Obama aide says economic stimulus battle not over
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 7 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 28 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
20 Comments
Login to comment
0
yabits
Small government? Then why did George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress (for 6 out of 8 years) preside over the largest increases in government spending since LBJ's Great Society programs? A small government program of preemptively attacking other nations (aka the Bush Doctrine), but unwilling to raise taxes to pay for their wars?
The Republicans might spout a philosophy of small government, but their actions prove otherwise. They just want power, and they'll say anything to get it.
0
SuperLib
Republicans also lure children into their gingerbread houses. Let's not forget that.
0
adaydream
Over the past few years several states have been put between squeeses from several directions. In the course of his government, george bush cut funds that came from the federal government. Then there was legislation like "No Child Left Behind" that was mandated by congress and never funded properly. Then just the cost of doing business.
States have been floundering financially for several years. Job cuts, closed businesses and no money for people to spend, they are now floundering.
States need money as badly as Wall Street and the banks. But certain factions within congress doesn't want to help the states.
I'll be glad when this is signed and we can go on to other business. < :-)
0
skipthesong
The Republicans might spout a philosophy of small government, but their actions prove otherwise." that is absolutely correct, but don't go painting a picture of angelic dems.
Look at the bill several times, and you tell me how much of that actually helps the economy and how much of that tackles the immediate issues.
States need money as badly as Wall Street and the banks. But certain factions within congress doesn't want to help the states." Yeah, like Neon signs, Frisbee parks, statues at state offices, etc... Yeah, you can call me one of those factions. It seems all that is there are things that have been wanted for years.
I'll be glad when this is signed and we can go on to other business" It should be noted that the other business ain't gonna happen with the bill the way it is. It hits very little. Hell, I would have been happy to see the bill doubled if it hit the issues.
Anyone catch a glimpse of Barbabra Bounce Checks Boxer's act?
0
yabits
I didn't.
I have looked at the bill, and I don't have the professional economist background needed for an authoritative answer to that -- and I don't believe the critics of the bill have it either. I have a hard time believing that the economy can tell the difference between a dollar spent via a grant and one spent via a tax cut. The thing I do know is that a dollar given via the tax cut may not be spent at all, and therefore provides no stimulus whatsoever.
0
SezWho2
No such picture was painted. If the comment was just a caution, fine. If it was intended to cloud the issue of non-cooperation on the part of Republicans, it's not so fine.
When 41 Republicans can vote together with a single mind to prevent the passage of legislation, that should send up alarm signals. How can 41 people be of the same mind? It's also true that a large number of Democrats voted "with the President" on earlier versions of the bill, but at least some of them made a showing of independent thought (even if only a show}. Perhaps in the Senate, Republican independent thought was demonstrated by Repbulican Senators ignoring the wishes of Republican governors.
And why did the Republicans really do this? For the $40B here and the $700M there? Any such line item in the earlier bill--and all such line items combined--are peanuts compared with the size of the debt we already have and are trivial compared with the size of the problem we face. After the truly staggering increases of national debt under Reagan and Bush 2, now is a heck of a time to pretend to be worrying about financial integrity.
Or did they do this because there weren't enough tax cuts? If so, that's at least a legitimate philosophical difference. However Republican Senators from states that newly elected a Democratic junior Senator couldn't have been listening to what the citizens of those states were saying. But maybe that's their version of independence--showing they can ignore the electorate and vote along party lines anyway.
Or did they just do this just because they could? Teach that young upstart a lesson. "There! That'll l'arn 'im."
Obama may have it all wrong. I don't know anybody who claims his omniscience. However, it seems to me that Obama is calling for a wide-out and the Republicans once more want to run the ball off tackle. Gee! Who knows? Maybe tax cuts are the thing. Maybe that implacable, immovable mysterious defense will fold and the doughty little unstoppable running back of Republican idelology will scamper for a TD. Something's gotta give. Something's gotta give. Something's gotta give.
Tick...tick...tick....
0
wuzzademcrat
If the porkulus is such a good deal why won't Obama's benefactors and mentors back in Chicago release details of what their favorite son has awarded them?
February 4, 2009 Daley refuses to release stimulus project list http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/daley-refuses-to-release-stimulus-project-list.html
0
SezWho2
I give up. Why?
0
adaydream
For the past 8 years I complained and pointed out where we were going wrong. The republicans enjoyed their posts because their party's president was giving tax breaks and tax credits, well in one swift year more than $4Trillion were given away. Republicans had no problem about it and every opportunity, even while spending over $600Billion on a trumped up war they gave themselves more tax breaks.
