<p>So, we should just accept that they’re flying by the seats of their pants, making things up as they go? What they’re telling us is that they need all this money, but they’re not entirely positive yet what they will do with it. Back to my original point: they are giving us no transparency. Right now, the Obama administration is using campaign-esque rhetoric to convince America that this huge stimulus package is necessary by saying something similar to, “This situation is terrible, and we must intervene.” Well, how should we intervene? Good question, and, according to you (and Tim Geithner), the administration really doesn’t have an answer yet. Great- let’s give them over a trillion dollars to spend even though they can’t really say how they’re going to use it. Once again, I am not against governmental intervention in times such as these, but I would just like to know where everything is going to go and why it is going to go there. In essence, you proved my point: there are no specifics.</p>
<p>umm… what? again? lol </p>
<p>“making things up as they go?” Making things up? What are they making up? Making up that 598,000 people lost their jobs last month? Around 4 million people are projected to lose their jobs before this ends? Do you think they’re making that up?
then…
“they’re not entirely positive yet what they will do with it”/ “they are giving us no transparency.” / “administration really doesn’t have an answer yet.” —> Not yet. They don’t have the proposed plan fully worked out yet, so how could they possibly give us the specifics if they themselves haven’t came to a conclusion on what is the best course of action to take? Why would we not make absolutely certain that this second part of the TARP funding/now expanded to 2$trillion in aid to the financial system is not a COMPLETE waste like the first parts was. </p>
<p>“let’s give them over a trillion dollars to spend even though they can’t really say how they’re going to use it.” What? Hmm? Did i miss something? Who’s giving them a trillion dolllars? Did Congress appropriate this funding behind our backs? Or are YOU just “making stuff up?” Idk what you were trying to say, but buddy: they’re not using the trillion dollars just quite yet. Keep your pants on.</p>
<p>“In essence, you proved my point: there are no specifics.” YET… Which is my whole point… How can there possibly be specifics, until a conclusion on the best way to use this funding is finally formulated? Just patience my friend… Again, keep those slacks on.</p>
<p>I personally feel Obama will stick true with his campaign promise of at least more transparency than what we’ve gotten over the last 8 years. Give it time boss.</p>
<p>Actually on CNN they had a list of all the things that were cut from the bill and some of the stuff was absolutely ridiculous. I really couldn’t care less about transparency, I would like the governement to just efficiently use the money and spend money on things that are going to have a direct impact on the economy.
As far as Geithner from what I have heard it seems like the treasury department is going to be the one that actually has an impact, Congress just seems to be using the recession as an excuse to spend money. </p>
<p>@Acceptd, I really hope ppl stop using the line “the last 8 years” I mean it was used so much it has become annoying. Yes Bush was a suck president economically, but I am more concerned about the future and if the Obama administration keeps refering to the past to make themselves look better, I foresee their approval ratings droping.
