Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

2009-01-28 11:08:11

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

The Wall Street Journal wrote:
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

I'd make a list of BS spending but it would take a very very long time.. Look for yourself.
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf
Barf

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 11:10:56

#2

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6953

I suddenly feel very sorry for Senators and Congressmen if they always have to read such badly formatted bills.

2009-01-28 11:15:07

#3

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:
I suddenly feel very sorry for Senators and Congressmen if they always have to read such badly formatted bills.

Maybe it's done on purpose, the less amount of people that read it, the higher chance it'll go through when you present them your "in a nutshell" version of it in an easy to read manner, kind of like what Kez posted, except positive to the bill.

/Politics

Although, what Kez posted. It started off good, explaining that Amtrack was stupid cos it has never generated a profit in 40 years. Then it just lists figures for all sorts of things and doesn't bother to explain whether it's good or bad. Lazy journalism, they bothered to give a short explanation about Amtrack, but why not anything else? Or is it because they couldn't think of anything?

And I still don't know where the money for all this is coming from. Are they just "printing money" or what?

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-01-28 11:17:00)

2009-01-28 11:17:19

#4

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Mekstizzle wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
I suddenly feel very sorry for Senators and Congressmen if they always have to read such badly formatted bills.
Maybe it's done on purpose, the less amount of people that read it, the higher chance it'll go through when you present them your "in a nutshell" version of it in an easy to read manner, kind of like what Kez posted, except positive to the bill.

/Politics

Although, what Kez posted. It started off good, explaining that Amtrack was stupid cos it has never generated a profit in 40 years. Then it just lists figures for all sorts of things and doesn't bother to explain whether it's good or bad. Lazy journalism, they bothered to give a short explanation about Amtrack, but why not anything else? Or is it because they couldn't think of anything?

And I still don't know where the money for all this is coming from

If you actually clicked on the link you would see more.

Read the bill too.
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:ht … 1_text.pdf

If it's primarily a welfare check call it that.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 11:18:46

#5

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

I can't read that shit (the .pdf), I honestly can't

I'll check out the link though.

2009-01-28 11:29:17

#6

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7113|Nårvei

How much for child safe arrowheads again?

First screening of the link shows some department heads getting their salery increased and like mentioned before i suspect firms lobbying capitol hill gets their share ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-01-28 11:29:18

#7

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6953

It sounds to me just like there were a few things that needed doing, and then a few things that people figured they may as well tag on the end and hopefully it'll all go through together. Like upgrading the roads doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Why give money to Amtrak though, do Americans even take the train?

Did Obama have any input on this bill, or was it entirely written by the various cunts in Congress? I assume he's expected to support it because it came from him own party?

2009-01-28 11:43:23

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

ghettoperson wrote:
It sounds to me just like there were a few things that needed doing, and then a few things that people figured they may as well tag on the end and hopefully it'll all go through together. Like upgrading the roads doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Why give money to Amtrak though, do Americans even take the train?

Did Obama have any input on this bill, or was it entirely written by the various cunts in Congress? I assume he's expected to support it because it came from him own party?

Actually Obama told Pelosi to cool it. He was the one who said take the abortion/sod stuff out.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 12:14:23

#9

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,984|6935|949

I love when the government spends my money! It leaves me with such a warm feeling inside. No wait, that's outside, and that warm feeling is my own throw up.

I wonder how critical the WSJ was about the economic bailout?

2009-01-28 15:04:05

#10

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I wonder how critical the WSJ was about the economic bailout?

Exactly. Fuck the WSJ. But fuck the government too.

Goddamn it... I guess I will have no choice but to vote Ron Paul next time.

2009-01-28 15:15:09

#11

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I wonder how critical the WSJ was about the economic bailout?
Exactly. Fuck the WSJ. But fuck the government too.

Goddamn it... I guess I will have no choice but to vote Ron Paul next time.

Are you disagreeing with what they are saying in the op quote?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:16:22

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I wonder how critical the WSJ was about the economic bailout?
Exactly. Fuck the WSJ. But fuck the government too.

Goddamn it... I guess I will have no choice but to vote Ron Paul next time.
Are you disagreeing with what they are saying in the op quote?

No, I'm just saying that I don't trust the WSJ anymore than I trust the government. The WSJ is run by plutocrats the same as our government is.

2009-01-28 15:18:14

#13

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Exactly. Fuck the WSJ. But fuck the government too.

Goddamn it... I guess I will have no choice but to vote Ron Paul next time.
Are you disagreeing with what they are saying in the op quote?
No, I'm just saying that I don't trust the WSJ anymore than I trust the government. The WSJ is run by plutocrats the same as our government is.

Trust? You don't trust that they are offering a viewpoint for your review? .. one you apparently don't even disagree with?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:21:21

#14

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:

Are you disagreeing with what they are saying in the op quote?
No, I'm just saying that I don't trust the WSJ anymore than I trust the government. The WSJ is run by plutocrats the same as our government is.
Trust? You don't trust that they are offering a viewpoint for your review? .. one you apparently don't even disagree with?

