Obama's all fired upFollow

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090206/pl_politico/18482

I agree with the sentiment that he is a very good president. He is bold and daring and that's what we need. This whole process just feels like the Republicans are stalling it for no other reason than to stall it. The spending in the bill isn't as frivolous as they would like us to believe, and I'm just a little sick of the whining. It's butt hurt, plain and simple. They lost the election, the power has shifted to Dem's to the extent that they will be able to pass things with or without the Republicans, and they are pissed about it.

A lot of things in America need to change, and the Republican way of doing things is what has driven companies out of business and citizens to the unemployment lines. It's definitely time for a ******* change.

EPIC Leader: This is what I'm doing, but I'm going to figure out how to make sure some idiot doesn't f*ck it up first.

The Repub way has been to throw tax cuts at things in their (apparent) honest thought that it will fix all the problems if people pay less taxes over time. How does the old adage go..."You can't make a buck if you're not willing to spend a buck" or something to that effect? There's no possibility of someone putting on a Superman costume and saving the United States in a short span of time with tax cuts. It just increases the deficit if there are no plans in place to create jobs, revenue, and functional infastructure.

The problem is, none of the current ailments in the US are going to be fixed quickly, they all require long-term effective solutions that will take time to stabilize. Repubs want "Now!" action with tax cuts without considering the long-term effects. It's short-sighted Repub thinking. Obama's interest is energy independence, job creation, education, and making sure Americans have the tools to be productive parts of the US economy. Is there stuff that makes no sense in the bill? Maybe, but instead of looking at everything as "Will it fix it now?" look at it as "What will this do in the next 4-8 years?".

Fixed.

Also, every line of the bill is public.

Also, Obama's using a tried-and-true tactic here. Offering something that looks super, super ******, that he knows will be rejected, so that the next iteration will be more acceptable, even if it is something that wouldn't have passed if that's what was initially offered.

LERN2POLITIK

Well that goes both ways, and we are arguing far too many "what ifs" anyway. This could be hugely successful, and then the Republicans will have had nothing to do with its success.

There's far more at stake here than reputations - this is about us, folks. This is about your neighbor who just came home because he lost his job. This is about the parking lot at the bar full of cars on a Tuesday afternoon because the men there have all lost their sense of self worth along with their jobs.

How exactly will tax cuts help these folks? Cutting taxes is not going to make companies look for alternative energy sources; the Federal government giving them money with the stipulation that they must do so is. And that's the bottom line here.

Obama is clearly a man of action and he isn't sitting in his pretty Oval office looking at how to make the most popular bill. He's looking at how to responsibly jump start companies who are failing which will have a direct impact on the American job market. It's already been said that he would prefer to serve one term and do the right things, than get to serve two terms because he did the "popular" things.

Was this asShole banned or wasn't he?

Edited, Feb 6th 2009 5:34pm by Deathwysh

Because I just don't have the time to challenge virus today because I have to leave at 9 and I still need to get ready, I'm just going to make one comment slightly related to the topic at hand.



Good for him. I'd love to know exactly what makes people think that lower taxes is going to help anything at this point in time. Suck it up, pay an extra couple dollars, and stop ******* complaining. You guys called the dems unpatriotic, idiotic, and haters of America for criticising Bush, and now you do the same thing and call it the opposite? **** you.

Things Pubbies Dislike in the Stimulus Bill:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

I highlighted the two I agree with.

That makes my bi-partisan.

Omega. The issue isn't just about whether you agree with the goal of any given item, but whether those items qualify as "economic stimulus".

Can you honestly say that any of those will stimulate the economy more than not taking the money to spend on them in the first place? Remember. Every single dollar spent on this comes out of our taxes, which will hurt the economy. So arguing that X dollars will stimulate the economy because it'll be spent buying furniture (for example) isn't a valid argument.


These are spending programs. Period. They have nothing to do with stimulating the economy, or helping get us out of our economic troubles. They have everything to do with funding programs lobbied by people who support Democrats. That's why the Republicans labeled this as an horribly partisan bill. The Democrats are attempting to use the economic crisis to fund every dream project they've been wanting to fund for decades but knew no one would allow.