I mean the economy is not going to get better until at the shortest next year and then we won’t get out for much longer (maybe two years at the shortest) so I hope they don’t keep saying the last eight years for that whole period.</p>
<p>Okay, Acceptd, I actually think that we’re at least in the same book, even if we’re not quite on the same page. They have no concrete plan yet; I think we agree on that. They will, obviously, get a plan eventually, but why don’t we wait on appropriating money until they do have a plan? If this money is going to be spent (and it is), let’s make sure that it works (we agree there too), or firms will be begging for another hand-out six months from now. Congress has appropriated 800 and something (the exact number is not final obviously) billion dollars, which will be probably be close to the trillion-dollar mark when the whole thing is said and done. Congress should require the administration to provide a very detailed, concrete proposal before giving them a dime let alone close to a trillion dollars, don’t you think?</p>
<p>@Dbate, I agree with you; there was some absolute trash in that bill (re-sodding the National Mall, contraceptives, etc.), but transparency is what will allow us to see and seek out the crap in these proposals.</p>
<p>if you guys think that stuff is ridiculous… there has been even more ridiculous pork.</p>
<p>^^ vouch, and listen to that link i posted. all of the quote unquote “pork” that you are referring to, amounts to only less than 2% of the total package. Plus some of that pork still actually helped create jobs, as Paul Krugman noted, or at least referred to. But yeh anyways, most of it got scrapped (which i’m in favor of) anyways. </p>
<p>@pswib, i think you are confusing the stimulus bill with the treasury’s action. they’re two separate things. “but why don’t we wait on appropriating money until they do have a plan?” We are… lol (for the 2$trillion treasury deal which is not yet completed) but the other 800$billion from the stimulus should be appropriated soon i suppose? idk when lol… but ya obviously: dont send out money unless we have concrete step by step plans on where its going -> which is pretty much why TARP 1 failed, for its lack of this transparency… heck, Henry Paulson didn’t even know where that 350$billion went, lol…scary.</p>
<p>and @DBate, i see why you’d get mad at someone using the phrase “last 8 years” and i agree that we should be looking forward and not backwards. But inevitably there is always going to be a comparison going on, no matter how much you want to just move on… "if the Obama administration keeps refering to the past to make themselves look better, I foresee their approval ratings droping. " and i missed that logic? Why would that make Obamas approval ratings drop? ??? And “they” will prbably keep saying last 8 yrs for that “whole period” so if it really frustrates you to a great extent, shut your ears.</p>
<p>why is everyone riding Obama and his team so hard lol? you realize we have a thing called Congress that passes these things called bills etc. pretty sure there are several hundred other individuals that the American people elected who support the bill, why not give your congressmen or women calls if you feel the bill is a bad thing? instead of ***** on an online forum you can be involved in the political process this way</p>
<p>I’m going to be THAT guy and say what some others (read: Freakonomics) thought about when they heard it but were afraid to say.</p>
<p>The contraceptives in the stimulus was, debatably, the ultimate economic stimulus. It saves the economy orders of magnitude more than what it would ultimately cost us as a society. Increased availability of abortion corresponds to less crime and puts less strain on the whole system.</p>
<p>This oughta silence Acceptd a bit:
[Suitably</a> Flip: What Else Can We Get For Our $1.2 Trillion?](<a href=“http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/01/what-else-can-we-get-for-our-12-trillion.html]Suitably”>http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/01/what-else-can-we-get-for-our-12-trillion.html)
[Suitably</a> Flip: Stimulus, Illustrated](<a href=“http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/01/stimulus-illustrated.html]Suitably”>http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/01/stimulus-illustrated.html)
[Suitably</a> Flip: Stimulus, Illustrated - Part II](<a href=“http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/01/stimulus-illustrated-part-ii.html]Suitably”>http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/01/stimulus-illustrated-part-ii.html)
[Suitably</a> Flip: Stimulus, Illustrated - Part III](<a href=“http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/02/stimulus-illustrated-part-iii.html]Suitably”>http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2009/02/stimulus-illustrated-part-iii.html)</p>
<p>What an absolutely idiotic, unfounded, piece of politically pandering horse manure (and those are my nice terms for it!)</p>
<p>@Procrastion, both of the senators from my state are republican and since non of them are the three that voted for the bill, then I can’t complain about them supporting the bill.</p>
<p>I agree: TARP 1 failed miserably, but we just have to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. To do that we have to give the Treasury no room for interpretation. Guidelines have to be set for exactly where the money should and will go. No more blank checks given to the Treasury by the taxpayers.</p>
<p>Sorry to post again, but I just saw what Acceptd said about pork, and I do agree that pork is given a disproportionate amount of attention given its small share of the budget. That is why McCain looked silly, in my opinion, when he continually discussed eliminating “pet projects” and pork when such things accounted for such a miniscule piece of the budget as a whole.</p>
<p>i can’t find an official decision date on the website…so is it safe to assume it’ll be out the 31st? is it gonna be in email or no?</p>
<p>@ bicyclekick, lol yes.</p>
<p>and @pswib, yah i agree</p>
<p>flat out aughed @ hookem’s post with 4 links from a blatantly conservative website - especially when it talks about GDP when its unanimously agreed upon by MOST (conservative AND liberal) economics that spending is a more effective way to increase a country’s GDP. I didn’t copy down the stat anywhere, and i don’t really want to dig for it – but it was around 1.27$ GDP for spending versus like 1.16$ for tax cuts… </p>
<p>“This oughta silence Acceptd a bit:” ROFL-- i was actually bracing myself for a good point here, proceeded to click the links and find graphs of equivalents to 1 trillion dollars… Did i miss the logic gap? What does this have to do with anything? Would pleasing spitzer for 33,000 years fix our economy? Wait, no right? AM i missing something? Or was that post completely irrelevant? HAHAHA that’s hilarious how it “Oughta silence” me… </p>
<p>so i’ll respond with, hookem - “this outta silence you”
That site is just a rip off of what actually happened in Congress (You probably didn’t know)
[YouTube</a> - Thune Explains GOP Thinking on Stimulus](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6FKPMjDHDA&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2009_02_01.php]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6FKPMjDHDA&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2009_02_01.php)
Putting aside how superficial the argument is, Thune’s visual aid is really a fascinating example of how little Republicans in the Senate actually understand “regular folks.” They think they need a visual aid so that people realize ONE TRILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that’s a lot of money.
– Read some of the comments haha</p>
<p>Heh, i laughed (at the senator, and @ hookem as well)</p>
<p>Matrix411: very good point, i completely forgot about that book! interesting read.</p>
<p>Acceptd if you watch CSPAN you see that the visual aids occur in various topics. One representative even used visual aids when arguing over stamps as a basis for trade. So don’t insult republicans over visual aids when several senators and representatives use them.
Also in Congress the senators get a limited amount of time on the floor. The senators do not prepare their own material and therefore the visual aid is more probably for them to keep on track, the actual visual aid is made by the aides of the congressmen. Also the speeches on the floor are not for common folk, in fact I would wager that the vast majority of “regular folk” do not even see the speeches that occur so the visual aid is obviously not for them, so the speeches are tailored toward other congressmen not common ppl.</p>
<p>Dbate what are you talking about? You must have missed my point in that post? Whoever he is trying to address is besides the point… Are you trying to say that using a visual aid is a valid argument? Depending on the aid, it could be valid or not - but certainly the one posted in that link is irrelevant as well as hookems. Anyways, would having more reps/senators using visual aids, make the whole concept of visual aids more valid? Using that logic one could say if a few people in my town killed someone, that would make it okay for me too… And your whole second paragraph idk what you were trying to get at? No matter who the visual aid is “for,” nobody needs to be told how much a trillion dollars is (it just comes across as condescending and ultimately embarrassing for the speaker). </p>
<p>oh and “so the speeches are tailored toward other congressmen not common ppl.” So you’re saying the speeches, that are tailored towards CONGRESSMAN, need to be dumbed down to such an extreme as that as opposed to the “common ppl”? lol you would think that for knowledgeable congressman, one wouldn’t be required to make a little visual aid (or am i wrong?)</p>
<p>Darnit, I always miss the good debates on here. Silly me, being involved in ECs so I can get into Princeton. :)</p>
<p>If you don’t understand then that is your problem. You obviously were deriding the use of a visual aid to insult the senator because you did not know that it is a common and accepted practice to use visual aids when on the floor. Now you are trying to cover up the fact that you made a frivilous insult that showed your ignorance of the debate process in the senate. </p>
<p>
No I am saying that you don’t know what you are talking about. The congressmen “dumb down” the speech with visual aids to make the speeches more concise, because they only get a limited amount of time. Stop trying to insult the senator because YOU didn’t know that visual aids are an accepted practice on capitol hill. He was not trying to “dumb” it down for common folk as you stated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No what is fascinating is that you are attacking thune (and by extension republicans) on some facet that you know nothing about.</p>