The Devil's in the Details

>> Saturday, February 14, 2009

I present yet another fine piece from the poorly written and racist AmericanThinker. This one shows a bit of the many detrimental portions of the so-called stimulus package. Whether the consequences likely to be suffered are unintended or by design can be discussed as well. The link isn't so much an article but an alarm of sorts, with the point being fleshed out more in detail in the adjoining links therein. I find it to be appropriate for a blog concerned with the Descent being brought about by the new administration by virtue of how these portions of the bill will reverse the progress made since welfare reform reduced the amount of people on welfare and raised them out of poverty into self-sufficiency.

As we examine this bill more closely, we can see why there is the rush to pass it and why the fear-mongering of the President of hope and change has only been talking about changing the direction of this country to one that is dependent upon big government led by the Democratic Party. What a sad day it was for America when back in November of 2008, so many uninformed sheep chose the greater of two evils to lead us to third world status.

22 comments:

Mark February 14, 2009 at 8:16 AM  

Seems to me that this new bill is oxymoronic. It supposedly guarantees us jobs, but rewards us if we don't get jobs. What a conundrum!

Do I want to get a job, or just let the Government pay me for not working? I wonder which will pay more?

'Cause, you know, any job you can get through the Government won't pay much. It seems in both cases, it is welfare.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  February 15, 2009 at 2:06 AM  

As the economic turmoil has increased many states have had to cut their welfare rolls. They simply didn't have the funds coming in to state treasuries. As far as I can tell the monies in the stimulus bill are not in-perpetuity commitments. They are one-time grants of monies to make sure states don't have to turn away families in these times of hardship.

Sure we could tell people who are signing up for welfare because they lost their job that they have to find a new job to stay on welfare, but that's a little illogical isn't it?

Is it a perfect bill? No. But it's pretty good, because out of the whole $770+ billion you're only complaining about how $4-billion is allocated.

Marshall Art February 16, 2009 at 12:27 AM  

Not true Bent. I've linked to an article that shows half of the bill could be cut. (Don't remember if it is here or at my own blog---sorry.)

The problem is with the purpose of the bill. It is advertised as something that will stimulate the economy. As such, there should be nothing in it that doesn't do that. Much of the bill contains that which should be aquired through normal appropriations channels but is put in there for paybacks. Business as usual rather than the change that the messianic one insisted was the hallmark of his presidency.

Eric February 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM  

There's a lot wrong with this bill, Ben. A lot. Just because there isn't enough time or space here to complain about it doesn't mean the bill overall is good.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  February 16, 2009 at 8:22 AM  

And what is the difference between economic stimulus and regular appropriations?

Pursuing a cure for the common cold stimulates the economy just as much as paving a road. In fact it is even better to spread the money around. Diversification as a stock broker would say.

And what industries should the stimulus bill be focused on to be other than "business as usual" ?

Because I would note that there are expenditures in the stimulus bill for several green projects and energy infrastructure programs. There's money for rail upgrades. How are these business as usual?

Marshall Art February 16, 2009 at 1:37 PM  

Bent,

The "business as usual" charge is leveled due to the add-ons and pork. I would think that shouldn't need to be explained to you.

As to appropriations, each would go through its own debate. There's been very little debate here as they've tried to ram this through with as little scrutiny as possible. That, too, is business as usual no matter what the bill is about.

I've shown how historically these types of packages don't help with this type of economic problem. Even the CBO has stated it won't help. Some politicians would like to debate the same thing before this is signed. They won't be given the chance and the rest of us will literally pay the price.

If you want to spread money around, let it happen through tax cuts and the market will find cures to society's ills as it always has. Infrastructure can be handled through the usual bidding process.

BenT - the unbeliever,  February 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM  

Try to provide some actual examples of pork. Blanket condemnations make you sound like a ditto-head who doesn't really know what is in the bill.

"As to appropriations, each would go through its own debate."

This would be a fine idea if the Senate wasn't almost completely stalled. If both parties agreed to debate each idea and vote a simple majority without stalling or obstructionist tactics that'd be fine. But republicans in the house have fully adopted the role of obstructionists. They threaten every bill that comes up with a fillibuster. Meaning that all legislation must gather a super-majority before it can move forward. So appropriations and other measures get bundled together with the most important and popular legislation.

