On Feb 7, 4:54 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:

You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman:

Not intersted in socialist economists.

He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal.

Yup.

Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180.



But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar
to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would
be.

Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal
trainer and a masseuse.

Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901
27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago;
the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great
Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get
the economy going again.

You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme
conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be
done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and
STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear
Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else.

In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct -
they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's
multipliers.

Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02
Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03
Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29

Perm/extend AMT patch: .48
Bush tax cuts permanent: .29
Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37
Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30

Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64
Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73
General aid to state govt: 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of-
the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

[... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.]
--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Spending that won't achieve the desired end.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147

Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion
dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to
plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally
review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at
random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better.

Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More
precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And
why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus"
package is so full of pork it virtually oinks?

It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest
group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that
funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90
billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for
something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even
many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
The rest is pork."

Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy.
The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part
of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand?

$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.
Oink. Oink. Oink.

Yeah, that's a liberal trick. Kinda like the bridge to nowhere.

Yeah, you think Barry's going to admit it?






On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:49:37 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?=
wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:43 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:38:55 -0800 (PST), =3D?windows-1252?Q?No_One=3D99?=
=3D



wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:23:02 -0800 (PST), =3D3D?windows-1252?Q?No_One=
=3D3D99?=3D
=3D3D

wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wro=
te:

Way Back Jack wrote:

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and=
a =3D
half
weeks.

On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next?

Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot pr=
ovi=3D
ded
from Pravda West (NYTimes).

You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder.

Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing.

Sometime better tell him that it gets harder.

The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-so=
xer
doting.

Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska =
blo=3D
wing
giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Pal=
ins
husband?

It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals.

Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenopho=
bes=3D
and
kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been roughe=
r t=3D
han
riding a motorcycle upside down on your face.

(it's a visual, try hard)

Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first bl=
ack
prez, Willie C.

Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite?

I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal
health care.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...on-obama-ca..=
.

(...)

The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing
Obama=3D92s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson =
in
1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary
Clinton=3D92s campaign. =3D93No, I think that they played the race car=
d on
me,=3D94 said Clinton, =3D93and we now know from memos from the campai=
gn and
everything that they planned to do it all along.=3D94

(...)

=3D93No, I think that they played the race card on me,=3D94 said Clinton=
..."

A statement of opinion reported on a blog doesn't constitute a fact.

Your hero Willie said it.

Are you saying that he would lie?

Of course Barry will deny it.

And of course Barry also said that people can't adjust to a president
who looks like him on paper notes.

You interpret that as you see fit, and so will I.


Opinion !=3D lie, but neither does opinion =3D fact.

UPDATE: At a Pittsburgh press availability, Obama was asked about
Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use 'the race
card.'

=93Hold on a second,=92=92 he said. =93So former President Clinton dismisse=
d
my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he
is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it? You better
ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These
were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of
mine.=92=92

A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's
an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and
Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The
647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic
"stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details
we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder
that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic
proposal of the last 40 years.


APWe've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1
billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that
hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care
subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the
National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming
research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration
projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already
doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make
"dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be
the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the
bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another
$40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and
clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.


Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate
only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1,
is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus.
And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy
immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director,
told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the
shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely
stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as
renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion)
that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit
systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of
their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to
public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess
which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for
the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3
billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants
to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities.
The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the
Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for
income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably
help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing
at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded
unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion
for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax.
While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out
the recession, they aren't job creators.

iAs for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to
federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the
Government Accountability Office have already criticized as
"ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include
the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business
Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more.
That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years
ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6
billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you
think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on
page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide
financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or
secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will
become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the
new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following
year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's
hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending
next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The
likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a
permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax
increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this
ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was
written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead --
Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the
election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them
take all of the credit.














On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:54:16 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 07 Feb 2009 21:22:26 GMT, Robb wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On 07 Feb 2009 20:59:38 GMT, Robb wrote:

Restless wrote:

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:


You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman:

Not intersted in socialist economists.

More like disenchanted with life. You do know an "economist" is nothing
special, except for the specialized education, anyone can be one, no
license required.

Tell it to the other idiot who worships at his altar.

Kali? She can outread the both of us.

Thanks but I reserve the right to be wrong or **** up

Especially the writings of socialist economists.

Great stuff. Even for conservatives (the few left who think).

The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring09/007101.htm

But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar
to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would
be.

Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal
trainer and a masseuse.

How far was your jump to conclusion?

Read the other idiot's wish list.

Too busy watching that darn liberal-brainwashing PBS pop their cork over
Africans starving to death. You know how it is. Oh no, you don't.

