http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
Enjoy! Discuss! :) (Don't let the author scare you. Please actually read it first. LOL)
We can also hash out the major flaws in the plan that the House approved yesterday if you like.
Printable View
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
Enjoy! Discuss! :) (Don't let the author scare you. Please actually read it first. LOL)
We can also hash out the major flaws in the plan that the House approved yesterday if you like.
More on the bill that passed yesterday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
Shameful, no?
That doesn't sound good to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassiesmom
Which is why it was wise for the Republicans to keep their hands off it. Whaddya know? The "R's" DO have a bit of spine.
Further... If this plan was such a home run, why did the President care if the Republicans supported it? Wouldn't he want them to NOT approve?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
What, you didn't hear any of his campaign speechs? He said he would
seek a bi-partison effort for his ideas for change. Obama certainly does
not need Republican support to get a law passed. He has gone out of his
way to ask for their support.
You know, I find it disturbing how some seem to be just gleefully hoping and waiting for the new president to falter and fall, to perhaps prove himself evil and corrupt. Comments made in other threads have appeared to hint that some would welcome his downfall and even internal war in the U.S. It is one thing to have misgivings and disagreements with the president, but something else to seem to be waiting and watching eagerly for mistakes and downfall, all for the sake of being proven right? For punishing those who voted for him? I'm not really sure why. Has this been done with past presidents? Of course. But does that make it right? No need to answer. It's really a rhetorical question. But some people, and not just people here, almost seem to WANT us to fail. When I say us, I mean us as a country, including our government. It's not so much the words, it's the attitude, the immediate gleeful spreading of any news deemed negative, and the disdain and sneering at any news that might be deemed positive. I guess I just will never understand.
Very well said K9soul.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
So tell me, what do YOU think is good about the bill? Have you seen what it will do? IS spending only 12% of it on actual stimulus things is a good idea? Better yet, how is ANYthing in this pork laden bill, CHANGE?
I really would appreciate an honest responce.
I understand what you are saying. I do. I don't want our country to fail. But I also don't want our government to inch its way ever more close to being a true socialist country. That is just not who we are. (Take a poll....) This nation was founded on a few basic ideas...Quote:
Originally Posted by K9soul
My views have zero to do with Barack Obama the man. I do not hope with "glee" that he fails. I don't cheer when bad news happens.Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I want our nation to prosper beyond anyone's dreams. The thing is, history PROVES that you do not get there by the methods our new President believes in. So I will execute my right and my DUTY (yours too) to resist "change" that further errodes our rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and The Pursuit of Happiness, for myself and for my posterity.
I believe the American People are better than our new President gives us credit for. We need only for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY and most will prosper. Government clearly got us into this economic mess. Why would we expect them to get us out?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caseysmom
Ditto. People need to turn off the damn news and get on with life. You can over analyize anything and nothing is perfect. Any bit of help would be appreciated by myself and millions out of work.
Claudia
Does this apply to sports?;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten645
Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Sports is the one exception.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten645
Besides, it's not even a "firmed up" bill yet. Four changes have already
been made to the form of the bill talked about here. Debate at this point is premature and should be llimited to the House & Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Great non-answer. You should be a politician Liz! :)
FWIW, it passed the House already. Any comments on the House version of the bill? Can you tell me something in it that will really be a Stimulus and not just pork spending?
Yeah, THAT is a good reason to shaft at least the next 2 generations. Can't you see that they have you just where they want you? To the point where you will accept ANYthing?Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten645
Better yet, tell me something about this current bill that will help YOU directly.
Link.
Quote:
# $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.
# $2 billion to help subsidize child care.
# $400 million for research into global warming.
# $2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
# $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
# $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
# $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.
# $21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.
# $2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
# $335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
# $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money.
# $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.
# $32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.
# $87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.
# $53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
# $13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.
# $20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.
# $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.
# $20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.
Transitory political symbolism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
John Boehner said on Meet The Press last week - the G.O.P. didn’t want to be “the party of ‘No’ ” but the party of better ideas, better solutions.” Have any idea as to what those ideas and solutions might be? Boehner doesn't; he said he would get back to them over the coming months.
And then there is Sarah Palin who came to town to attend the Alfafa Dinner(?). Her rep Bill McAllister, saidQuote:
"She has requested we do not schedule any interviews for her, Instead, Palin is traveling to Washington to lobby senators to approve certain infrastructure projects for Alaska in the economic stimulus package.
So she was the only Gov that went to the Alfalfa Dinner or went to DC try to get in on the stimulus $$$? Or did she make the news because she was high profile?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Call your congressman and tell him/her to live up to the Alaska Statehood deal and let us keep 80% of the sales of our natural resources and AK wont need any fed stimulus $$$. While you have your congressman on the phone tell him/her to support openning ANWAR and AK wont need any fed stimulus $$$.