No no... Look, what I'm saying is... trusting a newspaper means you trust it to give you a balanced view of things. So, what I'm saying is that I don't believe the WSJ is balanced, since they weren't particularly against the Wall Street bailout.

Now, I do agree that this bailout is wasteful, but it would've been nice if the WSJ had been as critical of the first bailout.

2009-01-28 15:22:51

#15

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Things you need to pay attention to in the mass media.

You know exactly what you are getting with them. Just like I know what I'm getting with Air America, Micheal Moore, Olberfuherer ..etc.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:25:39

#16

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Oh I know... but some opinions are more logical than others.

2009-01-28 15:26:02

#17

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Oh I know... but some opinions are more logical than others.

I believe consistency is the problem here.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:27:00

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Oh I know... but some opinions are more logical than others.
I believe consistency is the problem here.

If you're saying the WSJ is inconsistent, I would agree.

2009-01-28 15:28:15

#19

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Oh I know... but some opinions are more logical than others.
I believe consistency is the problem here.
If you're saying the WSJ is inconsistent, I would agree.

I guess it would depend on which oped person you read. I see varying stances.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … afe=images

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:31:52

#20

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

Kmar do you beleive the govt. should only spend money where it is likely to see a return?

It's tax payer money the govt. is supposed to be spending to help the tax payer. They aren't in the business in turning a profit with your money because if they did, every single road they built would become a toll road. And they wouldn't spend money on "$1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years" - where does that live the people who use the railroad? The businesses that rely on the transport?

If the govt. was solely out to make a profit you would never see your tax dollars amount to anything, other than paying more taxes.

Sure they should be more considerate during an economic downturn, but you don't cut spending for the sake of cutting spending, ever.

2009-01-28 15:33:57

#21

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Sure they should be more considerate during an economic downturn, but you don't cut spending for the sake of cutting spending, ever.

...but you should cut spending for the sake of controlling inflation by paying down debts.

Clinton actually cut spending so that we had a brief surplus, and in that time, we did pay off a little bit of the debt. Of course, that didn't last very long.

2009-01-28 15:35:18

#22

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Kmar do you beleive the govt. should only spend money where it is likely to see a return?

It's tax payer money the govt. is supposed to be spending to help the tax payer. They aren't in the business in turning a profit with your money because if they did, every single road they built would become a toll road. And they wouldn't spend money on "$1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years" - where does that live the people who use the railroad? The businesses that rely on the transport?

If the govt. was solely out to make a profit you would never see your tax dollars amount to anything, other than paying more taxes.

Sure they should be more considerate during an economic downturn, but you don't cut spending for the sake of cutting spending, ever.

Why is it being sold as a stimulus? Why the deceit? Key questions you have largely ignored. I believe the government should serve the people. Lies and burying pork out of site is not service, it's manipulation. Do you agree?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:38:53

#23

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Sure they should be more considerate during an economic downturn, but you don't cut spending for the sake of cutting spending, ever.
...but you should cut spending for the sake of controlling inflation by paying down debts.

Clinton actually cut spending so that we had a brief surplus, and in that time, we did pay off a little bit of the debt. Of course, that didn't last very long.

Clinton was continuing Bush Senior's cuts. Military wise at least. Coming down from the cold war build up.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-28 15:46:34

#24

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

Kmarion wrote:
Why is it being sold as a stimulus? Why the deceit? Key questions you have largely ignored. I believe the government should serve the people. Lies and burying pork out of site is not service, it's manipulation. Do you agree?

Because if you pass this bill then you have to wait for the next round before you can start funding in other areas. The first bailout came in two parts. Didn't you ask then why they didn't just spend it all at once?

"Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities."

Your not going to leave essential maintenance out of this package, and you and I both know that maintaining infrastructure and building projects creates jobs. The article even considers it arguably worthwhile. lol

Out of the $825 billion in this bailout, the article mentions how much exactly? They've nit-picked to the extent that they are arguing about $650 million spend towards digital TV conversion coupons.

2009-01-28 15:56:25

#25

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Why is it being sold as a stimulus? Why the deceit? Key questions you have largely ignored. I believe the government should serve the people. Lies and burying pork out of site is not service, it's manipulation. Do you agree?
Because if you pass this bill then you have to wait for the next round before you can start funding in other areas. The first bailout came in two parts. Didn't you ask then why they didn't just spend it all at once?

"Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities."

Your not going to leave essential maintenance out of this package, and you and I both know that maintaining infrastructure and building projects creates jobs. The article even considers it arguably worthwhile. lol

Out of the $825 billion in this bailout, the article mentions how much exactly? They've nit-picked to the extent that they are arguing about $650 million spend towards digital TV conversion coupons.

Next round? No, you don't lump everything imaginable together. Every major expense should be examined, not thrown together in a great big "stimulus" lie. That's preposterous.

Nit picking is what I want. This country has gone insane with spending. ANOTHER $650 million in digital TV coupons in a time that we should be tightening our belts is lame. So is arguing for hidden pork.

Have you read the entire bill?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer