Monday, February 16, 2009

Catastrophes and Recessions and Spending...OH MY!


Anyone remember this video from the grade school days?  The days when, although we probably weren't paying too much attention, we were taught about the ways our government worked and we were far less aware of party differences between liberals and conservatives, and what words like 'bipartisanship' meant.  My how we've become so jaded.
Reminisce with me for a moment, if you will, about the days when a bill that was presented went through analysis by all members of the House and Senate to decide if EVERY last thing it represented was what the American people want.  Wait, did that ever exist, or was it more of an idealistic teaching?  For crying out loud, a bill to get life saving debfibrillators (a device that increases the chance of survival from cardiac arrest by more than 50% if used quickly and appropriately) in athletic clubs and health spas has gone through more ammendments than the measly $800,000,000,000 'stimulus' bill.  

Have you heard that not one Congressman has fully read the 1,100 some odd pages of the stimulus bill?  See the video below.  


Just to fill you in on some of the other so called 'stimulating' and 'ear mark free' inclusions:
  • $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings
  • $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint
  • $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
  • $500 million for state and local fire stations
  • $1.2 billion for "youth activities", including youth summer jobs
  • $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas
  • $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River
  • $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
  • $75 million for "smoking cessation activities"  (I thought the quadrillion dollar lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers was supposed to pay for this?)
  • $30 million for wetlands conservation, including protection of the salt water harvest mouse (I'm not kidding)
  • $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs
  • $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
  • $448 million for construction of the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
  • $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters
  • $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker ship (I thought global warming was taking care of all polar ice?)
  • $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn't earned a profit in four decades
  • $2 billion earmark to restart FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient
  • $20 billion over 5 years for an expanded food stamp program
  • $53.4 billion for science facilities, high-speed internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs (yes, that's 'billions' for internet)
  • $400 million for research into global warming 
Look, I am not coming in here and saying I despise liberals and everything they stand for.  I don't.  In fact, I had quite the enjoyable debate just last week with two, very devoted, liberals.  I am simply seeking informed decision making based on the greater good of America.  If you've been paying attention to news from Drudge Report to the Huffington Post, from MSNBC to Fox News, from CNN to The View, everyone has SOMEthing to say about this so called "Recovery and Reinvestment Act".  The problem seems to be that NOBODY is informed!  Or at least if they are, why aren't they being upfront about WHAT they are doing and where OUR money is going?  What happened to Obama's promise to be 'transparent' and practice 'bipartisanship' (meaning to involve cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties)?

There is no debating that America's economy is experiencing tough times.  Depression-esque?  Hardly.  For instance, job losses are around 7.6% and, while devastating, pale in comparison to the 25% of the 1930's.  A much less used, yet more similar comparison, is the economic downturn of the late '70s & early 80's, during which the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8%.  It is obvious that something needs to be done...or is it?  Look at this bill!  We are being told that if it doesn't pass, the economy may reach a catastrophic and unrecoverable state.  Really?  Okay, then justify the spending, specifically!  Rather than cloud things and say it "MUST PASS OR ELSE," tell us why we need to provide 'stimulus' spending on smoking cessation? global warming? internet? an inefficient coal plant? protecting the salt water harvest mouse?

How many jobs will this create?  How many home owners will avoid foreclosure?  How many small business owners will be able to stay afloat?  The bill was originally proposed with many more billions set to go to many other 'earmarks', and so in an attempt to sound like Congress cares that there has been an increasing opposition to this bill, they cut 'billions' out.  So, at only $787 BILLION rather than the earlier $820 billion, we're supposed to concede.  How 'bout NO!  President Obama, how about instead of attempting to scare us into submitting to your will, you let us know what you are doing, like you promised you would.  I have yet to see very much 'transparency'.

The bill will be signed by the president on Tuesday.  While I may have posted a blog about wanting Obama to fail, I don't want him to fail...especially on something this big.  I want to know that I, as a small business owner, can trust consumer confidence will rise again.  I am an optimist, so until it doesn't, I will always maintain confidence that it will.  I just wish that more of the 'stimulus' bill went to the citizens.  At its pricetag, the bill could give about $10,000 to each tax-filing citizen.  I'm pretty sure that would stimulate my wallet!  Instead, we are set to receive $400 for singles and $800 for couples.  Hooray, we get to eat for a month or two! 