"If you want to spread money around, let it happen through tax cuts and the market will find cures to society's ills as it always has."
A viewpoint like this would lead us back to the times of Dickens.
The market is no magic problem solver and prosperity machine.

Eric February 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM  

The time of Dickens!? That's not quite exactly where Obama's and his Porkulus Bill are taking us. This bill will push America ever closer to a socialist state-- Democrats want to privatize the banks for crying out loud! This is dangerous with a capital D. On top of this everyone on the Left is beginning to talk 'Fairness Doctrine'... Bill Clinton being the most recent advocate.

H.R. 45 seeks to unconstitutionally burden gun ownership-- an attempt to discourage and curtail the 2nd amendment.

So let's get this straight... The Democrats are seeking to destroy both the first and second amendments, while systematically driving us toward socialism!?

Barack Obama is perhaps the most dangerous man in America today. Forget the terrorists at Guantanamo, it's Barack Obama that should be detained. He is doing more damage to American than the 19 demonic souls that felled some three-thousand lives on 9/11.

This bill is going to give every American the equivalent of $13 in tax cuts a week! $600 bucks total! What hypocrisy! Michello Bama mocked Bush for his $600 stimulus last year saying something to the effect that it wouldn't buy much more than a decent pair of earrings! And now we're expected to thank Obama for his generosity in giving us another $600?

Marshall Art February 17, 2009 at 2:41 AM  

Bent,

I HAVE provided examples. Perhaps you should actually read the links I provide in my posts. Between this blog and my own you'll not have to search back more than a week to see the very examples you demand.

"If both parties agreed to debate each idea and vote a simple majority without stalling or obstructionist tactics that'd be fine. But republicans in the house have fully adopted the role of obstructionists."

Now look who has the "ditto-head" mentality of which you accuse us. There hasn't been any great call to debate this bill by the Dems at all. And Republicans would be more than happy to debate the merits of this pork laden train wreck. Hell, it's the closest they've been to actual conservatives in quite a while!

"A viewpoint like this would lead us back to the times of Dickens."

Scare tactics, anyone? Fear-mongering? You know, Bent, there are many attitudes that have changed in the last 200 years. You won't find much call for slavery in this country these days. You likely wouldn't find the type of corporate abuses of the late 1800's or early 1900's either. It doesn't make for good business. And no one is calling for total free market anarchy, either, so you can shelve that lame fear altogether.

Eric February 17, 2009 at 7:31 AM  

Okay, I missed this, and boy is it funny....


"...republicans in the house have fully adopted the role of obstructionists."

Obstructionists!? LOL! What have they obstructed? They're saving their collective future butts, for when the train wreck occurs (and it will occur), the Dems can't point their fingers and say 'they voted for it too!'

Do any of you on the left realize just how much debt America has?

78.8 TRILLION dollars worth.

According to Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and author of the book The End of Prosperity, the U.S. owes the following:

--55 Trillion to Social Security and Medicaid

--7.8 Trillion in national debt owed by the public

--16 Trillion in insurance Guarantees

The world's GDP for 2008 was 78.4 Trillion! To pay this off the entire world would have to go cold turkey on ALL -ALL expenditures for one year to pay this off. Everyone in the world sacrificing every penny they might have otherwise earned JUST TO PAY OFF WHAT AMERICA OWES. To reiterate, the entire world produces less in one year than what America owes in future obligations.

We're screwed already! Who is going to own America 10, 15 years from now?

What will America look like after an Obama presidency? He's spending trillions like a sex addict spends semen.

Mark February 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM  

I just wish Obama will hurry up and sign this thing. I just heard on the local radio station today that the homeless shelter is full and turning people away. On top of that, the spokesbabe said there are more professional people living there than there used to be, and that while it used to take residents to find work in a couple of weeks, now people are looking diligently for jobs every day for over 2 months and can't find any. No jobs are available now.

I have been looking to change jobs recently and have had no luck, so I wish Obama would hurry up and sign this thing so I can either get a job or get welfare. I need the money.

BenT - the unbeliever,  February 18, 2009 at 2:50 PM  

Basic Economics:

During a depression or recession individuals tend to hold onto their funds due to fears about the economy. But because consumers are not out spending, profits for companies fall even further, causing more job losses and stock crashes. Which causes consumers to be even more fearful and frugal. It is a downward spiral.

