Re: Less than one term

On Feb 20, 10:49 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <f75e059d-55e5-4d2a-880f-865c0825dd64
@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...> On Feb 20, 10:24 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <7abddb33-76f8-41e4-9acd-6600ab549c91
@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

On Feb 19, 11:03 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <eqinl.8137$gf.1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bberesf...@xxxxxxxxx
says...

tankfixer wrote:
In article <8853eac7-00fb-4083-bc04-1247200186e2
@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Feb 18, 12:50 pm, "La N." <nilita2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 18, 9:43 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Feb 18, 12:00 pm, "La N." <nilita2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 8:18 am, "La N." <nilita2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 7:32 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Feb 18, 10:12 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <f9357cda-b82f-44fa-88b2-c52554252ce0
@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
says...

On Feb 17, 11:09 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <jrEml.8091$gf.1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bberesf...@xxxxxxxxx says...

tankfixer wrote:
In article <gnav42$uv...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
raymond-oh...@xxxxxxxxxxx says...

"tankfixer" <paul.carr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.24028ba9ada7849b98971d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <10928bd2-66bd-4547-a881-
6f08c1a21...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
nilita2...@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Feb 15, 5:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <c1fe66c7-9cee-4a58-828e-ff99ba0fc347
@t11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

On Feb 10, 10:40 pm, "Mark Test" <mgt...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message

news:c43fd393-ab7e-4e22-984c-a772731f071e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 10, 3:01 pm, Frogwatch
<ohara...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 10, 2:49 pm, Frogwatch
<ohara...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I predict that inept Obama will serve LESS THAN ONE
TERM because his
own party will ask him to resign. Unfortunately,
this would mean an
inept Biden so somethign will have to be done to
him too.

Whoa, what a stimulus, DOW is down 400 pts.

Like in October 1987, and July 2007?

**************************

Market forces acted then......gov't forces are in play
now......socialist / democratic gov't forces.

And

Last six months Point drop
September 16, 2008 504 points
September 17, 2008 449
September 28, 2008 778
October 6, 2008 c 400
October 7, 2008 508
November 5, 2008 486

market forces or the Dow realizing the Bush people
haven't a clue?

Or the realization that the upcoming administration
would enact legislation that may ruin the economy for a
long time.

Nobody really knows how to best fix the economy at this
point. And nobody knows how any plan will turn out. So,
Tanky, if you know how to do it, you should share your
secret!!!

You and I know that, care to share it with the
legislators pretending they know it will...

Until then, think positive.

I am positive they have bolluxed this whole thing up.
=============================================================================

keynes disagees with you,
but i'm sure you know better.

And of course we know his is the only correct theory.

and of course doing as we have been doing which is what
the republicans keep advocating will surely have a
different result this time.

Perhaps if the bill had been confined to only the measures
they first claimed it would be.

But instead we got hundreds of billions of dollars of pork
added in.

The whores of Washington couldn't even in a time of dire
need put aside their greed to pay off their contributors
and do the right thing.

Agreed, but wasn't it their turn ?
When the House Reps turned down the $700 billion aid
package [Bush was still Pres]and only allowed it to pass
after adding another $150 billion in _Pork_ to it, did you
complain then ?

Yes.

Cite?

Unfortunatly for you there is life outside USENET.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy
and taste Goode with Ketchup.

No cite? Bull*** then, as usual.

It just shows that he is human, like the rest of us. Everybody
has a bias. Very rare is the person with a balanced perspective
and who will not at times give a free pass (at least in a public
forum) to his/her favoured candidate.

I can think of only one exampl of a Usenet poster who says
pfffft to politics and politicians, the Colonel, "Billzzz" who
is adamantly apolitical.

btw, I can understand Tanky's concern about this economic package.
Inasmuch as I believe GWB spent like a drunken sailor (with
apologies to all the drunks in this group), I'm afraid that Obama
may be throwing good money after bad, thus possibly extending the
crisis for years/decades to come. I hope I'm wrong.

- nilita

The $700 B that Bush and Paulson spread out for the Wall Street
crowd was given without any control or apparently indication who
got what.

The next go-round is cut up into pieces for various entities.
Almost every state will get a piece of their own and keep a sharp
eye on who gets what through Recovery.gov. The other indicated
groups will do the same.

Fun to watch the states with Republican reps, Senators, governors
and solid voting against this terrible stim package, lining up and
grabbing for their "fair share". One of the heavy ironies is that
an oil state, Alaska, will probably be the biggest share in the
renewable energy slice.

