[luke warm]

jdonn, on Mar 13 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

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.

actually i'm not the only one who sees this 'blame bush' thing... coincidently, this article appeared this morning... i know you and richard are very partisan, but even you can see what obama's doing

[luke warm]

barmar, on Mar 13 2009, 11:26 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?

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."

i *should* be talking about 2 different things, you're right... but (and my info could be wrong here) i think i saw where the spending bill has $21B, which is a lot, in other spending, some of which ought to have been addressed earlier, if at all

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 14 2009, 07:10 AM, said:

actually i'm not the only one who sees this 'blame bush' thing... coincidently, this article appeared this morning... i know you and richard are very partisan, but even you can see what obama's doing

I am? I pretty much hate almost all politicians. Obama is the obvious exception, but Pelosi is about as bad as they come. And I am most definitely not a Democrat. If you were in my position you would be replying "so I'm partisan because I disagree with you?"

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 14 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 13 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

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.

actually i'm not the only one who sees this 'blame bush' thing... coincidently, this article appeared this morning... i know you and richard are very partisan, but even you can see what obama's doing

Comment 1: The article very specially notes that "Blame Bush" is a new behaviour pattern for Obama

Comment 2: So what? Why wouldn't you blame Bush? Bush is probably the worst President this country has every had. He's almost destroyed the country. It seems perfectly reasonable to point out that Bush screwed the pooch, big time.

Comment 3: Before you get started... There is a big difference between:

"Bush screwed up the economy, so we're in a bit of a pickle"

and

"It's OK if I pass a spending bill that contains earmarks because Busg passed a spending bill that contained earmarks"