I'm not big on forwarded emails, but I got one the other day that I thought was entertaining and is befitting of this conversation:

"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format: 

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment? 

A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers. 

Q. Where will the government get this money? 

A. From taxpayers. 

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money? 

A. Only a smidgen. 

Q. What is the purpose of this payment? 

A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy. 

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China

A. Shut up. 

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely: 

  • If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China
  • If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs. 
  • If you purchase a computer it will go to India
  • If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic). 
  • If you buy a car it will go to Japan
  • If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan
  • If you pay your credit cards off, it will go to bank management bonuses and they will hide if offshore. 
  • Same with stock investment. 
Instead, you can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spending it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only American businesses still operating in the US.




14 comments:

  1. Great stuff...It blows my mind how many people discuss this bill's passing without having a clue what the damn thing is even about. Sheep...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very nice, finding "American Beer is getting harder and harder. Bud is now Belgian, Miller is South African, Coors, now Canadian. Just found out that Leinenkugel is now owned by Miller. Well Sam Adams and many of the micro-brews like New Belgium are still "American" owned. And when choosing your wine make it an Arkansas wine, California is Soo broke they will be owned by China pretty soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:50 PM

    DAR
    Wow, how can you fit so much baloney in one space? Almost everything you say here is wrong, spun or misleading. Really. You ask so many questions. I would love to go through and answer them but these little tiny boxes don't hold much.
    Let me just check one claim at random. This is the one where you supposedly aren't kidding.

    "$30 million for wetlands conservation, including protection of the salt water harvest mouse (I'm not kidding)"

    Sorry, that's rubbish, repeated ad naseaum mostly on Fox Entertainment News. See the debunk and source here:

    Pelosi's Mouse

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200902120017

    Cut and paste your comments into our freethinker forum and will gladly go through the rest. These comment boxes are too tiny.

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10:08 PM

    MIC
    Look, I am not coming in here and saying I despise liberals and everything they stand for. I don't.>>

    DAR
    That's nice. Do you even know what liberals stand for?

    liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded --American Heritage

    Why would you have to say you don't despise that?

    MIC
    I am simply seeking informed decision making based on the greater good of America.>>

    DAR
    That's a little hard to believe after you voted for Bush, no doubt, twice.

    MIC: "...why aren't they being upfront about WHAT they are doing and where OUR money is going?"

    DAR
    How could "they" be more "upfront?" You give an unsourced list which supposedly says where a lot of the money is going. Most members do not read most bills. That's S.O.P. I am sure you can get a copy of the bill if you like. It's a doosey no doubt. No one knows if it will work and it probably isn't enough. Mort Zuckerman, rightwing leaning billionaire says they will probably need another 500B to 1 trillion before the end of the year.
    This is way bigger than you realize. Your rightwing shows are spinning it smaller than it is. The very fudged unemployment numbers are a small part of it.

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:32 PM

    MIC: What happened to Obama's promise to be 'transparent' and practice 'bipartisanship' (meaning to involve cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties)?

    DAR
    He did that and way too much of it. Repub's know one song: "Tax cuts for the rich." And look what it's done. All of the income tax collected until May goes to pay INTEREST on the debt.
    So, a bunch of their amendments were incorporated. In fact every amendment offered by the republicans who voted for the bill was accepted. And tens of billions were stripped out at the request of people who didn't even vote for it. The lesson is, why should they be listened to?

    MIC: Depression-esque? Hardly. For instance, job losses are around 7.6%...>>

    DAR
    Note to Michael. The US unemployment numbers are cooked. They have been cooking them for years. When US unemployment numbers are compared with other countries the "cooking" has to be adjusted for. Also, the depression took years to reach it's worst points. We are at the beginning. The goal is to avoid one this time.

