Help
it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?
spending bill
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-March-13, 13:45
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#22
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-March-13, 14:36
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 02:45 PM, said:
it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?
Tell me how he could have done that. Read Barmar's post, except I would go even farther. It would have been incredibly difficult and highly ineffective, and also used against him to boot. And meanwhile there would still have been an underfunded government to run with no money allocated to do so.
As for my potential hypocrisy, I agree. If in a similar type of bill even next year there are 9,000 earmarks totalling over 4 billion dollars, Obama will have some serious explaining to do.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-March-13, 14:38
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 10:45 PM, said:
it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?
Funny, I was listening to the speech that Obama made when he signed the Omnibus spending bill. I don't recall him saying anything of the sort.
Please note: There are certainly some comments about earmarks in previous budgets. However, the point of those comments was not to excuse the fact that Obama was signing a bill that contained earmarks. Rather, Obama specifically noted that members of the Democratic Party were the ones who took the initiative to reform an earmark process that had become incredibly abusive under Republic congresses.
The reference point is the behavior of the different parties on congress...
Not the the actions taken by the Chief Executive
I guess that this is another case when you're making ***** up.
Tell you what: If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
I'll even make it easy for you. Here's Obama's speech when he signed the bill...
Quote
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I ran for President pledging to change the way business is done in Washington and build a government that works for the people by opening it up to the people. And that means restoring responsibility and transparency and accountability to actions that the government takes. And working with the Congress over my first 50 days in office, we've made important progress toward that end.
Working together, we passed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that's already putting people back to work doing the work that America needs done. We did it without the customary Congressional earmarks -- the practice by which individual legislators insert projects of their choosing. We're implementing the Recovery Act with an unprecedented level of aggressive oversight and transparency, including a website -- recovery.gov -- that allows every American to see how their tax dollars are spent and report on cases where the system is breaking down.
I also signed a directive that dramatically reforms our broken system of government contracting, reining in waste and abuse and inefficiency; saving the American taxpayers up to $40 billion each year in the process.
And I've laid out plans for a budget that begins to restore fiscal discipline so we can bring down the $1.3 trillion budget deficit we've inherited and pave the way for our long-term prosperity. For the first time in many years, we've produced an honest budget that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.
Now, yesterday Congress sent me the final part of last year's budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one, a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities.
That's what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does -- the nearly 99 percent that you probably haven't heard much about.
What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks. Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own -- and will tout them in their own states and their own districts.
But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority. So these practices hit their peak in the middle of this decade, when the number of earmarks had ballooned to more than 16,000, and played a part in a series of corruption cases.
In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent. These measures were combined with the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate. We banned gifts and meals and made sure that lobbyists have to disclose who they're raising campaign money from, and who in Congress they send it to. So we've made progress. But let's face it, we have to do more.
I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.
In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.
These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.
Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools, and police stations, and fire departments.
When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.
Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.
And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so.
Now I know there are members in both Houses with good ideas on this matter. And just this morning, the House released a set of recommendations for reform that I think hold great promise. I congratulate them on that.
Now I'm calling on Congress to enact these reforms as the appropriation process moves forward this year. Neither I nor the American people will accept anything less.
It's important that we get this done to ensure that the budget process works better, that taxpayers are protected, and that we save billions of dollars that we so desperately need to right our economy and address our fiscal crisis. Along with that reform, I expect future spending bills to be debated and voted on in an orderly way, and sent to my desk without delay or obstruction, so that we don't face another massive, last-minute omnibus bill like this one.
I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse. As a former senator, I believe that individual members of Congress understand their districts best. And they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities. I don't quarrel with that. But leadership requires setting an example and setting priorities, and the magnitude of the economic crisis we face requires responsibility on all our parts.
The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.
If we're going to solve our economic crisis; if we're going to put Americans back to work; if we're going to make the investments required to build a foundation for our future growth -- then we must restore the American people's faith that their government is working for them, and that it's on their side. That's the government I promised. That's the government I intend to lead.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Working together, we passed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that's already putting people back to work doing the work that America needs done. We did it without the customary Congressional earmarks -- the practice by which individual legislators insert projects of their choosing. We're implementing the Recovery Act with an unprecedented level of aggressive oversight and transparency, including a website -- recovery.gov -- that allows every American to see how their tax dollars are spent and report on cases where the system is breaking down.
I also signed a directive that dramatically reforms our broken system of government contracting, reining in waste and abuse and inefficiency; saving the American taxpayers up to $40 billion each year in the process.
