The vote was 244-188
-
John Carson wrote:
. make politics less fierce,
That is about the most hypocritical comment I've ever heard made.
John Carson wrote:
b. move the political center to the left (just as Reagan succeeded in moving it to the right).
Agreed - he has already acheived that in the senate with lap dogs like McCain.
John Carson wrote:
Let's see how the economy performs and let the political winners collect their spoils.
Indeed. And standing opposed to a policy that has never worked anywhere or anytime it has been tried should be a pretty good political gamble. What will become increasingly obviously is that Obama actually is the inexperienced, ner-do-well, radical leftist, that any unbiased assessment of his life would have made obvious to anyone who cared to look.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
Indeed. And standing opposed to a policy that has never worked anywhere or anytime it has been tried should be a pretty good political gamble. What will become increasingly obviously is that Obama actually is the inexperienced, ner-do-well, radical leftist, that any unbiased assessment of his life would have made obvious to anyone who cared to look.
Place your bets. :)
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The democrats simply do not need republican support to do anything. If the adminstration was really optimistic about the chances of success, they would not care if the republicans support it. In fact, they would want them to oppose it in order to hold it over them in the next election. The only reason bipartisanship would be so important is so that the almost certain failure cannot be used by the republicans in the next election. Obama wants them to be shareholders in the inevitable failure so that it cannot be used against the democrats. House republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far - uniting around a conservative core to oppose this insanity. Senate republicans, who's seats are not as safe, not so much.
My take is that Obama wants Republican support to a. make politics less fierce, b. move the political center to the left (just as Reagan succeeded in moving it to the right). Failing that, Obama wants to be seen to be reaching out to Republicans, even if they reject him, because the public likes that. However, just like you, I am happy to see the lines clearly drawn. Let's see how the economy performs and let the political winners collect their spoils.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
However, just like you, I am happy to see the lines clearly drawn. Let's see how the economy performs and let the political winners collect their spoils.
You, Stan. and Nancy Pelosi.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
All the Republicans voted against, 10 or 11 Blue Dog Democrats joined the Republicans.[^] This means that 43.5% of the US House of Representatives does in fact retain the ability to think. There's little if any real stimulus in the bill which is little more than a shopping list for the left. WIth luck, the Senate will add more tax cuts ( a FICA holiday, for example)to put cash in people's pockets and that will be stimulative. Of course with the dollar amount being discussed congress could decide to send every household with a mortgage a check for $17,000 - that would be stimulative for certain.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
From what I've heard and seen of the bill a good portion of it is going to things like health care and safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps. The biggest portion, I saw, was to go to states for discretionary spending.
-
From what I've heard and seen of the bill a good portion of it is going to things like health care and safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps. The biggest portion, I saw, was to go to states for discretionary spending.
wolfbinary wrote:
a good portion of it is going to things like health care and safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps.
Yes, all instruments of oppression employed by the left. :rolleyes:
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
-
wolfbinary wrote:
a good portion of it is going to things like health care and safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps.
Yes, all instruments of oppression employed by the left. :rolleyes:
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
Al Beback wrote:
oppression employed by the left. Roll eyes
When did I say oppression or by the left? I was talking about what was it, not calling anyone or anything leftist or oppressive. Your jumping to conclusions.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Of course with the dollar amount being discussed congress could decide to send every household with a mortgage a check for $17,000 - that would be stimulative for certain.
Discriminatory. Far as I'm concerned, renters and folks like me who have paid off their mortgage need stimulation, too. Y'know, I could've supported a stimulus package twice the size of the one that is being passed - if it had gone to repair and maintenance of infrastructure (and replacement in the case of things like bridges where safety is important.) Instead we are getting an earmark that is simply Pelosi's version of "To the victor belongs the spoils." The fact that Obama was pimping for it (even if he took out the condom funding) leaves me with a sickening feeling.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
John, are you "whining" about Obama? With this "stimulus" package, it's been hard to bite my tongue. I don't know if I can last for 6 months without "whining" against Obama.
AF Pilot
-
Al Beback wrote:
oppression employed by the left. Roll eyes
When did I say oppression or by the left? I was talking about what was it, not calling anyone or anything leftist or oppressive. Your jumping to conclusions.
That's Al. God forbid you 'blame' a Democrat for ANYTHING!
AF Pilot
-
That's Al. God forbid you 'blame' a Democrat for ANYTHING!
AF Pilot
I wasn't blaming anyone just saying what I thought was in the bill. I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though, but those answers have to come from the people who put it together.