    MIC:
    [better comparison] is the economic downturn of the late '70s & early 80's, during which the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8%.>>

    DAR
    No comparison. Forget unemployment. It's bad and heading a lot worse, quick. Our numbers are fudged and there are many ways to calculate it.
    Look at the value of GM and Ford. Combined they are worth about as much as tiny Subaru. Trillions have vanished.

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:46 PM

    DAR
    Consider the precedent: the DOW under Clinton went from 3,200 to 10,500. A 3x increase.
    If Bush's DOW had gone up at that rate it would be at 35,000 today. It's at 8,000. A huge decrease. The S & P is more important and has the same pitiful numbers.
    It's difficult to comprehend just how bad Bush screwed the pooch. Most republicans can't.

    Now on to your questions:

    MIC: We are being told that if it doesn't pass, the economy may reach a catastrophic and unrecoverable state. Really?

    DAR
    Yeah, really. And that, even if it does pass. This is new territory.

    MIC: tell us why we need to provide 'stimulus' spending on smoking cessation?

    DAR
    Money well spent.

    MIC: global warming?

    DAR
    Why am I not surprised you are misinformed about this?

    MIC
    internet? an inefficient coal plant?

    DAR
    It's a coal plant that releases no CO2. It probably won't work. But you do like electricity don't you.

    MIC: protecting the salt water harvest mouse?

    DAR
    Republican talking point regurgitated as news as already pointed out.

    MIC: How many jobs will this create?>>

    DAR: 3 to 4 million I heard.

    MIC: How many home owners will avoid foreclosure? How many small business owners will be able to stay afloat?

    DAR: What if no one knows those exact numbers?


    MIC: ...there has been an increasing opposition to this bill, they cut 'billions' out.>>

    DAR
    Another republican line of BS. See the thread here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5437

    And the chart here:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/obama-sells-stimulus-people-buy.html

    59% Favor

    33% oppose

    MIC: How 'bout NO!

    DAR: Already done. Just like they didn't support Clinton's budget which created the surplus and tripled the stock market.

    Regarding "bipartisanship" see which side really does it and which side just talks about it when they are out of power:

    http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/opposing-stimulus-republicans-party-its-1

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:45 AM

    moser, i love ya and as much as i want to take all of this apart bit by bit (as im very liberal...okay i will a little: the environmental based ones either help create new jobs or create a government that runs more efficiently for the future, yes even the ice breaking, which has to do with re-freezing during summer exploration), ill just put it this way: arguing about politics is all about verbally jerking off. Either you are patting someone on the back that completely agrees with you, or you are preaching to someone who has already seen the light of their own side that theyll never change from.

    The only point I have to straight up contest is about wanting Obama to fail (from your previous entry). It doesn't matter if you disagree with his approach, if you want him to fail that means you want his promised end result to not come true (better economy, peace, actual respect from the world). Not a matter of politics, a matter of grammar. If a democratic personality said this about a brand new republican president he would be held at some sort of camp for terrorism!!

    and I'm out! there are so many other discussions i could start but they always just leave both sides frustrated, haha. later, clint

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:17 AM

    CLINT: "arguing about politics is all about verbally jerking off.">>

    DAR
    Unfortunately, the vast majority of the time, you are exactly right. But it doesn't have to be this way. It is possible to talk about these things rationally and learn new things and be open to changing an opinion. But it is rare. Unfortunately, organizations like FOX (especially) have trained people that this is how to approach political issues.
    While it's also useful consider the truth of factual claims, much of politics is gray area.

    MIC: "$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings"

    DAR
    This is a bizarre one to complain about. I'll let Obama explain this one to you. From his press conference:

    "This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that, "What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient." Why would that be a waste of money?

    We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus.

    And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/obamas-opening-remarks-at_n_165440.html

    DAR
    1) quick jobs and stimulus
    2) gain in efficiency, pays for itself
    3) reduces dependence on foreign energy

    And this one is the first on this list?

    Perhaps Michael can explain the downside of this one? Perhaps Michael can answer Obama's question?

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous8:31 PM

    MIC: "While I may have posted a blog about wanting Obama to fail, I don't want him to fail...especially on something this big."