And I've laid out plans for a budget that begins to restore fiscal discipline so we can bring down the $1.3 trillion budget deficit we've inherited and pave the way for our long-term prosperity. For the first time in many years, we've produced an honest budget that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.
Now, yesterday Congress sent me the final part of last year's budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one, a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities.
That's what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does -- the nearly 99 percent that you probably haven't heard much about.
What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks. Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own -- and will tout them in their own states and their own districts.
But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority. So these practices hit their peak in the middle of this decade, when the number of earmarks had ballooned to more than 16,000, and played a part in a series of corruption cases.
In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent. These measures were combined with the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate. We banned gifts and meals and made sure that lobbyists have to disclose who they're raising campaign money from, and who in Congress they send it to. So we've made progress. But let's face it, we have to do more.
I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.
In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.
These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.
Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools, and police stations, and fire departments.
When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.
Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.
And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so.
Now I know there are members in both Houses with good ideas on this matter. And just this morning, the House released a set of recommendations for reform that I think hold great promise. I congratulate them on that.
Now I'm calling on Congress to enact these reforms as the appropriation process moves forward this year. Neither I nor the American people will accept anything less.
It's important that we get this done to ensure that the budget process works better, that taxpayers are protected, and that we save billions of dollars that we so desperately need to right our economy and address our fiscal crisis. Along with that reform, I expect future spending bills to be debated and voted on in an orderly way, and sent to my desk without delay or obstruction, so that we don't face another massive, last-minute omnibus bill like this one.
I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse. As a former senator, I believe that individual members of Congress understand their districts best. And they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities. I don't quarrel with that. But leadership requires setting an example and setting priorities, and the magnitude of the economic crisis we face requires responsibility on all our parts.
The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.
If we're going to solve our economic crisis; if we're going to put Americans back to work; if we're going to make the investments required to build a foundation for our future growth -- then we must restore the American people's faith that their government is working for them, and that it's on their side. That's the government I promised. That's the government I intend to lead.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Alderaan delenda est
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-March-13, 14:53
hrothgar, on Mar 13 2009, 03:38 PM, said:
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 10:45 PM, said:
it'll be interesting to see whether your statements contain any hypocrisy in in the coming months and years, josh... regardless, i still find it slightly pathetic for obama to say something like, 'this might be a pork-laden spending bill but bush signed those too' in defense... wouldn't you have felt just a little better about him if he'd used his influence, still high, to have some of that pork trimmed?
Funny, I was listening to the speech that Obama made when he signed the Omnibus spending bill. I don't recall him saying anything of the sort.
Please note: There are certainly some comments about earmarks in previous budgets. However, the point of those comments was not to excuse the fact that Obama was signing a bill that contained earmarks. Rather, Obama specifically noted that members of the Democratic Party were the ones who took the initiative to reform an earmark process that had become incredibly abusive under Republic congresses.
whatever your opinion of the point of those comments might be, he did make them - and why would he do so unless he felt the signing of the bill needed defending?... no objective person can seriously believe that the democratic congress ".. took the initiative to reform an earmark process that had become incredibly abusive under Republic congresses .." when the earmarks in this bill were so incredibly huge and transparent...
Quote
Tell you what: If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
what does this mean?
“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,336
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-March-13, 15:15
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less. I know every tiny little town around where I live have hired Washington Lobbyists to get more money, not less.
The good news is it is only early March and Congress can pass more. I do not think it is fair to blame the new President for these bills. He has not even been in office a 100days yet. Lets give the guy a break.
Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less. I know every tiny little town around where I live have hired Washington Lobbyists to get more money, not less.
The good news is it is only early March and Congress can pass more. I do not think it is fair to blame the new President for these bills. He has not even been in office a 100days yet. Lets give the guy a break.
#26
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,030
- Joined: 2008-August-08
- Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.
Posted 2009-March-13, 15:29
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:15 PM, said:
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less. I know every tiny little town around where I live have hired Washington Lobbyists to get more money, not less.
The good news is it is only early March and Congress can pass more. I do not think it is fair to blame the new President for these bills. He has not even been in office a 100days yet. Lets give the guy a break.
Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less. I know every tiny little town around where I live have hired Washington Lobbyists to get more money, not less.
The good news is it is only early March and Congress can pass more. I do not think it is fair to blame the new President for these bills. He has not even been in office a 100days yet. Lets give the guy a break.
Quote
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small.
Ummmm...we can?
Quote
All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus.
Quote
Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less.