-
John, are you "whining" about Obama? With this "stimulus" package, it's been hard to bite my tongue. I don't know if I can last for 6 months without "whining" against Obama.
AF Pilot
Reagan Conservative wrote:
John, are you "whining" about Obama? With this "stimulus" package, it's been hard to bite my tongue. I don't know if I can last for 6 months without "whining" against Obama.
Me? Whine? Prima Facie, impossible! ;) I am, however, expressing disappointment that Obama has allowed Pelosi to so dominate the crafting of this bill. My attitude towards her is, and always has been since she was Minority Leader, one of healthy paranoia. (And Reid is her twin. He doesn't even stand up when he pees.) If Obama cannot wrest leadership on this important issue away from the two of them and bend them to his will (or if he chooses not to, mox nix) then we are indeed watching the kind of change that, back in the day, turned Rome from a Republic into an Empire. It's always a good idea, when thinking of Pelosi, to remember that the Latin for "Speaker" is "Dictator." My loyalty has never been to Obama, nor did I vote for him. My loyalty is to the United States of America. Unlike Stan (and Adnan), I do not glory in anything that harms my country, nor rejoice at failures of government that endanger it. I have never believed, nor hoped that Obama had all the answers; I did think he had the ability to lead this country. I am beginning to worry about that. btw: it's Jon. It's been Jon in my family on and off since at least the 13th century.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I wasn't blaming anyone just saying what I thought was in the bill. I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though, but those answers have to come from the people who put it together.
wolfbinary wrote:
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though
Looking at the contents, that's an easy question to answer. It's a giant liberal goody grab on the tax payer's nickle. The Wall Street Journal called it the "liberals 40 year wish list". It has very little to do with stimulus, but "stimulus" sounds much neater to Americans than "Obama's Socialist Plan" huh?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
a good portion of it is going to things like health care and safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps.
Yes, all instruments of oppression employed by the left. :rolleyes:
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
Al Beback wrote:
Yes, all instruments of oppression employed by the left.
I suspect that the 2.5 million people who are collecting unemployment insurance right now - which they may have paid for every month for the last 30 years - might argue that they feel singularly unoppressed by their relatively small checks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Yes, all instruments of oppression employed by the left.
I suspect that the 2.5 million people who are collecting unemployment insurance right now - which they may have paid for every month for the last 30 years - might argue that they feel singularly unoppressed by their relatively small checks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
-
wolfbinary wrote:
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though
Looking at the contents, that's an easy question to answer. It's a giant liberal goody grab on the tax payer's nickle. The Wall Street Journal called it the "liberals 40 year wish list". It has very little to do with stimulus, but "stimulus" sounds much neater to Americans than "Obama's Socialist Plan" huh?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
And it could be just to balance the corporate goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks. Regardless of whether you agree with the Employee Free Choice Act, Bank of America is using some of the 25 billion it was given to help squash it. Now that's ironic. Take our money to stop us from getting better pay whilst you pay out million dollar bonuses for being such a good banker. :rolleyes:
This statement is false
-
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
wolfbinary wrote:
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
No you don't get it at all. My point was that Unemployment Insurance is not a gift from the government. It is part of what your employer counts as your compensation (even though you don't ever see it or even have to pay taxes on it.) So it is either something you have paid into, or if you are a coporate spokesman, something your employer has paid for. I personally have no problem trying to make sure people don't go to bed hungry at night, but I have seen too many cases where food stamps are exchanged for cash which is turned into a bottle. There are programs run by churches in my area that do a much better job of getting food to the poor than the government. The Salvation Army is superb at doing that.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Reagan Conservative wrote:
John, are you "whining" about Obama? With this "stimulus" package, it's been hard to bite my tongue. I don't know if I can last for 6 months without "whining" against Obama.
Me? Whine? Prima Facie, impossible! ;) I am, however, expressing disappointment that Obama has allowed Pelosi to so dominate the crafting of this bill. My attitude towards her is, and always has been since she was Minority Leader, one of healthy paranoia. (And Reid is her twin. He doesn't even stand up when he pees.) If Obama cannot wrest leadership on this important issue away from the two of them and bend them to his will (or if he chooses not to, mox nix) then we are indeed watching the kind of change that, back in the day, turned Rome from a Republic into an Empire. It's always a good idea, when thinking of Pelosi, to remember that the Latin for "Speaker" is "Dictator." My loyalty has never been to Obama, nor did I vote for him. My loyalty is to the United States of America. Unlike Stan (and Adnan), I do not glory in anything that harms my country, nor rejoice at failures of government that endanger it. I have never believed, nor hoped that Obama had all the answers; I did think he had the ability to lead this country. I am beginning to worry about that. btw: it's Jon. It's been Jon in my family on and off since at least the 13th century.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Sorry on the spelling of your name. I guess it's a habit since my name is John. I concur with your analysis of this bill. My Congressman (Kenny Marchant, R-Tex) sent emails to his constituents about why he would not vote for this bill. He said there are provisions in the bill that will provide funding until 2019! I wasn't aware that we needed a stimulus for that many years, either.
