because stimulus worked so well in 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
because stimulus worked so well in 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes Tom that's the reason given, but it has to be the right sort of stimulus, like returning jobs from outside.
The link didn't work for me,but we have had this argument before, so I have my own link here
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post
So I ask again was it the tax cuts, the state aid, or the infrastructure projects that didn't work in the stimulus? Be very careful because many states are still spending the money including my own state TEXAS, on highways and roads.
So while you SAY it didn't work, it bought time and resources albeit temporary, but most states, like Texas, leveraged it into many projects. So the idea of doing NOTHING, while attractive to your side it seems, falls flat in the face of REAL evidence state by state. But I know why you guys holler it didn't work, its obvious you don't want to do it again.
You rather let corporations keep their welfare checks while they don't create jobs. And make grandma and her babies the victims of your capitalism.
Yeah, we've had a nearly year long project cutting ADA ramps into sidewalks. Those nine guys are doing OK.
Odd, but since Woodward went public over the WH threatening him Obama's tone has changed. Suddenly most of us aren't going to notice the sequester. The sky isn't going to fall after all.
You really should get around your own state more.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's a really big state.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I wonder if the MSM will circle the wagons around an elder statesman ;or perhaps throw him under the bus ?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Some have already thrown him under the bus, but Lanny Davis says his paper was threatened over a column they didn't like.
Uh ohh... Now Zero is messing with a Clintonista .
Gee... now the lefties are beginning to see what we have been saying about Owebama for 5 years now.
Its about time...
Useful idiots are frequently disposable
Hello right wing economists:
How does the government buying FEWER airplanes create jobs? How does the government buying LESS concrete add jobs? In fact, how does the government spending LESS on EVERYTHING create jobs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
excon
Because the government isn't spending THEIR money... they are spending OUR money... which means WE have less money to spend. WE earn wealth... THEY are like parasites that suck your blood until you die from blood loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If the government let us keep more of our money ( its called less taxes) , than WE cous spend it on things we want to buy which would stimulate the economy. Letting the government decide where to spend our money for this purpose ISS rarely beneficial in the short or long run.
Cut my taxes by $2,000 and I will have $ 2,000 more to spend.
Hello Mc:
I'm cool with smaller government.. Which government services should we do without? I've got several. I could pare the government wayyyy down. But, you go first.
excon
Dept of Education. Let each state run their own state. It would be OK to have a national standard or guideline but let the penalty for non compliance reduced or a stop of federal funding.
IRS.
FLAT tax for all. No " War and Peace " book of tax regulations.
Planes we don't need are a waste of money .planes that are dogs like the F-35 are a waste of money . As far as concrete goes ,that is the broken window fallacy. If what you said made sense then it also makes sense to have a crew making pot holes for the crew to fill them in .Quote:
Hello right wing economists:
How does the government buying FEWER airplanes create jobs? How does the government buying LESS concrete add jobs? In fact, how does the government spending LESS on EVERYTHING create jobs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
What is the broken window fallacy?
Further ,the sequester does not cut baseline government spending. It slows the rate of growth of government spending. But leave it to the Dems to say that a $110 billion increase in spending over 10 years is a cut .
Hello again, Mc:
It WOULDN'T be my choice to whack the Department of Education, but in the spirit of compromise, I would... If you'd agree to end the DEA, the NSA, the TSA and the CCofA.
There's still lots more to cut.. This is fun. Your turn.
excon
Yup ,especially the flat tax and elimination of the IRS... or 99% of the bloated bureaucracy. Would be tough on people who have made a career as accountants gaming the system too. Maybe they would need to get real jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcsap9213
Hello again, tom:
In the spirit of compromise, and the need to get RID of the IRS, I'd be willing to have a flat tax for the middle, a slightly higher flat tax for the rich, and a slightly lower flat tax for the poor. That's THREE rates, and NO IRS.