    DAR
    It's good to see you changing your mind on this. As Pat Robertson observed today in an interview:

    ***
    Question: So you don't subscribe to Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" school of thought?

    Pat Robertson: "That was a terrible thing to say. I mean, he's the president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds. And if he doesn't, it hurts us all. Anybody who would pull against our president is not exactly thinking rationally."

    http://tinyurl.com/ajnkjh

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous8:35 AM

    MIC: "[Obama]... let us know what you are doing, like you promised you would. I have yet to see very much 'transparency'.

    DAR
    Obama actually sent me a note about this yesterday. We're buds so I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I shared it with you.

    ***
    Darrel --

    Today, I signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law.

    This is a historic step -- the first of many as we work together to climb out of this crisis -- and I want to thank you for your resolve and your support.

    You organized thousands of house meetings. You shared your ideas and personal stories. And you informed your friends and neighbors about the need for immediate action. You continue to be a powerful voice for change throughout the country.

    The recovery plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs, provide tax cuts for working and middle-class families, and invest in health care and clean energy.

    It's a bold plan to address a huge problem, and it will require my vigilance and yours to make sure it's done right.

    I've assigned a team of managers to oversee the implementation of the recovery act. We are committed to making sure no dollar is wasted. But accountability begins with you.

    That's why my administration has created Recovery.gov, a new website where citizens can track every dollar spent and every job created. We'll invite you and your neighbors to weigh in with comments and questions.

    Our progress will also be measured by the tens of thousands of personal stories submitted by people who are struggling to make ends meet. If you haven't already, you can read stories from families all across the country:

    http://my.barackobama.com/yourstories

    Your stories are the heart of this recovery plan, and that's what I'll focus on every day as President.

    With your continued support, we'll emerge a stronger and more prosperous nation.

    Thank you,

    President Barack Obama

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous1:53 PM

    Hi Mr. Moser...

    I just want to say that I think it a tragedy that you're putting your obviously eloquent writing skills to such depressingly defeatist topics. However, it also made me very sad to realize that you don't think the government should be spending money on the environment or environmentally safe technology. You FAIL to mention that one of the most important parts of the stimulus bill was an increase to NSF's budget to fund primary research in the U.S. If you can't see how that would keep jobs in the U.S. and stimulate productivity and the creation of new jobs, you can't be helped. And that, my friend, is a waste.

    -Rocky (mrparke007athotmaildotcom)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous8:32 AM

    Darrel,

    You are right on...I sent a comment basically saying the same thing to Michael. I found his comments to be short sided, unfounded and somewhat inmature in so much as not recognizing the big picture. The last regime put us in such a tailspin that any kind of stimulas package is neeed to help us pull out and hopefully recover. Funny, no regulation and no transparency has ultimately revealed the truth of just how much greed and selfishness was running rampant. Especially after last night's speech. If one was not able to get on board and see the wonderful vision and determination and finally some hope and values he will bring back to America, then you just have to be brain dead.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous6:47 PM

    DAR
    I don't think Michael's dumb, but he looks to Rush, Hannity and Fox News (because he likes news in that "style") and these sources have filled his young head with rightwing mush. If you are listening to these sources and not:

    a) laughing at them or
    b) are not a little disgusted that anyone could take this childish stuff seriously

    Then there is a serious discernment problem. It's not news in an interesting "style." These are just *blatant* propaganda mills. I had an acquaintance, college kid, who really, sincerely, believed that O'Reilly is a down the middle "independent." I almost could not grasp how someone could possibly be so clueless that they could be fooled by his transparent act.

    There are conservatives I respect because they have some brains. I grew up listening to William Buckley, George Will (although he has said some real dishonest things lately), even Pat Buchanan sometimes gets it right.

    Anyway, here is a little article I have been intending to share with Michael. Maybe he could blog about it.

    http://underthelobsterscope.blogspot.com/2006/07/george-mcgovern-on-liberalism.html

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous6:51 PM

    DAR
    Also, in keeping with the supposed "extreme" in the title of this blog, I recommend something on this doosey:

    Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest users

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680

    D.

    ReplyDelete