Congress at work: $1 billion an hour

[Dphins4me]

How about going after the actual substance of the "problem," instead of dancing around the frills?

  You have to start somewhere.  Cut the waste first & then focus on the  inflated substance.

When you can't mount a substantial argument against the meat of the bill, it makes you appear to be nitpicking.

  Sure it can be called nitpicking.  However, the problem is waste.  Cut the obvious waste & get it out of the way, then focus on the other.

One would look kinda foolish for focusing on a inflated number for something needed, yet ignoring the cost of supposedly saving a mouse in San Fran. ( Example from the Stimulus bill. )

Nope.  There's no guarantee that the healthcare plan will even get passed.  Even if it doesn't, Medicare still needs reform.

  What better way to help get it pass then to cut the people it funds?  As with you & in your words.  If a politicians can "trick" me into voting for them by passing laws that benefit me, I'm all for it.  So you do not believe there is motive here for them to cut Medicare?

 Sure Medicare needs reform.  Heck the entire Fed. Gov needs reform.

So I'm guessing you didn't actually take that advice on the history book thing.

On July 8, 1932, the Dow closed at 41.22.  This was 89% off of its all-time high (at the time) of 381.17.

   Why would I need it?   To learn that the Dow fell helped spark the Great Dep?  Yes, I know those things happen 75+ Yrs ago.  However, the fact it happen then does not mean it was realistic to happen today.  If I would have came here & post that the Dow will drop 50% because of what was about to happen.  I ( Probably by you ) would have been told it is just to unrealistic.

Still how realistic a year ago that the Gov would own banks?

But yeah, no one would ever believe that we could lose 50%.  No way.  Unpossible..

  It was thought impossible in today's age.

I would be unhappy about the gov't confiscating my 401k to redistribute to the poor,

Why?  They need it.    They did not have the advantages you have had.  Isn't it only fair?

[Dphins4me]

President Obama is going to address the $165 million in bonuses that AIG executives are being paid. 

He needs to tell them that they will not get bonuses paid from taxpayer monies and if they want to sue they will be taking on the whole government.

I'm making a prediction. 

The Fed. Gov will at some point give AIG more tax payer money.

[Spider-Dan]

  You have to start somewhere.  Cut the waste first & then focus on the  inflated substance.

So in other words, the majority of the bill is not waste?

This is precisely my point.  You don't have an argument to make about the actual meat of the bill, so instead you'd rather play obstructionist over two percent.

What better way to help get it pass then to cut the people it funds?  As with you & in your words.  If a politicians can "trick" me into voting for them by passing laws that benefit me, I'm all for it.

Slight problem: you're now claiming that the Dems are trying to gain public favor by passing laws that (supposedly) hurt the public.  (The plan to tax healthcare benefits is not Obama's; it belongs to Sen. Baucus.  Obama's administration has not specifically come out for or against it.)  So again, we're stuck in one of your fielder's choices:

- pass laws that help people: you're trying to buy votes with policy
- pass laws that hurt people: you're trying to buy votes with fear

All bases still covered.

Why would I need it?   To learn that the Dow fell helped spark the Great Dep?  Yes, I know those things happen 75+ Yrs ago.  However, the fact it happen then does not mean it was realistic to happen today.  If I would have came here & post that the Dow will drop 50% because of what was about to happen.  I ( Probably by you ) would have been told it is just to unrealistic.

Instead of playing Doomsday Connect-Four, why don't we stick to worrying about things that:

a) have happened
b) are happening
c) are reasonably likely to happen

The gov't coming in and confiscating assets to redistribute to the poor is not remotely near the list of "reasonably likely occurrences".

Why?  They need it.    They did not have the advantages you have had.  Isn't it only fair?

So are you saying that you have no problem with electing an [un]dead man to a third term, in violation of the 22nd amendment?  Or with aliens implanting bionic technology into the citizens of this sovereign nation?  I find your choice to ignore both of those scenarios quite disturbing.