Jimmy Carter couldn't save them from themselves.

Obama will fail in similar fashion.

Let's all hope not. I don't know where this silly thinking comes
from. As much as I hated Bush, I sure as hell didn't wish for him to
fail. If our leader fails, we all suffer.

Many $$$$$$billions later.

Or trillions in spending like Bush did, and that wasn't any kind of
economic stimulus, either.
--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

$150M for bee insurance? $20M for Fish barriers? What are those?


_______
AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational
loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the
taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at
them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra,
extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky
interest-heavy student loans.

Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s
trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers,
just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because
there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why.

Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from
the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy —
it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and
churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been
made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad
cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them.

Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and
stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly
kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what
used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if
not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five
hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of
this month.

By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry,
and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And
that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him.

And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all,
each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all
recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can
all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and
his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the
poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing.













On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:56:11 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?=
wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:54 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:

You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman:

Not intersted in socialist economists.

He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal.

Yup.

Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180.



But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar
to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would
be.

Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal
trainer and a masseuse.

Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901
27_702149.htm?campaign_id=3Drss_topStories

I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago;
the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great
Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get
the economy going again.

You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme
conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be
done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and
STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear
Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else.

In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct -
they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's
multipliers.

Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02
Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03
Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29

Perm/extend AMT patch: .48
Bush tax cuts permanent: .29
Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37
Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30

Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64
Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73
General aid to state govt: 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of-
the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

[... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.]
--
Kali

=93This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.=94
-Sen. John McCain

=93What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.=94 -Pres. Barack Obama

Spending that won't achieve the desired end.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=3D10147

Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion
dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to
plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally
review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at
random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better.

Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More
precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And
why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus"
package is so full of pork it virtually oinks?

It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest
group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that
funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90
billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for
something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even
many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
The rest is pork."

Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy.
The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part
of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand?

$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.
Oink. Oink. Oink.

Yeah, that's a liberal trick. Kinda like the bridge to nowhere.

On Feb 7, 5:08 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:

Yeah, you think Barry's going to admit it?

Make up your mind whether you're going to top-post or bottom-post, so
I can find your answer.

So you're saying Obama is guilty no matter what he says. An admission
is an admission and a denial is a tacit admission? And an opinion is
as good as a fact, as long as it supports what you already believe?

When did you stop beating your wife?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:11:58 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?=
wrote:

On Feb 7, 5:08 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:

Yeah, you think Barry's going to admit it?

Make up your mind whether you're going to top-post or bottom-post, so
I can find your answer.

So you're saying Obama is guilty no matter what he says. An admission
is an admission and a denial is a tacit admission? And an opinion is
as good as a fact, as long as it supports what you already believe?

I have my opinion regarding this issue; you continue in starry-eyed
moonbat rapture.

To each his own.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Then there was the remark about faces on paper currency.

But mostly Barry let La Belle Michelle and his sycophants do the race
card bit.

In article , -
says...
Kali wrote:

In article , -
says...
Way Back Jack wrote:

The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both
sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side,
his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye.

I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class
people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it is.
Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're good for
right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for reelection
in 2010.

I do too. There's not enough time for a political recovery to benefit
the left-behinds in '10. They're still weeping en-masse over the ass of a
red-skirted MILF. I'm serious about that, the ****ers are all around here.
Repugs seriously lust for that crazy puppy-murdering bitch.

And that's not even the worst thing about her. Her religion scares
the **** out of me. Have you heard of Dominionism? (think Pat
Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, Focus on the Family, and the push toward
a Christian theocracy.) She's their perfect puppet.

Are you trying to master stating the obvious?

Tax cuts != stimulus spending. Yet that's all the Repubs can come up
with. The Bush tax cuts were an Epic Fail, and they keep banging that
same drum. And they are opposed to productive spending that will get the
biggest return in terms of change in one year real GDP.

Kali, you're talking about a group of idiots with thug politicians serving
cherries on their heads. Politicians, who're leading them around by the
nose.

They're told what to think and are force-fed canned rhetoric by Pinbaugh,
O'really, Inannity, Fuchannan, et:al. One will post a red- blooded
think-not criticism on anything "stim" (spending) TODAY, it is a mandate
to slap at anyone expressing insight or positivity.

Amen to that, brotha.

Compare these from Moody's Economy.com:

Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 -(+) ^^^ Temp across the board tax cut:
1.03 -(+)^^^ Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 -(+) ^^^^

Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 - (-)
Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 - (-)
Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 - (-) Perm cut corporate tax rate:
.30 -(-)

Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 -(+) ^^^^^ Temp increase in food
stamps: 1.73 -(+) ^^^^^ General aid to state govt: 1.36 -(+)^^^^
Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 -(+)^^^^^

Scored! Why don't wingnuts recognize human RESOURCES are compatible with
increasing an economy.

Yeah, people earning paychecks and spending money? Who knew?

(caveat on those multipliers, see the Business Week article on this,
it frames the debate in a very digestible way)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901
27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

You've seen figures for job growth by-the-numbers
for the next decade(s) I trust?

Not yet, in my crash course in economics. Wish I'd studied it in
school, because it interests me now. Back then I likened an econ
course to watching paint dry.

But I did see a verrrry scary graph on Huffpo earlier today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...chart-what-36-
mi_n_164828.html

Job losses in the three most recent recessions, compliments of Bush
Sr. and Dubya. We need some horizontal movement in that line that is
us now, or we're fux0red.

Get the money out to the people who will spend it now. Corporate tax
cuts? Epic Fail in terms of stimulus.

Problem is - even in the best of times, you can't turn a battleship full
about on a putting green. Productivity has supposedly climbed, if so,
that's a positive. And why are you chatting with a known libertine?

Ooooh libertine. I had no idea! Please continue.
--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article , says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:


You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman:

Not intersted in socialist economists.

He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal.

Yup.

Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180.

Wrong.

But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar
to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would
be.

Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal
trainer and a masseuse.

Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901
27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago;
the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great
Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get
the economy going again.

You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme
conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be
done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and
STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear
Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else.

In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct -
they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's
multipliers.

Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02
Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03
Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29

Perm/extend AMT patch: .48
Bush tax cuts permanent: .29
Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37
Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30

Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64
Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73
General aid to state govt: 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of-
the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

[... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.]
--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Spending that won't achieve the desired end.

Spending what on what? What is your claim?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147

A conservative blog, presumably one that backs up your views. Is he
smarter than you are? That's nice, but do you need to tell your
buddy here that if he can't figure out why govt spending on
infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy, he needs to
do a lot more reading and a lot less writing (whining). Also, some
of the items listed have already been cut out.

Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion
dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to
plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally
review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at
random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better.

Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More
precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And
why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus"
package is so full of pork it virtually oinks?

It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest
group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that
funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90
billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for
something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even
many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
The rest is pork."

Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy.
The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part
of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand?


$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.
Oink. Oink. Oink.


--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

In article ,
says...

_______
AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational
loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the
taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at
them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra,
extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky
interest-heavy student loans.

Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s
trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers,
just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because
there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why.

Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from
the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy —
it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and
churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been
made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad
cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them.

Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and
stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly
kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what
used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if
not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five
hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of
this month.

By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry,
and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And
that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him.

And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all,
each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all
recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can
all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and
his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the
poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing.


Fact-free invective! Typical winger argument.

--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to
control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we
drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. .....
Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism.

That's for starters.

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism,
and Individualism
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.



I have often been asked to present a brief introduction to Classical
Liberalism and how it fits into the philosophical tradition of which I
consider myself to be a member, that of Classical Realism.
Furthermore, some have questioned me about my use of the term
"Moderate Libertarianism" to also describe my political philosophy.
And finally, there have been questions raised about my use of the term
"Individualism" and how that term is used in Classical Liberalism. I
hope this essay satisfies, at least to some extent for now, those who
have raised these matters with me.

Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals

Classical Liberals, like myself, stress such ideas as voluntary
association, incentives, and self-interest. We believe that people are
bound by their own decisions, agreements, contracts, and so on.
Therefore, people may do unpleasant jobs, for instance, because they
pay. They may, of course, do things as well for non-financial reasons.
It is important to note that we stress that our way of doing things
combines a way to get things done with a high degree of individual
freedom. We assume that people recognize the rights of others and some
uncontracted obligations toward others, as well. Classical Liberalism
can be contrasted with Welfare or Modern Liberalism which has an
opposing view and is currently the dominant political philosophy in
the United States.

Welfare Liberals think that citizens should have far more welfare
guarantees; indeed, some have suggested that everyone should have a
guaranteed income. For example, two Yale Law School professors, Bruce
Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S. citizen with
a high school diploma should receive a bounty of $80,000 on his or her
twenty-first birthday.

Welfare Liberals tend to favor paternalistic actions by government to
protect people, and they are less worried about the ethics and
practicalities of social engineering by government. They give more
weight to social obligations, instead of basic rights, and when they
talk about rights and obligations, they have in mind the idea that
those who are fortunate have an obligation to serve the community as a
whole.

To accomplish their aims, Welfare Liberals are strong proponents of
public or state education. They use this as a means of shaping people
for the so-called responsibilities and duties of citizenship, much of
which could be rightly called "state propaganda." Classical Liberals,
by the way, tend to see something sinister in governments shaping
character through education. We are very suspicious about that.

So we can say in a general way that one approach, Classical
Liberalism, favors incentives, the shaping of the individual through
family upbringing, and participation in the ordinary institutions of a
commercial society. The other side, Welfare or Modern Liberals, puts
greater weight on socialization to predispose people to specific views
and perspectives which favor their agenda.

Welfare Liberalism, by the way, does have a real problem with how to
get individuals to do things since there is little incentive to do
constructive things if you are given what you need by the government
rather than having to work for it yourself. One might note that
welfare recipients have little incentive to take really unpleasant
jobs.

Classical Liberals emphasize the importance of individual freedoms of
various kinds. We see these as moral rights. There is, however, a
great deal of room for disputes about the scope and character of these
rights, as in government by consent. We do argue about these rights,
which can enliven any gathering of Classical Liberals. We do agree,
however, that any government that does exist exists to safeguard or
protect the individual rights of its citizens, that is, that is the
proper role of government even though we realize that some actual
governments don't do that. So we might say that this ought or should
be the role of any "legitimate" government.

We also expect that if people's rights are safeguarded and protected,
human interaction will generate well-being or happiness for each
individual. This is achieved through voluntary market transactions,
voluntary mutual aid and charity and, in very limited ways, possibly
through government action. We believe that individuals are the best
judges of their own interests and that government should be limited in
scope and function by what citizens will consent to and by individual
rights. So we tend to favor a self-limiting Democratic Republic with a
written constitution that guarantees protection of individual rights
against a simple majority rule.

Virtually all Classical Liberals agree with the ideal of the rule of
law, rather than the rule of men. And the law should be general in
character, publicly available, not retrospective, not arbitrary and
capricious, but objective and based on a rational foundation.
Government should act only on the basis of the law, and not on mere
whim or circumstance. Furthermore, the state should be broadly neutral
regarding people's concerns, such as with religion for example. While
we all agree that law and order in any society is important and it is
the government's job to see to this matter through protecting the
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is some
disagreement among Classical Liberals over the matters of national
defense and "public goods" such as mail services and other things that
people need but that are not provided or are underprovided by the free
market.

Classical Liberals also emphasize private property. In fact, many of
the early Classical Liberals fostered the idea that individual rights
included primarily the rights to life, liberty, and property. In the
U.S. Declaration of Independence the right to property was changed to
the right to the pursuit of happiness. I happen to agree with this
modification because, in my opinion, the rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness are "absolute" rights, whereas, the right to
property is not absolute on its face but is derived from the former
three and especially the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is a
primary right while the right to property is secondary.

By the way, not all Classical Liberals agree with me on this so, as
you can see, there are disputes, mostly minor fortunately, among those
of us who claim to be Classical Liberals. I see this as positive
because it means Classical Liberalism is not simply a dead political
philosophy but a living one with many theoretical and practical
problems still to be resolved. But the right to property is definitely
important to us and your private property should not be interfered
with by others, including the state, outside the law. The law should
protect justly acquired private property, the only exception being in
certain specified emergencies and only then with due process of law.














On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:42:57 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article , says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:


You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman:

Not intersted in socialist economists.

He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal.

Yup.

Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180.

Wrong.

But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar
to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would
be.

Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal
trainer and a masseuse.

Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901
27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago;
the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great
Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get
the economy going again.

You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme
conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be
done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and
STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear
Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else.

In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct -
they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's
multipliers.

Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02
Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03
Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29

Perm/extend AMT patch: .48
Bush tax cuts permanent: .29
Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37
Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30

Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64
Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73
General aid to state govt: 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of-
the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

[... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.]
--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Spending that won't achieve the desired end.

Spending what on what? What is your claim?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147

A conservative blog, presumably one that backs up your views. Is he
smarter than you are? That's nice, but do you need to tell your
buddy here that if he can't figure out why govt spending on
infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy, he needs to
do a lot more reading and a lot less writing (whining). Also, some
of the items listed have already been cut out.

Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion
dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to
plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally
review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at
random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better.

Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More
precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And
why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus"
package is so full of pork it virtually oinks?

It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest
group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that
funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90
billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for
something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even
many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
The rest is pork."

Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy.
The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part
of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand?


$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.
Oink. Oink. Oink.


--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama