Stimulus or Budget?

ArtificialOne · 01-25-2009, 04:16 PM

Or earmark machine?

Here's a great link to read and explore the new Dem sponsored bill.

http://readthestimulus.org/

There you'll also find a a link to a spreadsheet that breaks down the money in the bill.

Or just click here.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...VmNorqMpHvnCMw

We're screwed. There's almost no money to actually "stimulate" the economy. I guess there's plenty of special interest and "budget" money in there.

Looks to me like he's paying back people who elected him.

Albert Mond · 01-25-2009, 04:37 PM

Oh, those damn Dems are at it again! I swear! Over the past eight years, they've managed to just screw everybody over!

ArtificialOne · 01-25-2009, 04:53 PM

Considering they were crying bloody murder over how big the deficit was...

And now they try and stuff a whole federal budget through under the so called "bailout" bill... The bailout is supposed to get the economy running smoothly again, not pay special interests. I mean shit, talk about hypocritical. Then you have Mr mond here, who prolly was one of those people screaming about everything the reps were doing is now.. strangely quite.. Hypocritical.. Yes. Nice to see such double standards.

Drake Dun · 01-25-2009, 07:23 PM

It's a really screwed up world when Democrats and Republicans come together and agree that the solution to a recession is taking a whole bunch of tax money and giving it to large, successful corporations. It's like the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism combined, with the good parts of both left out. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Albert Mond · 01-25-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Then you have Mr mond here, who prolly was one of those people screaming about everything the reps were doing is now.. strangely quite.. Hypocritical.. Yes. Nice to see such double standards.

Yes. Because the fact that the Democrats and Republicans got together to screw people over completely redeems the Republican party. Do they not teach logic in Hicksville?

tekajo · 01-25-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Do they not teach logic in Hicksville?

i can answer that. Yeah, it is actually taught here. But, as you know Bert, because it is taught does not mean it is learned.

jack_the_knife · 01-26-2009, 12:20 AM

"Prolly" isn't a real word. Stop using it as such.

CptSternn · 01-26-2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

We're screwed. There's almost no money to actually "stimulate" the economy. I guess there's plenty of special interest and "budget" money in there.

...and how did ye get that way? Under the leadership of the man you love!

No matter what Obama does its like sludge in the machine, all the crap bush screwed up has to filter out. All that republican garbage has to first play out, and all the mistakes fully develop before you can expect any comeback in the economy.

Since bush has now brought on the second great depression, you can't blame a guy who has been in power for all of six days for the economy mate.

Well, I'm sure a die hard right winger like you can.

I'm REALLY glad I don't have to be there for the next three years while shit gets REALLY bad.

AO - so you enjoy your republican created mess and let us know how it goes, eh?

HumanePain · 01-26-2009, 07:10 AM

Capitalism is deeply ingrained here in America, so I do not want to begin a debate about whether it should be used or not, I just want to address the OP's question:

ANSWER: Stimulus, because the first Great Depression taught us that if the government tries to keep the budget during times like these it tightens the screws of credit even more, pushing the nation over the economic cliff. Stimulus will help keep the credit markets greasing the economic engine and reduce the loss of jobs.

Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised Hoover to "let the market" work itself out, with catastrophic results.

The really depressing fact about it (pun intended) was that FDR's New Deal had minimal impact on the problem, it was really World War II that brought jobs back to the United States.

I hope that isn't the solution now.

CptSternn · 01-27-2009, 01:10 AM

HP -

Some people say thats a major reason bush started two wars, to try and kick start the economy since it was well known even in early 2000 that the housing market bubble was going to burst and the economy was going to take a header.

The thing is, they privatised the military, so even a large scale war will not benefit nor bring in money like it did in WW2 because private companies now take in the profits and the US government doesn't make anything anymore. Plus, WW2 needed cars, planes, tanks, etc. Todays wars need a lot less since the US is usually fighting large groups of farmers and students.

ArtificialOne · 01-27-2009, 03:29 AM

Wow, you're more of a dumb ass than I thought. At least you kept your mouth shut about the stimulus.

Fighting farmers and students..How um.... BUllSHIT!!!! I'd usually follow up about how typically left wing propaganda crap that is but.. It'd just be an exercise now.

CptSternn · 01-27-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Fighting farmers and students..How um.... BUllSHIT!!!! I

Really? Lets look back at the past few conflicts the US has been in...

Grenada. Panama. Nicaragua. Beirut. Afghanistan. Iraq.

Those are just a few off the top of me head sure. How many tanks did the US go up against in any of those conflicts? How many helicopters were used against the US? How many planes did the other army have?

With the exception of the first few days of the beginning of the current Iraqi conflict, there have been no armies with tanks, planes, helicopters, or anything else.

You think the people fighting in those conflicts were all well trained military soldiers? You think those still killing Us troops right now in Iraq are well trained soldiers?

Think again.

ArtificialOne · 01-30-2009, 10:06 PM

Stern, you have to be the most stupid person in the world. You ultimately sound like a broken record US=evil. US=evil, US=evil, US=evil. Someone says something you retort "It's true! look at all my evidence!" and then.. REPEAT! You can never really debate a worthwhile subject on this forum without reverting back to the broken record. FUck! You're such a whiner.

And, hopefully you're not to stupid to get this, but I'll put this out anyways. If person "X" picks up a weapon (ie. stick, stone, paperweight, bomb, ied or gun) they are no longer whatever they were before, they are now a combatant. So it may sound good to say "evil americans= killing students". It's false, if they fight they're combatants.

Back to the point.

http://www.opposingviews.com/article...rk-and-payoffs

A lot of this I wouldn't have a problem with if it was in a normal budget. Especially the 2 bills for National parks. I've worked in several of them and I can say some really need it.

Albert Mond · 01-30-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

And, hopefully you're not to stupid to get this, but I'll put this out anyways. If person "X" picks up a weapon (ie. stick, stone, paperweight, bomb, ied or gun) they are no longer whatever they were before, they are now a combatant. So it may sound good to say "evil americans= killing students". It's false, if they fight they're combatants.

I've only scrolled through it, but I think what Sternn's trying to say is that... compared to say... WWI or WWII, the US's most recent military conflicts have been fairly pussy. I'm not sure about the others, but the Iraq military was a total joke. The soldiers were badly trained, and not that many even had guns. And the motivation? Fight or be executed.

ArtificialOne · 01-30-2009, 10:21 PM

Very true. #1 mistake of War was disbanding Iraqi army.

IED's though are no laughing matter. I've seen several vehicles come back with ied damage. They weren't uparmored. The thing is most people over there are just trying to get on with they're lives and rebuild while a very small minority is causing trouble and trying to bully the people back into the same oppression or worse that saddam offered.

Agent17 · 01-31-2009, 05:40 PM

I've been saying it since the beginning, we're fucked. It's that simple.

Solumina · 01-31-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Stern, you have to be the most stupid person in the world. You ultimately sound like a broken record US=evil. US=evil, US=evil, US=evil.

Why does everyone keep saying this? People have been saying this about Stern as long as I have been on these boards but I have never been able to find it in his posts. Sure his views may be a little extreme but that isn't the same as saying that the US is evil. And sure he criticizes US policy and many government officials but so do plenty of members who are glad to live here, myself included, criticism doesn't equal hate or condemnation.

ThreeEyesOni · 02-01-2009, 01:22 PM

AO, I'm going to start by saying that I don't know if it's due to the fact that you are posting after 1am or something, but it's fucking hilarious to see you toss the word "stupid" into this thread with postings full of grammatical and spelling errors which would make my 17-year-old sister groan.

A farmer or other citizen picking up a weapon and becoming an unlawful combatant (and with that phrase I'm using the pre-2008/pre-Bush-Admin definition of the phrase, also known as "what the phrase actually means") doesn't make them any more of a trained thread. A farmer with a gun is still a farmer with a gun, which is a pretty large step away from the highly industrialized military of WW2 Germany or the equally organized though much less industrialized military of Korea or Vietnam. A force equal to something like 1/8th of Iraq's armored cavalry literally ditched their tanks in the open desert and then went awol. The forces fought in Iraq arfter the opening months of the war were not trained and supplied military by any stretch of the word.

That is the difference trying to be pointed out as to how the American military engine of WW2 couldn't be reproduced nowadays to try and pull us out like the last time; that kind of infrastructure simply isn't needed against the essentially militia forces that we are facing currently. Like previously stated: Find a source as to the last time a jet aircraft, helicopter or even tank (or any kind of motorized artillery) was used against US forces.

Also there is no "trying" to bully into oppression. Iraq has quite literally been handed from a secular government (Saddam at least had the decency to have an open disdain for the insanity that is the regional religious tribunals) to those very same "religious conservatives" (and I use that phrase very, very loosely. these aren't folks who are protesting in front of abortion clinics after all). These are the people that the US government of the last years chose to place in the power vacuum.

But enough of that... that's all just what I'll term as "nonsense" brought into this thread that is also irrelevant to the orinigal topic.

Do I like the current Stimulus bill? Fuck no. From many valid points of views it reinforces the power of companies, organizations and individuals that have demonstrated their own inability to function in the originally intended way.