And, I'd be happy if we stopped making airplanes we don't need. How about canning the Trident Submarine? It's a cold war relic.
Isn't cutting government fun?
excon
I'm in .I did not check... but I doubt new Tridents are on the assembly line. A modified flat tax is actually a good compromise...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How does one whine about closing corporate jet loopholes while bilking the taxpayer for using such jets for personal use?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
No, but they're in full service. I'm sure there' s some Army bases that we can close.Quote:
but I doubt new Tridents are on the assembly line.
Excon
Uh oh, the push back is growing...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Why Bob Woodward's Fight With The White House Matters to You
And why I iced a senior Obama White House official.
The fight between the White House and journalistic legend Bob Woodward is a silly distraction to a major problem: The failure of President Obama and House Republicans to lead the country under a budget deadline.
P.S. Democratic and GOP bills to avert the sequester were defeated. Democrats wanted to increase spending, Republicans gave Obama the chance to pick his cuts. I guess that responsibility was too much for them.
Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.
Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn't do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.
On Saturday, White House press secretary Jay Carney accused Woodward of being “willfully wrong” on a story holding the White House accountable for its part in a legislative gimmick called sequestration. (Months ago, the GOP-controlled House passed, and Obama signed, legislation imposing $1.2 trillion in cuts unless an alternative is found by Friday.)
Carney isn't the first press secretary to criticize a reporter. Presidential aides do it all the time to set the record straight or -- often, more cynically -- to dodge accountability. I was struck by the fact that Carney's target has a particular history with White House attacks. I tweeted: “Obama White House: Woodward is 'willfully wrong.' Huh-what did Nixon White House have to say about Woodward?”
Reporting by Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered Watergate misdeeds and led to the resignation of President Nixon. My tweet was not intended to compare Nixon to Obama (there is no reason to doubt Obama's integrity -- period) but rather to compare the attack to the press strategies of all the presidents' men.
I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. Going back to my first political beat, covering Bill Clinton's administration in Arkansas and later in Washington, I've had a practice that is fairly common in journalism: A handful of sources I deal with regularly are granted blanket anonymity. Any time we communicate, they know I am prepared to report the information at will (matters of fact, not spin or opinion) and that I will not attribute it to them.
This is an important way to build a transparent and productive relationship between reporters and the people they cover. Nothing chills a conversation faster than saying, “I'm quoting you on this.”
The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What's next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.
As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.
Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.
I wrote back:
“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record -- publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.”
I haven't heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship. Without the cloak of anonymity, government officials can't be as open with reporters – they can't reveal as much information and they can't explain the nuance and context driving major events.
I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste of my time (and the official's government-funded salary) to engage in abusive conversations. Second, I didn't want to condone behavior that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.
That gets to why this matters beyond the incestuous Washington culture. One of this country's most important traditions is “a free press that isn't afraid to ask questions, to examine and to criticize,” Obama said at the 2012 White House Correspondents Association's annual dinner.
Because of tech-fueled changes in the market, there are fewer reporters doing more work with less experience than when I came to Washington with Clinton in 1993. Also, the standard relationship between reporters and their sources is more combative, a reflection of polarization in Washington and within the media industry.
Personally, I had a great relationship with Clinton's communications team, less so with President Bush's press shop, and now -- for the first time in my career -- I told a public servant to essentially buzz off.
This can't be what Obama wants. He must not know how thin-skinned and close-minded his staff can be to criticism. “I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you do,” Obama told reporters a year ago. “I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time, and I certainly like to return the favor, but I never forget that our country depends on you.”
If I may interject... if you are going to close down any sector of the triad ,the last one I'd close down is the submarine deterrent . Oh ,I understand the Ohio class is ancient ,but I would only phase them out with the introduction of another class of boomers.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Why would I choose to modernize the submarine deterrent ? Because the US has NO plans to up-grade it's ICBMS (an aging option itself ) ;and because our air deterrent still relies on ancient B-52s and the 14 year old B-2s . Yes ,the Ohio class is old and obsolete ;but we cannot get rid of them until a new class of sub in on line(sometime around 2030 ). When that happens ,we will have replaced triad with diad or a monad at the same time that our potential adversaries are modernizing at a rapid rate.
Yes there are plenty of bases that can ,and have closed.. . The left may not want to admit it ;but the military has downsized for years ,even in the middle of GWOT .
Get rid of the EPA and the Department of Energy... Neither help the country and both spend huge amounts killing jobs and the economy.
And as yet not one single cut to the EPA... DOE or the UN has been announced. Much less a single Welfare Queen having to share the suffering by his most holy of holy... Lord Obama. All praise the Bloviator.
The Blue Angels were cut.
Obama's scare tactics will backfire; and has already started. He is now, today, backpeddling on what he said all last week. He tried to scare everyone, and it isn't working.
He made Emergency Care persons stand behind him giving a speech, and made more speeches. He is a speechmaker, not a President, taking care of the President's business of America!
As you probably already know, these "cuts" aren't really cuts; they just mean that any increases will not be forthcoming.
Let's say I make $50,000 a year (I wish), and my boss told me I would be getting a $5,000 increase next year. These "cuts" do NOT mean they will reduce my salary from $50,000 down to say $40,000. It means I won't be getting the $5,000 increase!
As pointed out on FOX, these so-called automatic "cuts" will be the same amount of money as the Govt spends every 28 days; like an estimated 28 Billion dollars.
I do hope the Republicans will stick to their beliefs, and not raise taxes on the wealthy, who already are paying far more than their "fair share", and will let the automatic cuts take place and become law.
Neither side is going to "cut" anything, and we have to, if America is going to stay economically solvent.
We need more sequestration or whatever it takes to CUT spending more across the board.
The UN still gets full funding... and the ACLU still gets all their under-the-table cash.
Most importantly... and this speaks volumes on its own.
OBAMAS VACATION, TRAVEL AND GOLF BUDGET REMAINS UNTOUCHED!
Because heaven forbid HE share the pain he is dishing out since HE is the one ordering what gets cut... nobody else.
Cut all the right wing BS out, and we would have a balanced budget, and full employment. And as much a Bonehead and house republicans are on vacation, I sure wouldn't cancel mine either.
Right... WELFARE programs... the Billions Obama spends Traveling, going on vacations every two weeks and Flying to Hawaii so he can golf there have absolutely no impact on the budget?
People who are at least capable of working should have to do some sort of work to get welfare.
If we are just going to give money/ food / housing / healthcare away... who would want to work ? Some people are "better off " being on welfare than working.
The WPA worked back in the 1930's , let's do it again.
That doesn't cost "billions." Which cuts have hurt you so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Well its 8 hours one way to Hawaii, Air Force One costs $180,000 per hour to fly... then there are the undisclosed costs of the support crews and Air Force cargo planes that carry all the motorcade vehicles and the costs of everyone that flies with him including the secret service staff... He is almost NEVER in DC... he's always out flying here or there to AVOID being in DC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What cuts have hurt me so far... and damn headache from that liar bloviating all the time on TV how it's the Republicans fault when the sequester was HIS idea to begin with... and the fact Obama is who is deciding what gets cut... and its being done to inflict a MAXIMUM amount of pain rather than cutting stupid and foolish government spending.
Lets see Mr. Hanky stay in DC and do his job for once...
People are getting laid off, and the Obama Government wastes money training for a Zombie Attack.
Government Preparing For Zombie Apocalypse? Taxpayers Shell Out For Anti-Zombie Training Camp | Mediaite
You have been watching too much "Pinky, and the Brain", and the "Walking Dead". Get a beer and settle down and watch Natgeo for a week and stay out of those loony right wing talking chambers.
Make that TWO weeks away from the rest of the nuts. Call me in the morning.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 AM. |