Check out some similar questions!

talaniman · Feb 23, 2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by George_1950

Fortunately, or unfortunately, Obama cashed-in the honeymoon with the Stimulus Porkage; there was nothing 'bi-partisan' about it; hence, the partisanship. Furthermore, from the same article cited above: "...Washington could not be more divided on Obama's initial weeks in the Oval Office and the policies he has put in place." Analysis: Clinton's mockery of Obama proves true - CNN.com

Republicans are making there own choices, that how the system works, but they are not in a position to do anything but oppose, as they cannot rule. The people have spoken!!

George_1950 · Feb 24, 2009, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Choux

_______________________

Why do you think that so many Americans are totally disinclined in facing up to reality, but instead, just pretend that everything is fine...."

"House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans.

"The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion... "
House Democrats propose $410B spending bill - Yahoo! Finance

We were discussing "Americans totally disinclined in facing up to reality"?

tomder55 · Feb 24, 2009, 09:42 AM

LOL George!!

The President Saturday proposed an increase in taxes on rich (as defined by anyone or family or small business earning $250K+ ) .He assumes a recovery by 2011 ;so he boldly claims that this will halve the national debt in time for his reelection.

He will address Congress tonight where he will propose even more spending above what is mentioned . [Already there are rumors of over 9,000 separate ear-marks in the bill being proposed.]
Nouriel Roubini in the WSJ said :

"Between guarantees, liquidity support, and capitalization, the government has provided between $7 trillion to $9 trillion of help to the financial system. De facto, the government is already controlling a good chunk of the banking system. The question is: Do you want to move to the de jure step."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...cle-outset-box

Given that these number represents about 2/3 the typical national GDP does he not mean the de jure government control of the entire American economy ?

speechlesstx · Feb 24, 2009, 10:07 AM

"There was no official total of the bill's earmarks"

Now that's a shocking surprise.

George_1950 · Feb 24, 2009, 10:31 AM

Obama: "You are on a need to know basis. I won."

tomder55 · Feb 24, 2009, 10:32 AM

"And when I'm president, I will go line by line ...yada yada " Obama Sept 2008

speechlesstx · Feb 24, 2009, 11:45 AM

Obama's greatest political challenge could be fending off states asserting their 10th amendment rights. I doubt it, but I'm behind them 100 percent.

George_1950 · Feb 24, 2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Choux

_______________________

Why do you think that so many Americans are totally disinclined in facing up to reality, but instead, just pretend that everything is fine.

Further: "...liberalism, as practiced since 1964,... has been shown to be nothing less than an unending series of public policy disasters. From the Great Society's misspent trillions to the bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare and now Wall Street and the U.S. housing, banking, and credit systems. From school busing to Vietnam to the Detroit public schools to the entire recession-drenched state of Michigan, the policies that Goldwater -- and later Reagan -- warned about have proven themselves over and over again to be little short of unmitigated disasters." The American Spectator : The Goldwater Lesson

tomder55 · Feb 24, 2009, 11:53 AM

Look up the transcripts of Meet the Press . Jindal gives compelling reasons to reject temporary Fed $$ in return to permanent changes in the state social safety net that would not be funded by the Feds in the future.

I am a believer in Federalism but I don't think this comes close to either the nullification crisis or the events leading up to the Civil War. Refusing Federal Aid has always been an option because of the strings attached. One of the more recent examples was the tying Fed Highway funds to the drinking age. The Feds were not going to force the states to comply... just make it worth their while .

tomder55 · Feb 24, 2009, 12:37 PM

Here is the transcript.

Feb. 22: Jindal, Crist, roundtable - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC

It is great stuff. Jindal will give the Republican reply to the President tonight.

Here my favorite part . Gregory grilled him about refusing the unemployment part of the bail out . He used Sen Landrau's assertion about putting a sunset clause on any new State law

GOV. JINDAL: That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that. The word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B--our employer group agrees with me. They say, "Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?
And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations

speechlesstx · Feb 25, 2009, 06:15 AM

I wonder how many "permanent" obligations are in the stimulus bill.