However, I like this bill a fuckload more than I do the previous bailouts. Those companies should have been left to the bankruptcy they rightly deserved, not handed billions of dollars to immediately squander.

The current bill admits a fact that is a bitter pill for most to swallow: This country is falling apart and has been for quite some time. Our roads, bridges, aqueducts, tunnels, power systems, air traffic, and just about every single portion of our country is in severe disrepair and bankruptcy. The stability of federally insured banks is fucking peanuts compared to the issues we are only a short time away from when 9 out of 10 bridges are in condition to be condemned and states are slashing budgets just to maintain basic necessities. California is fucking broke. Not the citizens of it, the state.

There's more than a few items in the bill that I think could be done without, but I'm equally sure that without them you simply wouldn't be able to drum up the support necessary to spend a fucking trillion dollars that we don't even have.

Oh, and I'll bring up an aspect of it that everyone seems to like to point at: STD prevention/treatment funds and family planning funds. I say keep them. Do you have any idea how expensive it is for the health care system to keep treating people's cocks before they turn green and fall off? Very And if you think that a focused effort into planned parenthood isn't needed, then I'll point you to the news archives of all the teens and toddlers dropped off in Nebraska due to their recently closed loophole. If you don't look at folks driving from states away to drop off kids off all ages and see that there is a need to keep some people from being able to intelligently control their reproduction, then I don't really know what news you are paying attention to.

menus era sota · 02-01-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

If person "X" picks up a weapon (ie. stick, stone, paperweight, bomb, ied or gun) they are no longer whatever they were before, they are now a combatant.

that's retarded. that's the kind of definition someone comes up with when they need an excuse for...you know, all that. 9i don't really have to type that out)

so, according to you, everyone in the US owning a gun is now a combatant.
that's great.

Zavulon · 02-02-2009, 04:38 AM

Capitalism is just socialism for the rich...
about all that needs to be said in this thread...

Godslayer Jillian · 02-02-2009, 09:11 AM

Actually I'd like to talk about that, because it ain't so farfetched.
In principle, capitalism is not socialism for the rich, as it would imply a certain degree of equality among the elite, which isn't true.
However, our current capitalist system is not actual capitalism in the way Adam Smith intended, who knew the importance of proto-union worker organizations to protect themselves from the greed of the capitalists (that is in Wealth of Nations itself)
What we have is corporate welfare since the inception of capitalism. Capitalism is welfare for the rich. The elite pretends holds the world in a stranglehold, pretending that we all ought to play according to the strict rules of capitalism, while they are exempted from them.
Under a system that centers around capital, capital buys political power, and power allows one to do away with external factors one does not want. The inherent prize for those that most benefit from capitalism is that they do not have to be submitted to it. A historical example is that after the American Civil War, while many farmers struggled to sell their crops and many urban dwellers struggled to stay fed, the government saw it right to spend millions of its budget into rewarding those that bought war bonds with interests way beyond the promised returns. I don't think I need to show modern examples of government favoritism towards corporations and rich households.

ThreeEyesOni · 02-02-2009, 12:02 PM

It's kind of a cyclical issue.

A capitalist society favoring individuals and organizations with money isn't very surprising. Feudalistic societies favored the lords who could provide the most armed men. Society rewards those that support it; there's no other way to have a society, regardless of whether or not it has to happen in a way you like.

Zavulon · 02-02-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Actually I'd like to talk about that, because it ain't so farfetched.
In principle, capitalism is not socialism for the rich, as it would imply a certain degree of equality among the elite, which isn't true.
However, our current capitalist system is not actual capitalism in the way Adam Smith intended, who knew the importance of proto-union worker organizations to protect themselves from the greed of the capitalists (that is in Wealth of Nations itself)
What we have is corporate welfare since the inception of capitalism. Capitalism is welfare for the rich. The elite pretends holds the world in a stranglehold, pretending that we all ought to play according to the strict rules of capitalism, while they are exempted from them.
Under a system that centers around capital, capital buys political power, and power allows one to do away with external factors one does not want. The inherent prize for those that most benefit from capitalism is that they do not have to be submitted to it. A historical example is that after the American Civil War, while many farmers struggled to sell their crops and many urban dwellers struggled to stay fed, the government saw it right to spend millions of its budget into rewarding those that bought war bonds with interests way beyond the promised returns. I don't think I need to show modern examples of government favoritism towards corporations and rich households.

socialism does not equal equality per se... look at the US system... all those tax incentives/breaks/credits weren't designed for blue collared workers... it spread the wealth upwards...