[Dphins4me]

So in other words, the majority of the bill is not waste?

You arrived at that conclusion by my comments, how?

This is precisely my point.  You don't have an argument to make about the actual meat of the bill, so instead you'd rather play obstructionist over two percent.

  So basically IYO as long as the bill is large enough to make the wasteful spending look small enough, then you are ok with that.  Correct?

Slight problem: you're now claiming that the Dems are trying to gain public favor by passing laws that (supposedly) hurt the public.  (The plan to tax healthcare benefits is not Obama's; it belongs to Sen. Baucus.  Obama's administration has not specifically come out for or against it.)  So again, we're stuck in one of your fielder's choices:

- pass laws that help people: you're trying to buy votes with policy
- pass laws that hurt people: you're trying to buy votes with fear

All bases still covered.

As unrealistic as you want to make it sound.  Both work.

Obama has not declared he is for it, but his Admin. has declared he is not against it. 

Instead of playing Doomsday Connect-Four, why don't we stick to worrying about things that:

a) have happened
b) are happening
c) are reasonably likely to happen

The gov't coming in and confiscating assets to redistribute to the poor is not remotely near the list of "reasonably likely occurrences".

The Gov stepping in & buying banks just a year ago was not remotely near the list of "reasonably likely occurrences".

So are you saying that you have no problem with electing an [un]dead man to a third term, in violation of the 22nd amendment?  Or with aliens implanting bionic technology into the citizens of this sovereign nation?  I find your choice to ignore both of those scenarios quite disturbing.

Gonna have to connect the dots on that reply & how they meet the 401K part of this.

[Spider-Dan]

You arrived at that conclusion by my comments, how?

You say that the priority should be addressing the wasteful items.
You are not addressing the larger 98% of the bill.
Therefore...

So basically IYO as long as the bill is large enough to make the wasteful spending look small enough, then you are ok with that.  Correct?

Not quite.

You (and the rest of the obstructionists) propose blocking entire bills for 2% of their content.  That in itself is one thing, but even that 2% is being attacked rather dishonestly.

- The "$30 million for mice" in San Francisco has nothing to do with mice
- The supposed high-speed train "from Disneyland to the doorstep of Moonlight Bunny Ranch" would go neither to Disneyland nor to the Bunny Ranch (which is 400+ miles from Vegas)
- MaineDolfan has already explained the beneficial impact of the ATV trails, which you bashed earlier

This is exactly why people like yourself attack the 2%.  Rather than be forced to argue against several billion for new schools, or roads, or bridges, you'd rather pick out something that sounds silly on its face, because your target audience won't actually investigate why we are spending 20 million on ATV trails.  It's sound-bite driven politics.

That's the real reason why you're attacking the footnotes in the spending bills... you know you won't get anywhere arguing against the meat.

The Gov stepping in & buying banks just a year ago was not remotely near the list of "reasonably likely occurrences".

...seriously, pick up a freaking history book.  What, exactly, do you think the FDIC was created to do?

Here's your homework project: how many banks did the U.S. nationalize in 2007?

Gonna have to connect the dots on that reply & how they meet the 401K part of this.

I named off several extremely unlikely, yet undesirable scenarios.  You only seem to care about one of them.

[Dphins4me]

You say that the priority should be addressing the wasteful items.
You are not addressing the larger 98% of the bill.
Therefore...
Not quite.

Baby steps.  A baby does not start out running.  First they crawl.  Eliminate the obvious so the focus can be then be directed towards the over spending on other items that cannot be eliminated totally.

You (and the rest of the obstructionists) propose blocking entire bills for 2% of their content.  That in itself is one thing, but even that 2% is being attacked rather dishonestly.

  If a man stands up & says he will lead earmark reform, then I expect him to lead.  Not make a speech on it, then sign another bill loaded with it into law.

- The "$30 million for mice" in San Francisco has nothing to do with mice

So are we or aren't we giving SF 30 million?