1. LSAT tutor for rent.
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
#27
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-March-13, 15:34
Lobowolf, on Mar 13 2009, 04:29 PM, said:
Quote
All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus.
Even though the rest of what he wrote is drivel, I think on this point he is exactly right and you are backwards. From what I have heard most economists say, the overall size of the first stimulus bill wasn't big enough. How it was spent was a problem to (Republican) politicians, but not to most economists.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#28
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,336
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-March-13, 15:42
Wolff,
1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.
2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.
3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.
4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.
1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.
2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.
3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.
4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.
#29
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,336
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-March-13, 15:50
jdonn, on Mar 13 2009, 04:34 PM, said:
Lobowolf, on Mar 13 2009, 04:29 PM, said:
Quote
All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus.
Even though the rest of what he wrote is drivel, I think on this point he is exactly right and you are backwards. From what I have heard most economists say, the overall size of the first stimulus bill wasn't big enough. How it was spent was a problem to (Republican) politicians, but not to most economists.
Ok JDonn but I still think it is not fair to blame the new President for these spending bills, you use the phrase drivel.
"Even though the rest of what he wrote is drivel"
#30
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,030
- Joined: 2008-August-08
- Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.
Posted 2009-March-13, 15:56
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:42 PM, said:
Wolff,
1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.
2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.
3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.
4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.
1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.
2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.
3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.
4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.
I do agree that Krugman advocates much more spending. I didn't realize that was one of your main points; I thought you were simply stating it to support the statement that the spending and earmarks are too small. Apparently, though, that was not one of your main points. I misunderstood.
Similarly, I misread your comment about governors.
If those were the points you intended to make, indeed we agree! As I am neither a governor nor Paul Krugman, however, I assumed that by the inclusion of "we all," you had something else in mind.
Holders of credit card accounts can authorize other users on those accounts. I apologize if I was ambiguous by talking about the parents' cards, rather than their parents' accounts. Additional cards may be issued on the parents' accounts, in the children's names, even though the cards are being issued on the parents' credit rating and history, not the kids'. My primary point, though, was that the fact that the kids would fairly unanimously agree that those limits should extremely high, "we all" shouldn't similarly agree.
1. LSAT tutor for rent.
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
#31
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,336
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-March-13, 16:02
Lobowolf, on Mar 13 2009, 04:56 PM, said:
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:42 PM, said:
Wolff,
1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.
2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.
3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.
4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.
1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.
2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.
3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.
4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.
I do agree that Krugman advocates much more spending. I didn't realize that was one of your main points; I thought you were simply stating it to support the statement that the spending and earmarks are too small. Apparently, though, that was not one of your main points. I misunderstood.
Similarly, I misread your comment about governors.
If those were the points you intended to make, indeed we agree! As I am neither a governor nor Paul Krugman, however, I assumed that by the inclusion of "we all," you had something else in mind.
Holders of credit card accounts can authorize other users on those accounts. I apologize if I was ambiguous by talking about the parents' cards, rather than their parents' accounts. Additional cards may be issued on the parents' accounts, in the children's names, even though the cards are being issued on the parents' credit rating and history, not the kids'. My primary point, though, was that the fact that the kids would fairly unanimously agree that those limits should extremely high, "we all" shouldn't similarly agree.
ok no problem.
While you did not come straight out and say it I am guessing you think Congress should spend less. I guess not "everyone" is for more spending but my guess is everyone or almost everyone in Congress will vote for more spending the rest of the year. I doubt even Republicans can vote no on all the increased spending.
As for your analogy with the kids using their parents credit cards, if I was a kid I agree this sounds like a great idea. What nice parents.
Side note...how do stores know someone else is authorized to use the card. I have never seen stores check for this. I suppose the store could call the credit card company but I have never noticed anyone do this.
#32
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-March-13, 16:20
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:15 PM, said:
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#33
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-March-13, 16:23
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 11:53 PM, said:
Quote
Tell you what: If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
what does this mean?
“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?
The quote that you excerpt is a promise that things will be different in the future.
The quote where Obama justifies passing a spending bill that contains earmarks is the following
Quote
I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery.
Obama is specifically stating that this is a one time thing, forced by the the speed at which events are unfolding.
He is justifying his behavior based on circumstance. This is in no way equivalent to "well Bush did it too"
Alderaan delenda est
#34
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,030
- Joined: 2008-August-08
- Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.