Umm .... is there anything in this pie for defense
contractors ...hmmmm?

Not yet, that is a separate pie with some interesting twists.. Obama
has people who know how these things work, going through the budget,
noting which projects never seem to reach a goal and are always over
budget. The Navy may get fewer ships and the Air Force fewer
airplanes as the Army is the feature act and they and the Marines
get the lion's share of the pie.

If they are such astute budget people then why has the war on poverty
been such a dismal failure over the last 40 years ?

Obama hasn't been in power for 40 days yet. You seem quite impatient.

The OP claimed President Obama is using people who know how things work.
I was pointing out that some of those smart peoples ideas have failed
continually over the past 40 years.

How do you think America is doing with The War On Drugs [TM] ?

Poorly.

How long has that been going on ?
Wasn't that a Republican initiative ? Why yes it was and it appears that,
"he term was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971". Wow that's
almost 40 years ago too. So thats two major policies that need to be
overhauled and made right.

You will find both parties enthusiastically support the war on drugs.

Theres lots of work to be done, why don't you see if you know or can find
any Republicans [yourself excluded of course] that are willing to pitch-in
and help. America needs them.

Funny, when the stimulatory package was being worked on any input from
outside the DNC wasn't welcome.
Or in the case of the Senate/House conference bill even allowed.

Cite for that last?

Various news reports during the events.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

Like? One cite?

The problem I have with "Funny, when the stimulatory package was being
worked on any input from outside the DNC wasn't welcome."

Is that the DNC is primarily a campaign organization.  

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/aboutDNC.html

Not all Democratic congressmen are part of the DNC, and they
certainly had some input.

Mark Borgerson

Yeah, that and Nancy Pelosi being in the Senate is very confusing. I
did find this little bit, I don't know if it totally counters the
concept of not letting the Republicans participate but it'll have to
do.

"Many Democrats would have preferred a larger bill, but agreed to pare
back, including cuts to favored education and health programs, to win
three crucial Republican votes in the Senate."

The various attendees noted the rarity of holding conference committee
meetings, they were not considered necessary in the Bush years.




February 12, 2009
Deal Reached in Congress on $789 Billion Stimulus Plan
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — House and Senate leaders on Wednesday struck a deal on a
$789 billion economic stimulus bill after little more than 24 hours of
rapid-fire negotiations with the Obama administration, clearing the
way for final Congressional action later this week.

The package of spending increases and tax relief, intended to spur an
economic recovery and create jobs by putting money back in the pockets
of consumers and companies, ended up smaller than either the House or
Senate had proposed.

Many Democrats would have preferred a larger bill, but agreed to pare
back, including cuts to favored education and health programs, to win
three crucial Republican votes in the Senate.

“Legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building, and that’s
what we did,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said
in announcing the accord.

The House was poised for a final vote as early as Friday, with the
Senate to follow, clearing the way for President Obama to sign the
bill by Monday. The White House is considering a prime-time bill
signing ceremony, and on Wednesday asked the television networks if
they would air the event.

In a statement, the president thanked Congress for agreeing to a
measure that he said would save or create 3.6 million jobs.

“I’m grateful,” Mr. Obama said, “for moving it along with the urgency
that this moment demands.”

The deal reflected a calculated gamble by Mr. Obama in the first weeks
of his term. To win Republican votes, the final stimulus package is
considerably leaner than what many economists say is now needed to
jolt the economy, given its grave condition.

But it is unclear if Mr. Obama will be able to claim credit for
bringing change to Washington by winning bipartisan support for his
first major piece of legislation. Not a single House Republican voted
for the bill when it came to the floor two weeks ago, and despite many
compromises in the Senate, only three Republicans came on board.

The final bill includes $507 billion in spending programs and $282
billion in tax relief, including a scaled-back version of Mr. Obama’s
middle-class tax cut proposal, which would give credits of up to $400
for individuals and $800 for families within certain income limits. It
will also provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of Social
Security and government disability support.

House Democrats, angry over some cuts, particularly for school
construction, initially balked at the deal and delayed a final meeting
on Wednesday between House and Senate negotiators.

Democratic officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi felt that Mr. Reid went
too far by announcing a deal before it was vetted by her office and
discussed by House members in an emergency caucus meeting, setting off
the last-minute flare-up.

Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference that the delay helped House
Democrats win some final concessions, including an agreement to let
states use some money in a fiscal stabilization fund for school
renovations. “There is no question that one of our overriding
priorities in the House was a very strong commitment to school
construction,” she said. “That’s still in the bill.”

But they soon relented and the meeting got under way in a packed
Lyndon B. Johnson Room on the Senate side of the Capitol.

Despite the show of pique, for Democrats the stimulus bill is the most
prominent display yet that they now fully control Washington. Their
ability to push the package forward represented a turnabout from years
of losing battles under President George W. Bush. For Republicans, it
underscored the limits of their diminished ranks.

Even trimmed to $789 billion, the recovery measure will be the most
expansive unleashing of the government’s fiscal firepower in the face
of a recession since World War II.

And yet it seemed almost trifling compared with the $2.5 trillion
rescue plan for the financial system — a combination of loans to banks
and incentives to bring private capital into the banking system —
announced on Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

Although the final legislative language was not immediately available,
lawmakers said the bill contained more than $150 billion in public
works projects for transportation, energy and technology, and $87
billion to help states meet rising Medicaid costs.

Despite intense lobbying by governors around the country, the final
deal slashed $25 billion from a proposed state fiscal stabilization
fund, eliminated a $16 billion line item for school construction and
sharply curtailed spending to provide health insurance for the
unemployed.

In driving down the total cost — from $838 billion for the Senate
stimulus bill and $820 billion for the House-passed measure —
lawmakers also reduced the Senate’s proposed tax incentives for buyers
of homes and cars, which hold big public appeal.

The final agreement retained a $70 billion tax break to spare millions
of middle-income Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax in
2009. Some Democrats decried the provision as a costly addition that
would not lift the economy and that Congress would have approved,
regardless of the recession.

After huddling in Ms. Pelosi’s office on Tuesday until nearly
midnight, top White House officials and Congressional leaders had all
but ironed out the differences between the House and Senate versions
of the stimulus by noon on Wednesday.

Even before the last touches were put to the bill, some angry
Democrats said that Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders had been too
quick to give up on Democratic priorities. “I am not happy with it,”
said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “You are not looking at a
happy camper. I mean they took a lot of stuff out of education. They
took it out of health, school construction and they put it more into
tax issues.”

Mr. Harkin said he was particularly frustrated by the money being
spent on fixing the alternative minimum tax. “It’s about 9 percent of
the whole bill,” he said, “Why is it in there? It has nothing to do
with stimulus. It has nothing to do with recovery.”

But even as Congressional leaders and top White House officials went
through the package with a carving knife, it was clear that the three
Republicans who agreed to support the bill in the Senate wielded
extraordinary power, and along with conservative Democrats, had put a
firm stamp on the stimulus package.

For instance, negotiators opted to keep many of the Senate’s reduced
spending provisions, but they were careful to maintain an additional
$6.5 billion for medical research that was inserted at the insistence
of Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is a cancer
survivor. He was one of the three Republican supporters of the
recovery package.

“I think it is an important component of putting America back on its
feet,” Mr. Specter said, though he added that it was still a difficult
vote “in view of the large deficit and national debt.”

The Senate bill came together only after a bipartisan group of
centrist senators, led by Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Ben
Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, reached a deal to trim the cost of the
package to $838 billion from more than $920 billion.

“These aren’t easy times, obviously for America,” said Senator Olympia
J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who was also a member of that group.
“Given the gravity of the circumstances economically, I thought it was
important to be part of a process that could yield a consensus-based
solution.”

But the majority of Republicans continued to criticize the stimulus
measure on Wednesday as a bloated and ill-designed spending bonanza by
Democrats on favored projects that would not help lift the economy out
of recession but would permanently expand the federal government and
plunge future generations of Americans deep into debt.

“Yesterday the Senate cast one of the most expensive votes in
history,” said the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky. “Americans are wondering how we’re going to pay for all
this.”

Indeed, the formal House-Senate conference meeting, usually an
elaborate parliamentary ritual with reams of legislative paperwork
strewn across cluttered conference tables, instead served mostly as a
live, televised forum for some of the most powerful Democrats and
Republicans in Congress to trade barbs.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, complained that
despite Mr. Obama’s call for bipartisan cooperation, Republicans had
largely been shut out. “We didn’t have a chance to negotiate,” Mr.
Grassley said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/us/politics/12stimulus.html?hp
.

Loading