It’s a sad mile-post for society to pass if the state must take a role raising kids and a perverted role I might add. Keep the masses occupied, and what a better way than throwing endless sex at them. Here is the real issue. Multiplier effects do work as evident in new deal, I’m with you there, but, American politicians have reached a new level of corruption. As highlighted in this article, the amount being spent on non-multiplier areas is staggering enough. National Endowment for the arts – explain to me the multiplier value of a sculpture or a painting? Now, look at the first rendition of TARP, the one Republicans rejected, it was full of pork and useless items – Bow & Arrow makers for instance. Since we have such an open government, the bill-payers for TARP and this stimulus plan will likely never know every line item in the bill. That’s not a mistake! If we did, there would be outcry. So, we are left to only assume, and yes that’s imperfect, but given the known variables of this equation i.e. over-extended, pound foolish, corrupt and biased government what else are we suppose to conclude. Having not been born yesterday, I believe there is substantial useless spending here, to the point were economic value-creation is minimized or almost entirely offset. Either-way it’s inefficient, which is the essence of all bureaucracies. Unfortunately for all of us, that means our world is on a collision course with all the ills of a bureaucratic system. Change, you can believe in.

Karcarius| 1.29.09 @ 7:26PM

Don't worry saleboter,BO and the dems will get all the credit for this.Reps in the house didn't vote yes on this and I doubt the ones in the Senate will either.Though BO wants them to be a part of it so when it fails they can point to them and say they voted for it too.

Nobama Keep the Change| 1.30.09 @ 1:25AM

Obama is a crook, a thief, a liar. This "stimulus" package is nothing but a liberal's wet dream of big government wasteful spending. It is filled with quid pro quo and paybacks. The organizations who are getting billions are a veritable who's who of democratic party campaign contributors.

Didn't Blago just get impeached for this? Now it's time to impeach Obama.

The dems massive spending will catapult us into the deepest depression America has ever seen. We'll have to start World War III just to recover. Remember, we have Hirohito and Hitler to thank for ending the first great depression, not FDR.

The only thing good will be that it probably be the Muslims that we kick the crap out of in WW III.

JTK| 1.30.09 @ 1:57AM

Peter Ferrara is one of the people who took cash from Abramoff to write positive pieces about his clients. This author has no credibility.

Frosty| 1.30.09 @ 2:45AM

JTK, facts are facts, regardless of the person speaking them. The liberals are far worse than this author.

Mark Knochel| 1.30.09 @ 3:45AM

Our problem, to me, is two fold. On the one hand, we put way too much emphasis on the office of the President, when we should be focusing on Congress. I keep hearing about Bush's tax cuts and Obama's stimulus plan, when ultimately, it's up to Congress to draft and vote on the legislation. This leads to the second problem which is the vicious cycle of behavior in the Congress. Every 12 years or so, "change" sweeps through the electorate and new blood enters the Congress and some change does happen. But then the inevitable happens. You have to get re-elected and if you can't show your voters what you've done for them, i.e. what pork you've brought to your district then you're sure to be replaced! We, as a people, do not spend enough time educating ourselves and therefore, we get the government we deserve.

Nick| 2.1.09 @ 5:08PM

His assessment of the issues is right on, but his understanding of what has happened and what needs to be done is wrong. How many times to we need to go into recessions from which many never recover, before we start understanding that in a fiat monetary system there is no solution other than what the banks prescribe.

That prescription is; the rich get richer, and the poor stay poor.

First, and foremost we have to stop borrowing money from a banking cartel that creates it out of thin air. If we want to remain in a fiat monetary system lets print the money, and create it ourselves with payments back to ourselves instead of private banks.

Clearly the financial industry does not have the kind of money that we believe it lends to us out of its CORE. If it did, it would not be asking for bailouts. And certainly if the FED were part of the US government we would not have to repay anything at interest, nor would they have to buy paper dollars from the mint. That is an absolute upside down perversion that either is not understood, or as is apparent a subject of denial.

The issues are clear and historically proven. Those nations that produce prosper. We were duped into believing that a service economy could prosper, and last.

I say get rid of the entire education system, and start teaching our children how to build, the basics of which are design, and implementation. Teaching them false economics, questionable legal theory, manipulated medical, and a host of other non-productive endeavors has brought us to a point where college grads come out with huge bills and nowhere to go.

Start taxing industry that imports anything, tax them as high as the calculators will allow. Reward industry that does it all here. Eventually they will prosper, and the imports will disappear from the shelves. America will regain its status as a producer, and since we have been the largest consumer of goods we would no doubt be able to expand.

No we do not have a global economy that you can argue as point of fact. For years we have had an economy that ran on a 25% consumption rate by the American people who are only 4% of the world population.

If you want a global economy I am sure that China with 25% of the worlds population could produce a booming and highly prosperous economy for itself, and not need to flood our stores with their goods. Likewise for India, and please don't argue that they haven't had the opportunity to do so, or that we need to extend ourselves to every other country on the face of the Earth. They are incredibly ridiculous arguments.

The entire mindset of the economic guru's is either based in lies or total ignorance. It cannot be any other way.

grow taller| 8.28.09 @ 6:26AM

It won't be Obamanomics that gets us out of trouble, but more likely will dig us deeper.