Posted 2009-March-13, 16:34
When CAN we have a Congress bogged down with no spending bill signed, though? Sure, because of the current economy, it's probably particularly critical now, but even after this crisis is over, is Obama really going to hold up getting a spending bill passed until hundreds of representatives, with no term limits and accountable only to the voters in their own district, waive their earmarks? I can't see him winning that game of chicken. It's the prisoner's dilemma on a large scale. Would we all be better off if nobody did it? Probably. But if some do it and some don't, and the ones who do are better off, guess what's going to happen?
1. LSAT tutor for rent.
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
#35
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,972
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Maine, USA
Posted 2009-March-13, 16:34
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 11:53 PM, said:
“So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
It is not clear to me from this quote whether the piece of legislation being referred to is the last of the old way or the first of the new way. Or, maybe stuck in between.
#36
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,336
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-March-13, 16:46
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 05:20 PM, said:
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:15 PM, said:
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?
Ya, I am also a bit unclear where the money comes from. I do know the money comes from Washington DC.
I think China gave us a Trillion and I guess Europe and Canada give us a bunch.
Given that about 40-50% of all Americans, including children and the elderly do not pay any income taxes not sure how many care.
Wolf, seemed to suggest something about a credit card and we get to use it but not sure how that works.
One possible idea is too have lots and lots of young workers pay into a fund which us older folks can draw on.
#37
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-March-13, 18:24
hrothgar, on Mar 13 2009, 05:23 PM, said:
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 11:53 PM, said:
Quote
Tell you what: If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
what does this mean?
“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?
The quote that you excerpt is a promise that things will be different in the future.
you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months
TimG, on Mar 13 2009, 05:34 PM, said:
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 11:53 PM, said:
“So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
It is not clear to me from this quote whether the piece of legislation being referred to is the last of the old way or the first of the new way. Or, maybe stuck in between.
let's hope it isn't the first of the new way because it's much worse than the last of the old way
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 05:46 PM, said:
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 05:20 PM, said:
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:15 PM, said:
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?
Ya, I am also a bit unclear where the money comes from. I do know the money comes from Washington DC.
and really, that's all you need to know
Quote
I think China gave us a Trillion and I guess Europe and Canada give us a bunch.
Given that about 40-50% of all Americans, including children and the elderly do not pay any income taxes not sure how many care.
Given that about 40-50% of all Americans, including children and the elderly do not pay any income taxes not sure how many care.
you worry too much... 50-60% of americans still pay taxes, they (we) will just have to make sure we pay enough to be fair - it is, after all, patriotic to want to pay more
Quote
One possible idea is too have lots and lots of young workers pay into a fund which us older folks can draw on.
that's what i'm hoping
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#38
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-March-13, 18:31
luke warm, on Mar 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:
hrothgar, on Mar 13 2009, 05:23 PM, said:
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 11:53 PM, said:
Quote
Tell you what: If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month. Hell, I'll make it two...
what does this mean?
“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?
The quote that you excerpt is a promise that things will be different in the future.
you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months
Please review what I originally wrote.
I stated:
Quote
If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he staed [sic] any like the following: "Its OK that I'm signing this pork ridden bill because Bush did so too"
The quote that you are point too doesn't is remotely equivalent....
In what way, shape or form is Obama justifying inclusion of pork/earmarks based on past behavior?
Moreover, he directly states that the reason that he is tolerating said pork is [actually] the current dire economic circumstances.
Alderaan delenda est
#39
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-March-13, 18:36
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 07:24 PM, said:
you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months
Lol. Not to inject myself into this part (ok, to inject myself) but he asked for a quote that meant something, you gave a quote you thought meant that and asked if he thought it meant that, he pointed out that it meant something else, and you said too bad I win? I just want to make sure I got everything straight.
Maybe you are just getting fed up that you are so often disagreed with on here, because lately you resort more and more to silly incorrect one-liners and childish barbs that I would have expected from many (me?) but not you.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#40
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 22,178
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-March-13, 22:26
luke warm, on Mar 13 2009, 05:20 PM, said:
mike777, on Mar 13 2009, 04:15 PM, said:
Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.
well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?
Aren't you talking about two different things?
The purpose of this spending bill is to keep the government going. We had a separate stimulus bill to stimulate the economy.
Notice that the stimulus bill didn't designate specific projects to fund. Rather, it allocated a huge fund from which states could then apply for funds for their projects. Thus, individual projects were not as much a factor in political negotiations for the bill.
On the other hand, when earmarks are included in a spending bill, they can be used to hold the bill hostage -- a legislator could say "This bill isn't going to pass unless you include my earmarks."