During a depression the smartest thing a government can do is increase spending to make up for the lack of demand from consumers. The revenue pumped into the economy by the government sustains many industries and companies until consumer confidence recovers and individuals increase their personal spending.

That is why we need this stimulus bill. That is also why it is prudent for individuals to save and governments to spend. Amazingly one is not the same as the other.

For a government or corporation it is good to have a low debt ratio, but it is not imperative. This is because stable governments and companies have long existences, have lots of capital, and have the means to easily create wealth. Individuals do not have these abilities that is why the federal debt is not as significant as your own personal debt.

Marshall Art February 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM  

That's a nice story, Bent, but history has not shown that such actions work, and I linked to an article that relates that history. Recessions are part of the normal economic cycles and left alone, rarely last longer than about 19 months. The Congressional Budget Office claims that this package won't help, and likely will prolong the recession, which is what history has shown to be the case.

What's worse, government interference played a large roll in bringing about this situation and the extent to which it has hurt. Now, many of the same buffoons are trying to fix it. You don't see a problem with this equation? I don't want these idiots to do another damned thing, except to reduce taxes and spending. Lower the corporate tax rate to equal the lowest of our foreign neighbors and we will again begin to attract foreign business as well as limit the amount of our own who look overseas for better deals. That will bring and keep jobs here as well as leave more money in the pockets of producers to be more productive.

People may indeed horde more during hard economic times, but they still need to eat and provide housing, clothing and medical care. They also still desire entertainment and will spend there as well with their first opportunity. Confidence increases the more people are working and earning. Only the private sector is qualified and capable of providing lasting employment. Not the gov't.

As far as THIS stimulus bill, there is far too much that won't stimulate anything and should be cut from the bill (well, should have been by now). Now, BO is going to do even more TO US by throwing more of our money around to allegedly help prevent foreclosures. More gov't inteference forcing lenders to do what they might not ordinarily do (which started this whole mess) and using our money to help those who weren't properly taking care of their own business. Here I am unemployed, able to take care of business because of what I did to provide for the unexpected, with all the sacrifices that it takes, and Barry's giving my tax money to others who did not act as responsibly. And I'm not even the best example of it, I just did the basics.

I would also submit that the gov't's ability to borrow and print money doesn't mean that it will be done responsibly or that it will actually benefit the nat'l economy in the long run, unless you don't mind passing the buck to our kids and grandkids.

Eric February 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM  

Not as significant!?

The U.S. owes (is obligated to pay out) 78.8 TRILLION dollars!

78 TRILLION

Can't get more significant than that!

Feodor February 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art February 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM  

What do you bet Feodor is trying to get someone to agree with his inane perspective after having been b-slapped at my blog?

This is a lame but old trick of the lefty. It is usually done from the other direction. First, a bill is proposed. Let's say it is to save puppies from freezing in the winter. Everybody is shocked that puppies are allowed to freeze to death and initially all are in favor of stopping this heinous practice. Before the bill is signed, some devious lefty adds to the bill some crap about spending a few billion to build something or other in one state. Those on the right, will vote the bill down because of the added spending provision and the lefties will scream that the right wingers hate puppies.

In this case, Feodor knows I think the Stimulus bill is a bad idea, but because there are provisions regarding unemployment compensation, somehow my being on unemployment, which began before this bill was even settled between the Houses, much less signed by Barry O, somehow this makes me hypocritical or going against my principles.

JD Hayworth took the same heat because he likes the idea of a high-speed rail system and voted against this bill which, I guess, has some provision for a high-speed system.

Feodor's pathetic and desperate attempt to paint me in a negative way only exposes his own smallness. Just look at the little guy.

Feodor February 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric February 19, 2009 at 3:52 PM  

Did someone say "Marshall"?

Feodor February 19, 2009 at 5:42 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art February 20, 2009 at 12:42 AM  

Feodork,

It doesn't matter how the bill changes what I began. It doesn't reflect negatively on me in the least no matter how much you'd like to think so in your small minded way. The day I react or alter my actions or redefine my principles or in any other way feel motivated or compelled by anything YOU say, is the day I become as stupid as you. Not likely to happen.

Feodor February 20, 2009 at 6:55 AM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art February 20, 2009 at 9:01 AM  

Never mentioned office politics.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP