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

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