- The supposed high-speed train "from Disneyland to the doorstep of Moonlight Bunny Ranch" would go neither to Disneyland nor to the Bunny Ranch

I thought Bush signed something on this.

- MaineDolfan has already explained the beneficial impact of the ATV trails, which you bashed earlier

I still disagree with it.  If the State of Maine wants to build new ATV trails, then that should be the state of Maine responsibility.

This is exactly why people like yourself attack the 2%.  Rather than be forced to argue against several billion for new schools, or roads, or bridges, you'd rather pick out something that sounds silly on its face, because your target audience won't actually investigate why we are spending 20 million on ATV trails.  It's sound-bite driven politics.

You know my opinion on Gov provided Education.

Are roads & bridges needed? 

That's the real reason why you're attacking the footnotes in the spending bills... you know you won't get anywhere arguing against the meat.

There may not be anything wrong with the meat.  There may be.  I do have a problem with pet projects.

...seriously, pick up a freaking history book.  What, exactly, do you think the FDIC was created to do?

  Guarantee the safety of deposits.

Here's your homework project: how many banks did the U.S. nationalize in 2007?

Quick search gives me nothing.

I named off several extremely unlikely, yet undesirable scenarios.  You only seem to care about one of them.

Ok.    Now it makes sense.  You named off several things that could never happen. 

[Spider-Dan]

If a man stands up & says he will lead earmark reform, then I expect him to lead.

Then perhaps you should have voted for McCain, who made earmark reform his rallying cry.  Obama campaigned against McCain's singleminded obsession with earmarks.

So are we or aren't we giving SF 30 million?

We're giving them more than that.  But none of it is for mice, which is where the whole dishonesty thing comes in.

I still disagree with it.  If the State of Maine wants to build new ATV trails, then that should be the state of Maine responsibility.

Feel free to disagree with building things that generate money.

What, exactly, do you think the FDIC was created to do?

Guarantee the safety of deposits.

Here's your homework project: how many banks did the U.S. nationalize in 2007?

Quick search gives me nothing.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

3 banks were nationalized in 2007.
27 banks were nationalized from 2000-2007.

[bsmooth]

  Still address the message

When you go after the messenger instead of the message then it implies what they are saying is valid, so you discredit the source, since you cannot discredit the message.

Is that naive?

Yes it is. You do not come across as unbiased as you seem to think you do. You rant and post against the brand new administration with a level that probably makes RTW gleam with pride. In your two plus years here, you have yet to attack the previous administration and congress for their mistakes that have helped bring us here with near the enthusiasm that you have shown in the first 60 days of Obama's term.
I am not attacking the messanger because of the message, I am calling out the messanger for his hypocrisy. At least Spider has put out he voted and supports Obama, it is time you give up your ruse that you not on the right.

[Dphins4me]

Then perhaps you should have voted for McCain, who made earmark reform his rallying cry.  Obama campaigned against McCain's singleminded obsession with earmarks.

  I did not want McCain to be Pres.  I did not want Obama to be Pres.  Neither side offered anything different from the normal lie, cheat & lie some more.

We're giving them more than that.  But none of it is for mice, which is where the whole dishonesty thing comes in..

  Then what is the money for?  BTW.    You have no weighed in on this.  Do you have a problem with AIG giving bonuses?

Feel free to disagree with building things that generate money...

Building things sometimes does.  However, I still feel ATV trails are a waste of money.  Especially when you already have established ATV trails that are generating revenue.  Do you believe more ATV trails will cause more ATV's to be sold?    People that enjoy ATV riding will ride no matter what.  People that do not enjoy ATV riding will not go out & purchase ATV because there are new trails.  That is my point on the whole ATV thing. 

To me its like building a pharmacy across the street from another pharmacy.  The new pharmacy will not generate more sales tax revenue for the city.  It just moves it from one place to another.

3 banks were nationalized in 2007.
27 banks were nationalized from 2000-2007.

Slight different than the entire banking system?  Would you not agree?

