Stimulus Package Displays Congressional Shortcomings

[ParanoiA]

Obama's timing is perfect. I think this field of candidates is so bad, excluding my boy Paul of course, that Obama makes the perfect default vote, particularly for the white crowd. 'Since everybody sucks, let's at least get this black president thing out of the way...'

 

Romney looks like he wants to sell me a car. He's the guy that claims they've already lowered the sticker price to the bare minimum to save me the hassle of having to haggle price with him. Gee, thanks for that.

 

Obama looks like he wants to sell me a car too. He's the guy that acts like he's on my side as he nobley "haggles with his boss" to get it at my price.

 

This election is going to give me a headache...

[doG]

I think the write in "None of the above" is a better default vote....

[Pangloss]

Who said "solely?"

 

You said that Republicans are responsible for the national debt:

 

I do strongly believe that it will be a mistake if the Republicans this year attack Democrats as irresponsible "Tax and Spend" politicians considering that Republicans are responsible for an over 5 trillion dollar national debt.

 

You wouldn't let me get away with something like that, so you can hardly be surprised that I won't let you off with a casual dismissal.

 

Why do you feel that Republicans are resposible for the national debt? Why wouldn't Democrats share that blame, both because of much greater length of time in control of Congress, and because they still got their share of votes (and earmarks!) when they weren't in the majority?

[doG]

I think the most accurate statement would be to simply state that Congress is responsible for the horrendous national debt.

[iNow]

Why do you feel that Republicans are resposible for the national debt?

They had the power to veto Congress' nonsense decisions, and chose not to use it. That's why.

[Pangloss]

They had the power to veto Congress' nonsense decisions, and chose not to use it. That's why.

 

Well thank you for acknowledging that you were, in fact, blaming Republicans. But Republicans certainly didn't have the veto from 1993 to 2000. You do realize that the debt grew tremendously during that time, don't you? Sure there was a brief period of surpluss towards the end, but are you actually going to try and convince us that a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress wouldn't have spent that entire surplus, and then some, putting us in exactly the same situation we're in today? I'll grant you the Iraq war cost, but even without that we'd have overspent the surplus.

 

And of course the veto is only part of the picture. Reagan had a Democratic congress, as did George the First. Isn't Tom Hanks in a movie right now where he plays Charles Wilson, the Democratic congressman who directly lead the drive to increase spending on intelligence and defense? I wonder if they talk about that in the movie. I'm guessing not.

 

I think you're trying to convince people that Democrats should be elected in 2008 because they will balance the budget and eliminate the deficit and debt. And I say to you the same thing I said to Democrats in 1992 and Republicans in 2000: Be careful what you wish for. Every administration in the last 30 years has come in on that same pledge. So far NONE of them have been successful.

 

The behavior will change when we make it change. Electing the most entertaining politician is not what will make that happen.

[iNow]

Well thank you for acknowledging that you were, in fact, blaming Republicans.

I never said I wasn't. I was just trying to clarify that my comment was not to suggest that Republicans were "solely" responsible, as it was not.

 

 

But Republicans certainly didn't have the veto from 1993 to 2000. You do realize that the debt grew tremendously during that time, don't you?

It was also done during a time of significant growth. It's about balance. It's one thing to increase the debt... It's quite another to do so while simulataneously failing to sufficiently grow other parts of the economy.

 

 

Sure there was a brief period of surpluss towards the end, but are you actually going to try and convince us that a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress wouldn't have spent that entire surplus, and then some, putting us in exactly the same situation we're in today?

No, I am not going to try to do that. And, if you suggest that this is what I'm trying to do, you'd be guilty of strawmanning my position.

 

 

I'll grant you the Iraq war cost, but even without that we'd have overspent the surplus.

Not by as much, though. Not NEARLY as much...

 

 

And of course the veto is only part of the picture. Reagan had a Democratic congress, as did George the First. Isn't Tom Hanks in a movie right now where he plays Charles Wilson, the Democratic congressman who directly lead the drive to increase spending on intelligence and defense? I wonder if they talk about that in the movie. I'm guessing not.

Movies are great, but I'm talking about reality.

 

 

I think you're trying to convince people that Democrats should be elected in 2008 because they will balance the budget and eliminate the deficit and debt.

Not at all. Let me restate to be clear.

 

Any Republican who attacks a Democrat this election season as being "tax and spend" is a hypocrit.

 

 

The behavior will change when we make it change. Electing the most entertaining politician is not what will make that happen.

So now you're reducing Obama to a simple entertainer? Well, in that case, it worked for Reagan, and California doesn't seem to be doing too badly.

[Pangloss]

Movies are great, but I'm talking about reality.

 

The movie example was apt as typical of what these arguments really are. You singled out the veto role while misdirecting people from the role of congress in your assignment of blame. That's not "talking about reality", that's selling people snake oil.

 

 

Any Republican who attacks a Democrat this election season as being "tax and spend" is a hypocrit.

 

I agree.

 

 

So now you're reducing Obama to a simple entertainer?

 

I don't think that, but I think that's what his campaign has become since he got to the front of the pack. And I doubt he'll be discussing issues again until after he wins the nomination. And, depending on the polls and the way Republicans are splitting over McCain, maybe not even then.

[Pangloss]

Just to update this, the senate's updated package passed today (which has to go back to the House) includes seniors and military.

 

I gave the senate praise earlier for looking at food stamps and unemployment benefits, which do have a major stimulus impact (and may be included here, I haven't seen the fine print yet), but it's hard to imagine two LESS spendy groups of people that seniors and military families. (chuckle)

 

Still, credit for fairly quick action (for the senate).

 

(And I'm curious why McCain didn't vote. I haven't read into this yet, but I caught a headline saying he hadn't. But I'm late to class so I'll have to look into it later.)

[iNow]

McCain hasn't voted in a significant percentage of those which have come up during the past year. He's probably trying not to upset any specific groups with any specific decisions, and appeal to the largest center possible for the approaching election.

 

 

Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Pangloss]

Makes sense. Thanks for the insight.

 

I posted in error before -- the House has already approved the Senate's version of the bill, so it just needs White House signature (and Bush has already agreed). This suggests the possibility of checks being received by mid-May, well ahead of expectations. Some were predicting that checks would barely be received in time for the Christmas rush.

[bascule]

Hooray, I can't wait to contribute to the devaluation of US currency!

[doG]

IMO this stimulus package is nothing more than a bipartisan effort to buy votes for incumbents....

[doG]

I wonder how much these stimulus checks helped the economy:

 

State seizing federal stimulus checks for back taxes

Thousands of Georgians who owe back state income taxes are seeing their federal stimulus checks go back to the government.

 

So far' date=' at least part of 16,000 stimulus payments to Georgians have been intercepted by the state because the recipients owe back state taxes.

 

More....(may require free registration)

 

I'm sure the State is entitled to it's money but this sure seems counterproductive to the results intended from the stimulus effort.