Markweee| 9.8.09 @ 12:56AM

Thanks for the great tips, I have been using mind jet for a lot of my small and big projects, but never thought of using it for mapping a book.
teaching degree AND Science School

Markweee| 9.8.09 @ 12:56AM

I think it would be really interesting if you could also share the mindmaps of the books you have read!!

Thanks, great blog!

Regards
biology degree

Markweee| 9.8.09 @ 12:56AM

I think it would be really interesting if you could also share the mindmaps of the books you have read!!

Thanks, great blog!
Bachelors degree AND associate degree business

maeisare| 9.17.09 @ 11:34AM

This is really informative post of the Thesis Proposal. Thanks for the quality info.
Regards,
Mark - Classification Essay

yeirms| 9.17.09 @ 11:35AM

I have bookmarked this post. Thanks for sharing.
MLA Research Paper
Regards,

服装批发| 10.8.09 @ 4:09AM

Your blog is nice,i like it.

Scott| 10.10.09 @ 9:16AM

Of course the stimulus plan is not going to please everyone. As with everything else, you have to dig into the plan to find your share of the pie.

Obviously there was cash for clunkers, another one is cash for appliances and if you are a home owner there is the energy savings rebate.

Now with all that being said, one can only hope there are no "other" hidden items to off set the benefits.

-Scott
Philadelphia Wedding Photographer

jhkj| 11.19.09 @ 10:14PM

MKV Converter,
Convert MKV File

Acai Slim| 11.26.09 @ 12:20PM

Obviously there was cash for clunkers, another one is cash for appliances and if you are a home owner there is the energy savings rebate.

health habits| 12.4.09 @ 9:50AM

Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up! Cheers. Post about oes tsetnoc and a place for my oes tsetnoc.

mimi| 12.14.09 @ 8:57PM

ugg outlet

Pengamat| 1.12.10 @ 11:57AM

waste money policy to support big corporate.. Let's Think Out of The Box|Astaga.com Portal Lifestyle On The Net

Beauty Accessories| 2.1.10 @ 8:05AM

China Online Shop
Buy Wholesale Products

escort bayan| 2.10.10 @ 8:13PM

thanks all admin perfect comments

Susan212| 2.23.10 @ 12:21PM

Excellent written article!
chicago movers chicago movers reviews

dannysun| 3.13.10 @ 12:27PM

Good Morning, Suckers, it sounds good!

ghd| 3.16.10 @ 2:42AM

In our diet life ,beauty has been a fashion .So first we will care her or his hair when we look at a strange.Since ghd hair strighters is one of the best tools to make your hair different from others .So i sugesst that you should buy a
to make you different.

Mide Kelepçesi| 3.19.10 @ 11:46AM

with aesthetics on this site ... thank you very much for all managers

wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 4:56AM

Blu ray Ripper for Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on ther Mac OS X

Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 10:42PM

I’ll have aPoptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales.Poptropica

Joseph Morris| 4.22.10 @ 4:34PM

Buy Pepper Spray
Pepper Spray

mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:48AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

hair straighener| 5.9.10 @ 10:47PM

No matter when, people pursue hair beauty is not going to change. Heart of beauty in everyone. Hair beauty is the same.
(ghdhairlyp)

JerryS| 8.4.11 @ 4:25AM

How ironic those former communist and socialist economies are now the recipients of hard-earned dollars flowing to their expanding economies, replete with near slave wages, poor working conditions and even fewer fiscal controls than those which facilitated the meltdown we are presently witnessing in the west. For most it is incomprehensible that this movement of capital has been orchestrated in a manner to separate the common working man from the fruits of his labor in a manner that leaves no one accountable, for what amounts to a systemic shakedown of productive income. fsa life settlements

rip blu ray| 7.7.10 @ 4:19AM

thanks

Brigs| 10.7.10 @ 12:25PM

I would like to rate this 8 out of 10, You did a good research on respective topics and this will result in this nice posting. I always salute the hard bloggers. Please come with more information..

Shiela| 10.7.10 @ 12:26PM

Pretty good post. I just came across your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. van insurance

Kimmy| 11.13.10 @ 7:04PM

For more information about child education you can always check the workdbook encyclopedia, they hare id-depth information about this.

karaoke songs| 12.11.10 @ 1:53AM

Heya..thanks for the post and great tips..even I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success.

pandora charms| 3.7.11 @ 11:17AM

Interesting article, a lot of facts and figures! Pandora Charms

samanta| 3.9.11 @ 6:29AM

This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality.

wholesale beads| 4.18.11 @ 2:36AM

Good post! Thanks for your information!

Chris| 4.19.11 @ 6:34AM

Good article
Van Insurance Quotes

Glenn| 6.28.11 @ 6:55AM

Lol this was really hilarious
California Coast University Online

Thanks| 8.11.11 @ 11:36AM

Fantastic precise info and this is one of the most nice blogs Ive read in a very long time

iphone

Como Crecer de Estatura| 9.13.11 @ 1:21PM

ha ha suckers! By the way, very interesing article, keep it up :D

Insurance Quotes| 10.1.11 @ 4:43PM

Bit harsh!!

Bloons td 5| 2.6.12 @ 4:09PM

I think that there are some interesting comments on this page. This topic really started some serious debates.