[Dphins4me]

Yes it is. You do not come across as unbiased as you seem to think you do. You rant and post against the brand new administration with a level that probably makes RTW gleam with pride. In your two plus years here, you have yet to attack the previous administration and congress for their mistakes that have helped bring us here with near the enthusiasm that you have shown in the first 60 days of Obama's term.
I am not attacking the messanger because of the message, I am calling out the messanger for his hypocrisy. At least Spider has put out he voted and supports Obama, it is time you give up your ruse that you not on the right.

  First off.  I joined several years ago.  I did not venture into this part of the site very often until sometime mid year last year.
So to say I've been here two years would be inaccurate.  I blasted Bush on another board for the patriot act.  I've blasted Fed Gov for years for over spending & removing our rights one by one to advance of greater power.

Its not different then say Fox News.  They can sit & point out the bad things Rep have done or are doing & no one pays attention to it.  However, when they point out what the Dem are doing then well that just Fox News.  Same with CNN only reverse.  I have pointed out several times that the Rep did a horrible job & got big headed & have no true leg to stand on at this point to truly say another about Obama.  Something I'm sure you have paid no attention to.  By the time I showed up here the campaign was in full swing.  Bush was lame duck.  No need to address what he did in 2003.

My point with Obama is to bring to light his double talk ( Like every other Rep/Dem ) & to watch what he says to what he actually does.

The double talk coming from Obama & his admin is horrible.  Obama blasted McCain for saying the fundenmetals of the economy were sound & the American workers were the backbone during the campaign.  Then Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Dr. Christina Romer was on meet the press the other day saying the exact samething.

Hope the link works Romer on the Fundementals of the economy

I will glady & believe I have previously admitted I lean toward the Rep supposedly principal of less Gov & lower tax than I do the Dem principal of bigger Gov & higher taxes.  However, I am a Lib.  make no mistake about it.

[fyo]

In a crazy, imaginary world where maybe America becomes a dictatorship

I think the odds of America becoming a dictatorship have decreased dramatically in the past 6 months... (from near zero to much nearer zero)

[Spider-Dan]

Then what is the money for?

I already linked to an article explaining it.

Do you have a problem with AIG giving bonuses?

It's complicated.

AIG has employees in divisions that did well last year (it wasn't the entire company that flopped).  Should these employees have their bonuses revoked?  Maybe.  But then you're basically asking the only competent employees left to leave, which hurts the company (and makes it harder for the taxpayers to get their investment back).

Building things sometimes does.  However, I still feel ATV trails are a waste of money.  Especially when you already have established ATV trails that are generating revenue.  Do you believe more ATV trails will cause more ATV's to be sold?    People that enjoy ATV riding will ride no matter what.  People that do not enjoy ATV riding will not go out & purchase ATV because there are new trails.  That is my point on the whole ATV thing.

Do you really need me to re-quote MaineDolfan explaining why you are wrong?  We've already been over this.

27 banks were nationalized from 2000-2007.

Slight different than the entire banking system?  Would you not agree?

That's not the point.  You claimed that it was unthinkable to nationalize banks, but we've nationalized dozens of them this decade before the collapse.

But more to the point: this entire line of reasoning is flawed.  You are comparing undesirable events out of anyone's direct control (banks failing, Dow falling) to an undesirable event directly implemented by the gov't (confiscation and redistribution of existing assets).

The double talk coming from Obama & his admin is horrible.  Obama blasted McCain for saying the fundenmetals of the economy were sound & the American workers were the backbone during the campaign.  Then Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Dr. Christina Romer was on meet the press the other day saying the exact samething.

Only if you have a tenuous grasp of English, or are a talking-head pundit trying to manufacture controversy.

McCain, 9/08:
"Our economy, I think, still... the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times."

If the fundamentals of the economy are "strong," the economy itself should be essentially sound.

Obama, 3/09:
"If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, then we're going to get through this, and I'm very confident about that."

i.e. Not every aspect of our economy has been ran by short-sighted robber barons, so if we focus on the ones that have not (the fundamentally sound aspects), we will recover.