AF Pilot
-
And it could be just to balance the corporate goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks. Regardless of whether you agree with the Employee Free Choice Act, Bank of America is using some of the 25 billion it was given to help squash it. Now that's ironic. Take our money to stop us from getting better pay whilst you pay out million dollar bonuses for being such a good banker. :rolleyes:
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks.
...also bad.
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
His position simply verified what I knew to be true, he's nothing more than a far left Chicago liberal and I didn't for a minute believe he'd do anything other than go back on his word. Rush (yes, I listen to him) played two taped Obama comments today.
So far his actual leadership is confirming the worst expectations.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Rush (yes, I listen to him) played two taped Obama comments today.
I had a chance to listen today. I thought his observation concerning Obama's efforts to get the republicans on board was brilliant. The democrats simply do not need republican support to do anything. If the adminstration was really optimistic about the chances of success, they would not care if the republicans support it. In fact, they would want them to oppose it in order to hold it over them in the next election. The only reason bipartisanship would be so important is so that the almost certain failure cannot be used by the republicans in the next election. Obama wants them to be shareholders in the inevitable failure so that it cannot be used against the democrats. House republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far - uniting around a conservative core to oppose this insanity. Senate republicans, who's seats are not as safe, not so much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far
Interesting. If they could have done that during the last campaign maybe there would be a Republican in the White House today? I guess that wasn't part of their brilliant plan, which I guess must have been to allow the Democrats to run the country into ruin for 4 years so they can use the political fall out to take control of Congress and the White House in 2012. Of course they formulated that plan at a time when they already controlled Congress and the White House. Yes indeed, a brilliant plan! Woot Woot! :jig:
-
wolfbinary wrote:
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though
Looking at the contents, that's an easy question to answer. It's a giant liberal goody grab on the tax payer's nickle. The Wall Street Journal called it the "liberals 40 year wish list". It has very little to do with stimulus, but "stimulus" sounds much neater to Americans than "Obama's Socialist Plan" huh?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
No you don't get it at all. My point was that Unemployment Insurance is not a gift from the government. It is part of what your employer counts as your compensation (even though you don't ever see it or even have to pay taxes on it.) So it is either something you have paid into, or if you are a coporate spokesman, something your employer has paid for. I personally have no problem trying to make sure people don't go to bed hungry at night, but I have seen too many cases where food stamps are exchanged for cash which is turned into a bottle. There are programs run by churches in my area that do a much better job of getting food to the poor than the government. The Salvation Army is superb at doing that.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Actually I was basing it on "Wisconsin originated the idea of unemployment insurance (UI) in the U.S. in 1932.[7] In the United States, there are 50 state unemployment insurance programs plus one each in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through the Social Security Act of 1935, the Federal Government of the United States effectively coerced the individual states into adopting unemployment insurance plans. Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes)[8]. Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if: (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[8] (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[8] To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[8] The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[9] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[7] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now 6.2 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[8] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year[8]. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8 percent (6.2 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000 = $56.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[8] Within the ab
-
Actually I was basing it on "Wisconsin originated the idea of unemployment insurance (UI) in the U.S. in 1932.[7] In the United States, there are 50 state unemployment insurance programs plus one each in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through the Social Security Act of 1935, the Federal Government of the United States effectively coerced the individual states into adopting unemployment insurance plans. Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes)[8]. Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if: (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[8] (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[8] To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[8] The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[9] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[7] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now 6.2 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[8] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year[8]. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8 percent (6.2 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000 = $56.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[8] Within the ab
wolfbinary wrote:
Actually I was basing it on
Basing what? Your claim that unemployment insurance (that's what its called, regardless of how it is financed) is a gift from the federal Government? The extended quote you included simply reiterates what I said. It is paid for by you, or if you wish, by your employer who, I guarantee you, assumes that part of your compensation is the taxes he pays on your salary. By the way, at one time in my life I ran a company that employed as many as 125 people. I am familiar with the laws regarding things like employment taxes and long quotes about them are not necessary.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.