Now the democrats have the congress and the presidency. The democrats have crafted a package because the republicans couldn't find their way through the door to participate in the work on the package.
Now we have a package that is over $300Billion tax breaks and tax cuts and it's not enough. We need jobs. We saw george bush give away $4Trillion in tax cuts for the rich and we watched jobs go overseas. Now it's time to reverse some of the damage done. < :-)
0
sailwind
Now we have.........
The bill, nevertheless, retains the core of Obama’s plan, designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations by combining hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to boost consumption by the public sector with tax cuts designed to increase consumer spending.
Okay, now instead of spending $600 billion on the defense security of the house we are going to spend roughly $ 400 billion on the domestic side of the house.
Again increasing the debt, cutting taxes and borrowing up the hilt again in the same fashion that got us into this mess in the first place.
This ain't change. This is Bush economics part 2 just with a priority on where to spend the cash that we don't have, and have to borrow once again on Democratic pet pork now.
Somebody please tell me the difference between this porkfest and the same porkfest the Republicans passed the last 6 years when they where in total power? The Dems sure didn't stand as a group trying to stop the republicans from spending like a drunken sailwind.
This bill is nothing but politics as usual and so much for "change" part.
Somebody, please tell me where I'm wrong here?
I'm gathering that since the Republicans were hunky dory with being tax cut and spenders, they should just tell the Dem's no problem it's your turn now and support this bill.
Meanwhile we sink further down the tubes. The Democrats if they want to lead then lead and that means Fiscal responsibility not this politics as usual crap they're trying to pass off as "change'.
Bush Economics 2, it's what it is folks and call it what it is.
0
VOR
daydream, the problem is you see the world through the eyes of the child. you think your side is always right and the other side is always wrong. you complain about bush running up a deficit yet you endorse obama running up the national debt even more in the largest single spending package in the history mankind then take offense when Republicans question it. do i need to remind you America is still a democracy?
0
adaydream
No VOR you don't.
Two years the democrats voted for change and george bush vetoed every thing that the democratic congress tried to get through. A democratic voted congress trying to do what the people wanted and it was vetoed. Where's the democracy you jest about.
Now the democrats have the congress and the presidency. Now, not only can the congress vote it through, the president will sign it.
That's democracy at work. < :-)
0
VOR
oh this George Bush veto garbage again. How many veto's did George Bush issue over the last two years of Democratic control? I think it was 12. And i think only 4 of them were overturned by congress. What vetos prevented the democrats in congress from correcting an ailing economy. Zero. None. Zilch. So what the heck are you squawking about this time?
0
adaydream
VOR are you upset about how democracy works now?
I don't agree with it all the time, but once in a while the pendolum swings the other way.
I guess that's democracy again. < :-)
0
VOR
not upset at all. kind of digging it actually. thank you for asking.
now how about qualifying your wild assertions?
0
yabits
Thanks for that great example of an illogical non-sequitur.
0
yabits
I believe Democrats are right about 60% of the time. Republicans are wrong 80-90% of the time. On things outside of those parameters, neither side has a clue.
What nails Republicans time after time after time is that they are too ideologically driven to be honest. They actually seem to believe that instrospection and self-doubt are signs of weakness, and so turn to hubris and arrogance as the remedies.
0
wuzzademcrat
"They actually seem to believe that instrospection and self-doubt are signs of weakness, and so turn to hubris and arrogance as the remedies."
No hubris or arrogance in Obama, eh.
Was it the Democrats' fabled humility and modesty that prompted Gore and ex-Clinton staff to trash the White House upon learning of their party's defeat in 2000 ?
0
yabits
Barely registers on the scale, especially in contrast to his predecessor.
Here again, we see Republicans being too ideologically driven by hatred and dishonesty. If popping a W off of computer keyboards in the is "trashing the White House" then that would fit into the standard Republican pattern of grossly exaggerating a situation. The offical GAO report of vandalism found there to be nothing else other than replacing the keyboards (why not just the W keys?) for a grand total of around $9k, which the Clintons offered to pay for. The GAO report is a remarkable document, cataloguing rumor, innuendo, pranks and insults that the Bushies endured at the hands of the departing Democrats, even if they involved no physical damage whatsoever.
The real scandal is that the investigation that the Bushies launched via the GAO cost the taxpayers a heluva lot more than any damage done by the Clinton team.
0
yabits
I hasten to add that the White House "trashing" falls into the category where Democrats are wrong 40% of the time, AND where the Republicans are wrong 80-90% of the time -- a twofer!
Back to top