[Dphins4me]

I already linked to an article explaining it.

So an article written by the Democrat Jackie Speier is proof?  Sorry if I do not believe it 100%.   Besides.  Unless I'm missing it.  I see little or nothing telling me what the money is actually for.  Most of the article is claiming what it is not for & trying to portray Pelosi as a victim.

It's complicated.

AIG has employees in divisions that did well last year (it wasn't the entire company that flopped).  Should these employees have their bonuses revoked?  Maybe.  But then you're basically asking the only competent employees left to leave, which hurts the company (and makes it harder for the taxpayers to get their investment back).

Yea, its complicated.  I just find it odd that people are getting upset that they are giving 165 million in bonuses & not really that upset that the Fed. Gov is spending ~8 billion on earmarks.

Do you really need me to re-quote MaineDolfan explaining why you are wrong?  We've already been over this..

Doesn't mean I wrong.  Simply means we disagree.

Slight different than the entire banking system?  Would you not agree?
That's not the point.  You claimed that it was unthinkable to nationalize banks, but we've nationalized dozens of them this decade before the collapse...

Yes, but again.  One bad bank here & there is far different from forcing all banks to into it.

 You are comparing undesirable events out of anyone's direct control (banks failing, Dow falling) to an undesirable event directly implemented by the gov't (confiscation and redistribution of existing assets).....

   I would think someone such as you would be ready & willing & frankly hoping the Gov. would do such a thing.  Its only fair.

McCain, 9/08:
"Our economy, I think, still... the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times."

If the fundamentals of the economy are "strong," the economy itself should be essentially sound.

Obama, 3/09:
"If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, then we're going to get through this, and I'm very confident about that."

i.e. Not every aspect of our economy has been ran by short-sighted robber barons, so if we focus on the ones that have not (the fundamentally sound aspects), we will recover.

  You seem to have missed that Obama bashed McCain for saying it during the campaign.  Joking at the exprense of McCain about his comment.

[Spider-Dan]

So an article written by the Democrat Jackie Speier is proof?  Sorry if I do not believe it 100%.

Weren't you just complaining about attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Yes, but again.  One bad bank here & there is far different from forcing all banks to into it.

No one is "forcing" any bank to be nationalized (other than after they actually do fail), much less all banks.

You seem to have missed that Obama bashed McCain for saying it during the campaign.

McCain made a completely different statement, which is what I just explained.

Just because both of their sentences contain the word fragment "fundamental-", it doesn't mean they were saying the same thing.

One of them is saying that the cornerstones of the economy are healthy.
The other one is saying that we should concentrate on the portions (<---this part is important) of our economy that are essentially stable.

[Dphins4me]

Weren't you just complaining about attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Yeap & show me where I attacked them?  I just ask if you think supplying an article written by a Dem is proof? & I could not believe it as such.  Reason:   From what I gathered from the article it did not tell me what the money was actually for.  Did I miss that in the article?

No one is "forcing" any bank to be nationalized (other than after they actually do fail), much less all banks.

My understanding & I'm not saying I'm 100% on this.  Was they were looking at nationalizing the entire banking system.

Correct?  Wrong?

McCain made a completely different statement, which is what I just explained.

Just because both of their sentences contain the word fragment "fundamental-", it doesn't mean they were saying the same thing.

   You have not found where Obama mocked him on the quote during the campaign for making his comment.  Also the link I provided Romer used almost the same wording as McCain.  Wish I could find the actually video on youtube.

McCain during Campaign:

And my opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals -- the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America, and I think they're strong," he said in Orlando.

Obama during Campaign:

Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country

Romer gave a McCain-like answer, circa Sept. '08: “Well, of course the fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology.“

So in just a few short months our fundamentals & the American workers went from being not sound to sound while in the face of more layoffs. More unemployment,  More bailout money, Dow dropping below 7000.    Interesting.

This is what I mean by the double talk that comes from Wash.