U.S. Politics, 7

[Guest Raidne]

Oh well, here we go again....

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, here's why some of us didn't think the stimulus was such a good way to spend money:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/63228/20100917/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-arra-los-angeles-stimulus-wendy-greuel.htm

The Los Angeles City Controller said on Thursday the city's use of its share of the $800 billion federal stimulus fund has been disappointing.

The city received $111 million in stimulus under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) approved by the Congress more than year ago

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," says Wendy Greuel, the city's controller, while releasing an audit report.

"With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work, she added.

According to the report, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works generated only 45.46 jobs (the fraction of a job created or retained correlates to the number of actual hours works) after receiving $70.65 million, while the target was 238 jobs.

Similarly, the citys department of transportation, armed with a $40.8 million fund, created only 9 jobs in place of an expected 26 jobs.

That's what, a bit under $eM per job? Nice....

[alguien]

So...who on the East Coast is going to the "Rally to restore sanity"?

Whatever, socialist. I and the rest of the patriots will be attending the March to Keep Fear Alive.

[BloodRider]

The Los Angeles City Controller said on Thursday the city's use of its share of the $800 billion federal stimulus fund has been disappointing.

That's what, a bit under $eM per job? Nice....

Yet this is precisely the local government you claim would be better at governing. So are you advocating for more federal control over these funds! If so I am right there with you.

Please do watch this speech, given by a really crazy Republican in Ohio. The audience was composed of Republicans, and even they seemed...taken aback.

This guy is on something. Or off a prescribed something.

"WHO SAID THAT?"

*ummm that guy*

"DRASTIC MEASURES!"

Wait - Isn't FLoW from Ohio? Are you running for office FLoW?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yet this is precisely the local government you claim would be better at governing.

Where did I claim that? Or is that just a mindless responses to anyone you think falls into the category of a conservative? I mean, you could at least write your own material rather than just parroting other peoples' thoughts.

Tossing money to state and local governments for the purposes of hiring/retaining more state/local employees is about last on the list of what I think should have been done with stimulus money.

[BloodRider]

Where did I claim that? Or is that just a mindless responses to anyone you think falls into the category of a conservative? I mean, you could at least write your own material rather than just parroting other peoples' thoughts.

Tossing money to state and local governments for the purposes of hiring/retaining more state/local employees is about last on the list of what I think should have been done with stimulus money.

You don't deny it though, do you? Oh - thats right you are an anarchist. Or maybe you support governance via the corporation. What is the name for that particular type of government again.....?

As for how you thought the money should be spent, you basically said you thought the money should not have been spent at all. Typically you offer no solutions, just whining. Because solving problems is hard and takes grown ups who will take responsibility. And that is sooooo unRepublican.

So then, if not local gov't over federal gov't, what governmental model DO you support?

AND

how would you really like the stimulus money to be spent?

[Swordfish]

You don't deny it though, do you? Oh - thats right you are an anarchist. Or maybe you support governance via the corporation. What is the name for that particular type of government again.....?

As for how you thought the money should be spent, you basically said you thought the money should not have been spent at all. Typically you offer no solutions, just whining. Because solving problems is hard and takes grown ups who will take responsibility. And that is sooooo unRepublican.

So then, if not local gov't over federal gov't, what governmental model DO you support?

AND

how would you really like the stimulus money to be spent?

I would prefer that there not be any stimulus money to begin with.

[DanteGabriel]

Apparently trying to out-Palin Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee doesn't think we should provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/huckabee-opposes-insurance-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions.php

[adamsputnik]

Apparently trying to out-Palin Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee doesn't think we should provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/huckabee-opposes-insurance-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions.php

False analogy is false there from Mikey boy.

[awesome possum]

That sucks for Mike Huckabee, since being formerly obese kinda counts as a preexisting condition. Or does he just mean poor people with preexisting conditions?

[TrackerNeil]

Apparently trying to out-Palin Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee doesn't think we should provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/huckabee-opposes-insurance-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions.php

I'm impressed. Most conservatives won't admit that they really don't care about the uninsured, but Huckabee evidently feels totally comfortable with his utter lack of sympathy with a situation that makes even proponents of repeal hesitate. Nice.

And, yes, his analogy is ridiculous, and either uninformed or calculated to appeal to the uninformed. A better analogy would be an insurance company refusing to cover anyone who ever owned a home that sustained fire damage, no matter what the cause. But I guess I shouldn't expect a prominent Republican figure to make that kind of nuanced discernment.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As for how you thought the money should be spent, you basically said you thought the money should not have been spent at all. Typically you offer no solutions, just whining. Because solving problems is hard and takes grown ups who will take responsibility.

Apparently, you are like many members of Congress in thinking that the only way to address a problem is to spend more government money. Fortunately, in about 6 weeks, the voters are going to get their referendum on that view.

[TrackerNeil]

Apparently, you are like many members of Congress in thinking that the only way to address a problem is to spend more government money. Fortunately, in about 6 weeks, the voters are going to get their referendum on that view.

Yes, perhaps they'll turn control of Congress back to the Republicans, who increased the surplus under GWB and were a model of fiscal propriety.

[Shryke]

Can anyone spot the difference here?

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100917/NEWS02/9170354/Candidates-stick-to-the-issues-in-debate

When asked what they considered the greatest threat to the nation, both candidates responded that it was responding to terrorism.

"Our best foreign policy should be we win, they lose," O'Donnell said.

The nation should be tough on terrorists, she said, and not extend any rights to those who are arrested for terrorism.

"The people who attack us do not deserve the same constitutional rights as our citizens," O'Donnell said.

Coons said the biggest threat to the nation is compromising American principles. The nation must remain a beacon for human rights and civil liberties, he said.

"We have the world's greatest fighting force. We simply need to back it up with the world's greatest principles in how we conduct ourselves around the world," Coons said.

[DanteGabriel]

The greatest threat to the nation is the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by backwards religious radicals, filled with the fuel of ignorant faux-populist rage, and it's about to explode all over the rest of us.

[Shryke]

The greatest threat to the nation is the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by backwards religious radicals, filled with the fuel of ignorant faux-populist rage, and it's about to explode all over the rest of us.

Have no fear DG, the SCOTUS has already made sure to stack the deck:

The 800-pound gorilla is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has emerged as the deepest-pocketed foe of the Obama administration. It has pledged more than $75 million to defeat high-profile Democrats. That’s more than the combined total of the $22 million cash on hand of the RNC and $36 million of the Democratic National Committee. With its huge resources and ability to target money on critical races, the Chamber’s expanding role is almost like giving the Republicans an extra national organization.

Other resourceful interest groups dissatisfied with the Obama agenda are piling on. Financial industry players, once strongly supportive of Democrats, are donating twice as much to Republican Senate candidates as they are to Democrats. Health insurers, once favoring Republicans 2-to-1, now are backing them by 8-to-1.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77764/money-and-the-2010-elections

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, perhaps they'll turn control of Congress back to the Republicans, who increased the surplus under GWB and were a model of fiscal propriety.

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not a fan of those Republicans either. The Tea Parties are a blunt instrument with some significant laws, but I am glad they have raised the issue of booting out Republicans who spend too much money. It's an internal GOP debte that needed to happen.

I've actually reversed course on this issue in the last couple of years. I used to agree with the concept of electing as many Republicans as possible, even if the Republicans we were electing were Lincoln Chafee, etc. Now, I'd rather have fewer seats and at least have the folks who wear the GOP mantle act like what the party is supposed to stand for. If it means we don't get the Senate, I'm actually fine with that.

[Shryke]

Here's some more on that front Triskele:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/looking-at-today%E2%80%99s-poverty-numbers/

The headline story in today’s Census Bureau report is the large jump in the poverty rate in 2009. But an exclusive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of the new survey data shows that unemployment insurance benefits — which expanded substantially last year in response to the increased need — kept 3.3 million people out of poverty in 2009.

To put that number into context, the last high water mark for UI keeping people out of poverty was back in 1992 when it kept 1.5 million people out of poverty.

[The Progressive]

Clearly the stimulus bill is wasteful because it only helped poor people! :angry2:

[BloodRider]

Apparently, you are like many members of Congress in thinking that the only way to address a problem is to spend more government money. Fortunately, in about 6 weeks, the voters are going to get their referendum on that view.

Why won't you answer the question? Its a fairly simple one. If you don't I can only assume it is because your party is hollow - devoid of any substance or ability.

Now, I'd rather have fewer seats and at least have the folks who wear the GOP mantle act like what the party is supposed to stand for. If it means we don't get the Senate, I'm actually fine with that.

Except clearly the GOP stands for nothing, save destructive retro policies. Its like trying to cure genetic diseases when half your team are avowed Lamarkians.