Nah, I was using her name because you got in the mix. I knew you would chime in here again.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I was pointing out that it doesn't appear the Senate will be a total NO vote on the stimulus bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Probably true. But it also could be that they remember 1993. (Hey, that rhymes!! Maybe my rapping career has hope yet. LOL)
I will be utterly shocked if they stick with this. But ya never know. It will take a LOT more than this to get me voting for them again.
Blue.... Dude.... You were supposed to wait for LIZ to tell us what it was for. She will never learn if you keep bailing her out. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Palin is finally showing her true colors. She's paling around with the
Washington elite.:)
Palin stiffs the House Republicans
l
Share January 31, 2009 7:34 PM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: When House Republicans planned their annual winter retreat, they extended an invitation to Alaska Gov. Sara Palin, hoping the party's 2008 vice presidential nominee would give a morale-building speech to the more than 130 Republican members of Congress gathered this weekend in Hot Springs, Va.
Retreat organizers tell ABC News that Palin politely declined, giving a perfectly understandable reason. According to the Congressional Institute, which hosted the conference, Palin said she simply could not make it to the retreat because pressing state business made it impossible for her to leave Alaska this weekend.
So where is Palin this weekend? She's in Washington, D.C., attending the super-elite Alfalfa Dinner.
"She lied to us," said a Republican at the retreat.
Asked why Palin told the Republicans she could not leave Alaska this weekend, Palin spokesman Bill McAllister offered this non-responsive answer:
"My understanding is that the governor has not scheduled any partisan events on her current trip to D.C.," McAllister told ABC News.
The House Republicans seemed to do just fine without Palin. Their list of speakers included Republican stars Michael Steele, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich.
Asked about Palin's no-show, House Republican leader John Boehner shrugged.
"Whatever," Boehner said.
Where is the link for this? It cannot be true unless there is a link!Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Sarah Palin and Rod Blagojevich are exhibiting the same behavior...get in the media as much as you can!
Man you guys have a thing for Sarah Palin. You get a win and you won't let it go. LOL If she is so stupid and insignificant, why are you still talking about her?
Liz, I still look forward to your thoughts on the "stimulus" bill making its way through Congress. :)
My bad it was 90% not 80%, not the 50% split we get now. Source, and full text here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska Statehood Act
Not only is that a stretch but insulting as well. Why they are in the media are two very different behaviors.Quote:
Sarah Palin and Rod Blagojevich are exhibiting the same behavior...get in the media as much as you can!
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
To Blagojevich?:D:D:D
So you find an impeached politian more ethical, why am I not suprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
No...I find you lacking a sense of humor!:D:D:D Why am I not surprised?Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Probably because you enjoy making passive aggressive jabs at people hoping to get them POed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Are you a bitter person by nature or did it happen over time?
Tell me...what does passive aggressive mean? That seems to be a favorite jab of your crowd. And I am curious...how do you define this behavior?Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I happen to be on a call the other day with a behavioralist...discussing some tests...and he used that term. I asked him to define it. So I am curious if you define it the same way as professionals or if it is just a dodge?
In your case, and posibly Grace's, its making jabs, digs, and insults towards the Gov of my state hoping to get a rise out of me. Not making a direct personal insult against me, but hoping to get a negative reaction that you can sit back and get your jollies off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Again with you, post #23, hoping to get a rise out of me while hoping I had no proof of an earlier statement I posted. Now you are ignoring the links you asked for in order to take the thread in another direction rather then address the actual discussion. I provided links and a direct quote, I can get you more, unlike you I am more then willing to help out.
You would rather belittle people you dont agree with then actually be helpful.
The above are examples of what I view as passive aggresive behavior.
ETA: your post #30 is the classic redirect question I would expect from a passive aggresive personality.
Good luck with that.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Ms. Palin puts her unmarried daughter on the cover of People magazine with her new baby. Two weeks later Palin calls the media for a news conference to complain the media are still talking about her children.
I find that as attention seeking as Blagojevich running around New York City making a fool of himself.
Both goofy. And although I am at heart an Illini -- I will not call you passive-aggressive or aggressive-aggressive or even passive-passive if you make jokes about Blagojevich.
p.s. Is there aggressive-passive too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
They probably could invent a case if needed. Hey, what about a case
of dumb & aggressive? Sounds possible.:D
It would be an epidemic! :D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
So you see no difference between the two stories and the type of media attention they are getting? If I where to make fun of Blago there would be nothing passive about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
There is plenty of it at the DNC and GOP conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
How about just dumb & dumb...or in the case of our Three Stooges...Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest?:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
This thread is about the stimulus package, not the Presidents cabinet members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary