Democrats, Republicans spar over stimulus money

Absolutely priceless! Some GOP Sens are going to deny the money simply out of spite, while the people under them suffer. Good... means even less GOP seats come next election. Meanwhile, it'll be fun watching them explain how the money meant for their state went to another state because they wanted to 'stick it to Obama'. It'll be even more fun to see how the people react to said GOP Sens.

Essentially, now that word is out that other states will gladly take their money, I think you'll see an about-face and said GOP Senators suddenly taking the money, and pretending to be upset about it and having no choice.

Classic! I especially loved the things Arnold said in California. That guy rocks!

Michigan's Democratic Gov Jennifer Granholm: "We'll take it. We'll take your money."

Absolutely priceless! I'll bet they will. Keep in mind, this is taxpayers' money.

President Obama says he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2013. He'll need the Republicans' help to do that.

Sarge,

get real. Repubs only create more debt by wasteful spending and taxcuts for the rich. Obama will be on his own to try and get the deficit under control, just like clinton had to do when he inherited the reagan/bush massive government debt.

At least the money has a better chance of being used for the taxpayers' benefit under the States' respective governors than under bush's idiotic tax brakes for the rich.

President Obama says he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2013. He'll need the Republicans' help to do that.

Then the Republicans need to get with the American program. It may take longer than 2013 for President Obama to halve the defecit without Republican support, but then, if it takes longer, Americans can rightfully blame the Republicans for delaying the process. It's not like we can't do it at all with the Republicans. Hell, the Republicans have ceased being a viable party and become more of a fringe group; no one cares what the Republicans think anymore! LOL!

"bush's idiotic tax ( breaks ) for the rich"

Every American who pays taxes got a tax break with Bush's "idiotic" tax cuts. Look it up.

sarge: "Every American who pays taxes got a tax break with Bush's "idiotic" tax cuts. Look it up."

Bush's tax breaks for individuals went to those earning more than $250,000/year. Sorry, bud, but that's idiotic. Obama is going to implement tax breaks that affect 95% of Americans, and take BACK the breaks bush gave to the rich. In other words, he's doing the opposite of what bush did and is working for the people, instead of screwing 95% over for his 'base' of rich people.

The arguments by those on the right are getting funnier and funnier to watch. Now they have to complain that others are willing to take the money their GOP Sens are refusing out of false pride, and complain that Obama wants to halve the deficit given to him by bush (who MADE that deficit after being handed a surplus by Clinton!).

Smithjapan:

" "Absolutely priceless! Some GOP Sens are going to deny the money simply out of spite, while the people under them suffer" "

...and that money, of course, comes from a big pot of gold that Obama found under the White House. It is not as if he to either borrow it from the Chinese, or simply print it, Mugabe-style.

Right! Economic theory, according to smithinjapan and Gideo Gono.

Democrats claim those Republican governors who turn down money from President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package are “fringe” Republicans eager to score political points."

Well, yeah I am sure, but aren't Dems doing the same by taking the stimulus as well?

Like since when does either party not try to score political points?

Yeah I heard Gov Jindal this morning. He's got his ambitions thoroughly in his sights. His answers were concise and direct. These were answers to use at another time. People do return to "Meet the Press."

Sarge, we all know that $4Trillion in tax breaks went to the top 1% of the population. Now maybe you got a portion of that $4Trillion was nominal to me at best. Most people would agree. But there are a few who reaped their plenty.

I can't wait till the economy starts it rebound because of the stimulus. After that, eating crow will become a republican past-time. < :-)

“It is not at all in keeping with the principles that made this country great, not at all in keeping with economic reality, not in keeping with a stable dollar, and not in keeping with the sentiments of most of this country.”

The voice of a sanity. States have the right to say no to the Feds. You take their money, you do as you are told. Some Americans still like freedom, just like some banks refused to take bailout money because of all the strings attached. Dependency is slavery. Let the blue welfare states take all the money, & when they are beyond bankrupt, maybe The EU will take them in and they can become part of Iceland.

I can't wait till the economy starts it rebound because of the stimulus. After that, eating crow will become a republican past-time" and if it doesn't?

Again, you still haven't read it, have you? its really not a very good bill, and that is from a both dem/repub hating point of view.

Let the blue welfare states take all the money,

Right-wing mythology and fantasy. Take a look at the per capita GDP figures by state, you will see what color the welfare states are.

As for keeping with the principles that made the USA great, you're about thirty years too late.

Good to see some Governors turn down this 'Subprime' stimulus pork because they realize down the road they can't pay back the 'mortgage' on it after all.

Be nice if more Americans were like that if they were we wouldn't have needed this 'stimulus' pork package in the first place.

WilliB: "...and that money, of course, comes from a big pot of gold that Obama found under the White House. It is not as if he to either borrow it from the Chinese, or simply print it, Mugabe-style."

I think you're just still angry that you were wrong about bush having spent for more during his 8 years than Obama in one month.

Anyway, feel free to tell of us on here WHY President Obama has to get the money in the first place..... waiting..... oh yeah! because your hero bush took a major surplus and turned it into a more than trillion dollar deficit before sending the economy to the dogs. The US has been borrowing money from Saudi, the Chinese, and Japan since long, long ago... you think that simply because Obama is in office this is suddenly starting? Not to burst your bubble, but China and Saudi Arabia have owned parts of the US for a while now, which is partly why bush ignored the no-fly rule after 9/11 to let Obama's family fly out of the US.

Wake up, WilliB.

sailwind: "Good to see some Governors turn down this 'Subprime' stimulus pork because they realize down the road they can't pay back the 'mortgage' on it after all."

We both know full well, and you admitted yesterday, they're only turning the money down because there are 'strings attached'. If there were ZERO strings attached and they need not be responsible with the money they were to accept, they would gladly take it. As it is, others are willing to take the money of those who don't want it, and that's going to lose them yet another election (the refusers) in four years time. Anyway, it'll be fun to watch said Governors suddenly change their minds and ask for the money when their reputation's on the line. Even more fun when they realize it's already been spent by another state on necessities for the people.

The greatest part about this all is that the GOP members who refuse are most certainly going to lose their seats to Dems in the next election, making the Dem. majority even larger. It's just sad that the homeowners of those states will suffer for the blindness of the GOP govs.

We both know full well, and you admitted yesterday, they're only turning the money down because there are 'strings attached'.

Yes, it's called having to raise taxes when the pork runs out. Don't know about you but i think I'm taxed quite well enough as it is. Glad to see the governors looking out for their constituents in the future that would be stuck with the bill........Nothing is free Smith.

By the way your pretty cavaliar on spending other peoples money. I'm glad these Governors aren't.

smith:

" Anyway, feel free to tell of us on here WHY President Obama has to get the money in the first place..... waiting..... oh yeah! because your hero bush took a major surplus and turned it into a more than trillion dollar deficit before sending the economy to the dogs. "

Bush aint my hero, and many people were complicit in sending the economy to the dogs. To put things into perspective, Lord Obama and his democrat handlers have now managed to spend more pork in ONE SINGLE bill than Bushes entire Iraq mess of the last 6 years... money which the US does not have, but will either have to borrow from China or to create, Mugabe-style, by cranking up the printing presses.

There is no rational way to defend this -- generational theft it is, by whatever label you call it.

Wake up, WilliB.

I second that Smith. It's hilarious to read Americans complaining about people who can't pay the mortgage or complaining about the government spending money. Where have they been the last thirty years? For the last thirty years the great free market American economy has been subsidized by the rest of the world. The rest of the world paid for twenty years of "fiscally responsible" Republican administrations (one of the greatest oxymorons in history), countries distorted their domestic economies in order to export to the "rich" Americans (see Japan - dispatch workers), and most importantly bought the debt of Americans through the wonders of debt securitization. And the money America received for its debt was then put back into their financial system to create more "wealth" and of course debt which it then sold all over again.

Now the bubble has burst and America can't sell its debt anymore to keep the machine running - except of course government debt to countries that can't afford to see the machine stop. And surprise surprise, the great American free market system can't pay the debt back either. It's America that turns out to not be able to pay the mortgage.

If Americans want to ignore all that reality, I guess that is their business. Unfortunately they may have screwed things up for everybody else too, not just themselves.

WilliB: "To put things into perspective, Lord Obama and his democrat handlers have now managed to spend more pork in ONE SINGLE bill than Bushes entire Iraq mess of the last 6 years... "

Glad you clarified; after all, your comment the other day was not limited to Iraq, but you said bush's entire two terms and everything therein, which is in part why you were completely ridiculed thereafter by various people. But then... if you always have to later change what you have said with such determination, how much strength does that put in comments you make in the future? I mean, you were convinced, and even said with guile, what you said the other day -- and it was wrong. How can we trust what you say now?

"money which the US does not have, but will either have to borrow from China or to create, Mugabe-style, by cranking up the printing presses."

Again, you seem to be saying this is going to be something new, initiated by Obama, when the US has been borrowing from other nations for a long while now, and in particular under bush. In fact, I notice that you could not answer the question as to whom it is that the economy fell under.

sailwind: "Yes, it's called having to raise taxes when the pork runs out. Don't know about you but i think I'm taxed quite well enough as it is. Glad to see the governors looking out for their constituents in the future that would be stuck with the bill."

We both know that's BS... The reason why the Governors don't want strings attached is so they CAN use it for pork instead of using it where they should. I can't understand how you would defend such people; they don't want a limit on how they can spend the money!!

Taxes are going to be raised far more in the states where budget shortfalls occur, my friend. Those can be avoided thanks to the stimulus plan. Please stop pretending that the GOP Govs here are turning it down on moral grounds; they are turning it down to create friction and try to lower the astounding approval rating of Obama. Fortunately, it's only going to cost said GOP govs. They are so very see-through.

GJDailleut: "If Americans want to ignore all that reality, I guess that is their business. Unfortunately they may have screwed things up for everybody else too, not just themselves."

Agreed 100%! And yet, so many of them say, when they have no defense, that we have no right to comment because we are not American.

I'm almost wetting myself laughing at the Republicans vainly trying to defend their position while attacking the stimulus bill - it's like watching a prize fighter trying to throw a roundhouse while sinking into quick sand, lol!

And let's not forget - this stimulus bill is only necessary because the Republicans spent more money under bush than any government in world history.

Even funnier is their straight-faced attempts to preach fiscal responsibility after 8 long years of outright reckless spending, much of it on foreigners.

Now, when we have a president who is - to the shock of almost every Republican - actually ready and willing to spend money not on foreigners but on Americans, the Republicans - true to form - are trying everything they can to block and ridicule it.

Enough said in my opinion.

It's awesome - the more the Republicans try to block this bill, the more their chances of a comeback in 2012 will slip away from them.

I say, keep complaining Republicans! ha ha ha :-)

Sushi: Exacty... exactly

Taking the unemployment dollars, he said, would force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out, putting in place what he called an unfair tax on employers.

Boy.......What a concept, looking at the lessons of the past and applying to the future.

Bush bad by the way.

Bang on, GJ and sushisake!Great posts from both of you,mon amis.It's too funny watching the few remaining bush loyalists here try and defend the economic policies of republicans governors, ala bush, who was the worst president ever, and from the get-go.Said loyalists are just bitter about the recent election and we all know it.Well, anyways, we all know President Obama's stimulus plan will be working miracles within the next few weeks and the rightists will be eating humble pie,again!If the stimulus DOESN'T work we all know it will be because of the bush-like behaviour of these republican governors,who are greedy like all republicans are,and are foolishly refusing the money Obama and his party were offering their constiuents.Fools!Well, anyways, it's terrible to see they are blinded by jealousy over Obama's popularity and his simply FABULOUS speeches, which I am sure you two also use in your lessons.

only a republican governor would turn down funds to help the unemployed and down and out citizens of his state. No problem giving billions to bank CEOs in massive corporate welfare a year ago when bush was Pres., but money for real people is refused.

This is why the repub party will soon be 100% irrelevant.

Don`t take the money.Take the money and the government gets bigger and bigger and sticks its nose into more and more of "your business".Not worth the trade-off in (loss of personal) freedom.

only a republican governor would turn down funds to help the unemployed and down and out citizens of his state.

Zurc, you should do some research.

From the article

At issue for Jindal and Barbour is a provision in the stimulus bill that could allow people ineligible for unemployment benefits to receive them anyway.

What the heck, free money all around for everybody, courtesy of the U.S taxpayer. Might as well pay their mortgages also......Oh wait we going to do that too I believe.

The comments seem to be falling mostly along party lines.

I admire Jindal for his stand. I don't know if it's the right choice, but it's a good message to send. You'd have to weigh the immediate positive of the unemployment handouts against the future negative of raising taxes on business. Which one creates the greatest cost over time? Beats me, but it's a good question to ask.

Some states like Montana run a surplus -Why should they be forced to take any money.

Then you have a state like California (Pelosi) - huge deficits and demand cash/handouts.

It doesn't make any sense to stimulate areas of the economy that do not need it. A stimulus will not help me, but someone without a job could use it.

Politicians are happiest spending others money, but that can only last so long.

Michigan’s Democratic Gov Jennifer Granholm said there are other states that want and need the new money. “We’ll take it. We’ll take your money.”

Yes, when you have spent 7 years running a state into the ground, Federal welfare is the only way out. I feel bad for citizens of responsible states like Texas that have to bail out your silly ass and the ass of other losers like New York and California.

Is it any coincidence that the states in the deepest financial trouble are the ones that are solidly controlled by the Democratic Party or have a Liberal Republican at the helm?

Speaking as a US taxpayer whose hard earned dollars supports countless Americans (and illegal aliens), its good to see at least some politicians siding with us taxpayers.

Apparently smithinjapan didn't properly check out Bush's tax cuts -

"Bush's tax breaks for individuals went to those earning over $250,000/ year"

Yeah? Then how come my friend, who makes way less than $250,000/year got a tax cut?

Apparenty smithinjapan didn't properly check out Obama's tax cut plan either:

"Obama is going to implement tax breaks that affect 95% of Americans"

But way less than 95% of Americans pay income taxes - how can 95% get a tax break? During the presidential campaign last year I asked the Obama campaign this question and never got an answer.

VOR - "Speaking as a US taxpayer whose hard earned dollars..."

LOL!! :-) BTW, that should be "hard [hyphen] earned."

Sarge - "But way less than 95% of Americans pay income taxes - how can 95% get a tax break?"

Sarge, your President was - obviously - talking about taxpayers.

Everyone knows you can't give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes, c'mon now...!

"During the presidential campaign last year I asked the Obama campaign this question and never got an answer."

That's probably because the Obama campaign was too busy winning America back for patriotic Americans - ie: everyone but Republicans, lol! :-)

To see the humor in it sushi, you must not be a US taxpayer or you are one of the ones my tax dollar supports.

VOR, on the contrary, as a taxpayer in Japan, my hard-earned tax dollars are going towards supporting your family in the States as well as bailing out companies that very possibly your friends and relatives work for.

That means you owe me big time.

When do I get my pound of flesh? :-)

VOR: "To see the humor in it sushi, you must not be a US taxpayer or you are one of the ones my tax dollar supports."

Oh! Here comes the 'you cannot have a valid opinion if you are not a US taxpayer' POV again!

Sorry, VOR, but we went through that a week or so back -- you are perfectly entitled to an opinion despite not being an American taxpayer in this case. The humour is not at all with the situation, but with the denial of sarge, you, and others like yourselves. Obama is helping you out, and you guys really can't hack it.

Once again we have a Democratic president who is reducing the deficit (is going to by the end of his first term, anyway) brought on by a Republican president... that's something to celebrate, not to scorn.

SushiSake Number 3: "the Obama campaign was too busy winning America back for patriotic Americans - ie:everyone but Republicans"

No, the Obama campaign didn't answer my question because they had no answer. They knew the 95% figure was BS.

So, all Americans are patriots, with the exception of the millions of Republicans, eh? Ha ha ha!

sarge: "So, all Americans are patriots, with the exception of the millions of Republicans, eh? Ha ha ha!"

According to you guys during the height of the Iraq war people who didn't support it and say yes to bush on everything were not patriots, right? Well, if you believe that then you also believe those who do not support Obama are not patriots.

They didn't answer your question because they had far busier things to do, like run an election! If you honestly think they can spend time answering every skeptic that posts a silly question (obviously it's only 95% of tax payers!) then you're just being naive (again).

VOR - "Is it any coincidence that the states in the deepest financial trouble are the ones that are solidly controlled by the Democratic Party?"

LOL! Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

You mean California, the state controlled by Republican Schwatzeneggar?

Is it any coincidence that the America, a country in the deepest financial trouble, has been solidly controlled by the Republican Party? :-)

Sarge - "So, all Americans are patriots, with the exception of the millions of Republicans, eh?"

You're saying that the Republican party and its merry band of supporters, all of whom have led America off the cliff into the financial abyss, are somehow worthy of being called 'patriotic Ameericans'?

ROFL!!! :-)

Moderator: Back on topic please.

Sarge - "No, the Obama campaign didn't answer my question because they had no answer. They knew the 95% figure was BS."

The Obama campaign knew that anyone with more than the IQ of toothpaste would know that this statement - obviously - meant 95% of taxpayers.

They were probably so shocked you didn't understand this that they just binned your e-mail. :-)

SushiSake3: "LOL! Talk about missing the forest for the trees."

Translation: SushiSake3 has no answer to VOR's question.

smithinjapan / SushiSake#3 - But Obama wasn't and still isn't saying 95% of taxpayers, he's saying 95% of Americans. Check it out.

Sarge, are you complaining that likely 95% of your family back Stateside is going to get a tax cut?

Is that what you're doing?

VOR - "Speaking as a US taxpayer whose hard earned dollars supports countless Americans (and illegal aliens), its good to see at least some politicians siding with us taxpayers."

If bush and his cast of thieves hadn't fleeced Americans of $6 trillion - the largest amont of spending in history by any government, that, ahem, you backed to the hilt - we wouldn't be in this mess.

Great post Sarge, making the Liberals look foolish as usual. Tee Hee!

I think the people who still blindly support Bush and his failed policies are fools, as are the Republicans trying to stop Obama's plans to save America. Tee Hee!

Sushi Could you finally get over that Bush ain't the Prez anymore?

sailwind: "Sushi Could you finally get over that Bush ain't the Prez anymore?"

Here sailwind: "All of us are committed to working with President Obama to pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W Bush ran it into,” O’Malley said. “If some of the fringe governors don’t want to do that, they need to step aside and not stand in the way of the nation’s interests.”

Sail - "Sushi Could you finally get over that Bush ain't the Prez anymore?"

That's like saying - in a conversation with Japanese about Japan and WWII - "Sushi Could you finally get over that America dropped the a-bomb on Japan?"

Ehrr.. no. I know you think I'm always ranting on about bush, but hey, you can't fix this particular problem without analyzing what went on in the past, when bush was president.

I'm talking loose finance industry regulations - under bush. I'm talking tax break giveaways to the rich - under bush. I'm talking the starting of $2-3 trillion dollar wars - under bush.

Sail, no matter how much you may want to push bush under the carpet and pretend he is not responsible for the current global economic crisis, it ain't working, and as I said above - a solution to today's problems isn't going to be found without analyzing yesterday's mistakes.

And that is EXACTLY what President Obama is doing.

tightening up fiscal regulations (reverse of bush) winding down Iraq war (reverse of bush) incrasing taxes for the rich (reverse of bush).

Highest state indebtness(2005, most recent figures on census.gov);

1) California(R) 2) New York(D) 3) Texas(R) 4) Florida(R) 5) Illinois(D)

Lowest Economic growth (2007, most recent from BEA.gov)

1) Michigan(D) 2) Florida(R) 3) West Virginia(D) 4) Illinois(D) 4) Alaska(R)

The conclusions that can be drawn, 1) VOR's comment is not true, Republican and Democrat states are almost equally divided for deepest in financial trouble. 2)Partisan policies don't really make a differnce in terms of economic growth. 3) States with certian types of industries are harder hit(I.E. Auto and Engery). Before even having to look at the stats it should have been a common sense conclusion.

Good Jorb - good job on your research.

"Before even having to look at the stats it should have been a common sense conclusion."

It was. I think the only poster on JT who believes VOR is VOR himself. :-)

Sushi: "Sail, no matter how much you may want to push bush under the carpet and pretend he is not responsible for the current global economic crisis, it ain't working, and as I said above - a solution to today's problems isn't going to be found without analyzing yesterday's mistakes."

Exactly what I've been saying to him for days and even said just before your post. But hey, there are more than a few, if not all, Republicans who were embarrassed about bush and simply tried to ride out his waning presidency. Once Obama won it became a game of 'pass the buck'. When you point out how you cannot ignore the causes of the current crisis they claim say it's off-topic. They also conveniently forget that the things that were bush's fault during his reign they tried to fob off on Clinton and even Carter!

I myself am getting sick of pointing out how utterly wrong bush was and how he ranks as one of the worst leaders in the world, but as we've both said you CANNOT deny his responsibility in this. Unlike where bush inherited a surplus from his predecessor, Obama has inherited a deficit that is possibly the largest in US history. They want you to forget this, and some actually seem to want you to believe that the deficit suddenly appeared on the scene when Obama was inaugurated.

Those stats are accurate, but it fails to mention that those are also the states with the highest regulations. I live in Michigan and the taxes on the upper class actually got me fired from my job at a meat packing plant. Between Michigans small business tax and the tax on those making 200k and up my boss lost nearly 60k and had to close down the plant I was working at to cut costs. And that's happening everywhere, the more the government tightens the noose the more we suffer.

Its never been the place of government to regulate the affairs of its citizens. THAT is what made the U.S so successful for so long, its only when govenment steps in that things go downhill. Dems love to call this stimulus package the "New new deal" which gives me a little giggle because the first new deal did nothing, jack squat, it actually furthered debt. It was WWII that pulled us out of the depression, not government spending.

And for all of you squabbling over who caused this mess you can look at yourselves. If your in the United States you are directly responcible for the leadership, not just the president but the senate and the house as well, they have no power without your approval. Japan has devaluated its currency more times than I can remember and executed economic dumping on the auto industry to destroy the competative abilities of domestic auto companies. The same can be said for china and south korea. Europe allowed itself to stagnate and dragged its american investors down with it who, in turn, pulled investments from Europe causing its financial woes.

Saying that Obama can save us is like saying that the king can win a chess game. By contrast saying that Bush damned us is like blaming the king for being in checkmate. The general public thinks that we are just pawns but they are wrong, we are the players guiding the game. What is scary is that we don't even realize that we're doing it.

TheQuestion - good post, but remember we as pawns can only make 1 move every 3, 4, 5 or 7 years.

And the U.S. president is president for 4 years no matter how misguided, ignorant and outright criminal his behavior is.

"Its never been the place of government to regulate the affairs of its citizens. THAT is what made the U.S so successful for so long."

It is a shame when the government interferes, imagine where the US economy would have been if slavery was never abolished by the government.

THAT is what made the U.S so successful for so long, its only when govenment steps in that things go downhill.

Or up, as in the case of 8-year-olds leaving coal mine employment.

The US under bush went full tilt socialist. The entire financial industry is essentially nationalized now. If not for that the economy would have collapsed.

The greed of the corporate leaders and the repub hands off fantasy lead to the meltdown. Saner people are not running the government but will it be too late?

It was WWII that pulled us out of the depression, not government spending.

And Lord knows there wasn't any government spending going on during WWII. What I would like to know is how the economy could have recovered back then due to the highest marginal income tax rate being above 90%. That's ninety percent. According to Republican ideology, only economic disaster could result from such a condition. And yet the US enjoyed tremendous growth and prosperity through most of the decades of the '50s and 60s.

I love all the support Obama gets from non US taxpayers. Of course they support Obama, none of them pay US taxes so they could care less about how much any of this is going to cost. Forutunately it only takes one US taxpayer to drown out the voices from the peanut gallery.

Forutunately it only takes one US taxpayer to drown out the voices from the peanut gallery.

Given the fact that 52% of Americans voted for him and he seems to have a pretty high approval rating, the majority of US taxpayers seem to support him as well (rightfully or wrongfully). Seeming that your viewpoint is in the minority, your voice is drowned out as well.

perhaps, but as details of the plan emerge, opposition amongst US taxpayers grows. The honeymoon is over and it doesn't matter what non US taxpayers think. The Democrats better hope their so called stimulus is not just more of the same Democratic pork. Mid term elections are less than two years away.

I live in Michigan and the taxes on the upper class actually got me fired from my job at a meat packing plant. Between Michigans small business tax and the tax on those making 200k and up my boss lost nearly 60k and had to close down the plant I was working at to cut costs. And that's happening everywhere, the more the government tightens the noose the more we suffer.

Perhaps he could have stayed in business if he'd replaced you with cheaper labor, namely illegal aliens? Meat-packing has been a big draw for undocumented Mexican nations to migrate to the Midwest.

As everyone knows, Uncle Sam doesn't enforce the laws with respect to work authorization. So the scenario you sketched out could just as easily be attributed to "tolerated non-compliance" on the part of the government than "tightening the noose" through higher taxation.

The Democrats better hope their so called stimulus is not just more of the same Democratic pork. Mid term elections are less than two years away.

What? Are you hoping that enough of us American voters and taxpayers will go full retard and forget which party it was that mismanaged us into this mess?

I will make a prediction: If the stimulus works and this economy starts to turn around over the next year, Republicans -- those that are left -- will give credit to the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

The Republican plan of attack is always so easy: Fire an arrow and, no matter where it lands or who it hits, paint a bulls-eye around it. If it really causes some damage, try painting the arrow blue.

The Republican plan of attack is always so easy: Fire an arrow and, no matter where it lands or who it hits, paint a bulls-eye around it. If it really causes some damage, try painting the arrow blue

A page taken right out of the Democrat's playbook.

yabits at 05:39 AM JST - 24th February The Republican plan of attack is always so easy: Fire an arrow and, no matter where it lands or who it hits, paint a bulls-eye around it. If it really causes some damage, try painting the arrow blue.

Well said, btw the only people that have forgotten who got us into this mess are far right wingers (the few that remain), the RNC and Fox news.

I wait for them to start blaming Obama for our nations current woes. Or have they already tried to do this?

Obama will be held accountable for what happens under his administration. Republicans will take into account the failings of the previous administrations and both the democratic and republican led congresses something Obama supporters are incapable of doing.

Two points - WWII was a massive government spending project, which by Republican ideology should have bankrupted the USA. It is not evidence that the New Deal was a failure, but it could mean the New Deal was not big enough. And about non-USA taxpayers having no say. Just ask the question. Why did house prices not go up in Japan, a country with an trade surplus, but went way up in the USA, a country with a deficit? Whose money do you think you were blowing?

Two points - WWII was a massive government spending project, which by Republican ideology should have bankrupted the USA. It is not evidence that the New Deal was a failure, but it could mean the New Deal was not big enough. And about non-USA taxpayers having no say. Just ask the question. Why did house prices not go up in Japan, a country with an trade surplus, but went way up in the USA, a country with a deficit? Whose money do you think you were blowing?

perfect example of throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks ehh yabits.

I don't know whether to pity those who elected to take bits out of my message and analyze them incorrectly or to fear those who ignored it all together.

"SushiSake3 at 01:04 AM JST - 24th February TheQuestion - good post, but remember we as pawns can only make 1 move every 3, 4, 5 or 7 years. And the U.S. president is president for 4 years no matter how misguided, ignorant and outright criminal his behavior is."

You missed my point entierly. You're only a pawn as long as you choose to be. Every time you vote, every time you donate to a charity, every time you get out of bed to go to work or school or whatever the heck you do, you influence the way the world works even if that influence is insignificant in conventional scope. The man in Denver fears the man in washington, but what he doesnt know is that the man in washington fears the man in Denver. The only difference is that the man in Washington had the foresight to make the man in Denver feel powerless.

And if you truely feel that you either can't or won't make a stand against something you feel is wrong than perhapse you are the first step in a descent into a much darker world. I pray this isn't true.

"Good_Jorb at 01:58 AM JST - 24th February "Its never been the place of government to regulate the affairs of its citizens. THAT is what made the U.S so successful for so long." It is a shame when the government interferes, imagine where the US economy would have been if slavery was never abolished by the government."

Sorry, I figured that a reasonable person could figure out that I was speaking in terms of economic affairs considering this artical is about economics, silly me. So I will reiterate my message. It has never been the place of government to interfer in the economic, household, personal health, religion, sexual preferance, speech patterns, and etcetera affairs of its citizens. It may, however, intervene when inaction will irrifutably cause harm to the people it is sworn to protect, that is its soul reason for existance, not to insure, not to make loans, not to coddle the masses, but to protect. Nothing more, nothing less.

yabits, you do realize that the 50's and 60's were based on capitalism right?

VOR - "I love all the support Obama gets from non US taxpayers. Of course they support Obama, none of them pay US taxes so they could care less about how much any of this is going to cost."

Like I said earlier, taxpayers here in Japan, and of course China are bankrolling America. We fund the bailout, we provide money that oil companies your friends and relatives work in.

Thinking we don't have a voice is beyond idiotic.

VOR: "I love all the support Obama gets from non US taxpayers. Of course they support Obama, none of them pay US taxes so they could care less about how much any of this is going to cost. Forutunately it only takes one US taxpayer to drown out the voices from the peanut gallery."

Once again, VOR, you are allowed to have and express an opinion regardless of whose taxes you pay. What's more, it's pretty clear if your posts are an indicator, that non-US tax payers know more about the US tax system and have better input than those that pay, making your claims non-payers should have no say turn on its head.

Finally, if what you say is true in the part I quoted, why would it matter if, say, McCain had won instead of Obama? We can vote for neither, true? You say, "none of them pay US taxes so they could care less about how much any of this is going to cost," so why so much support for Obama instead of, say Ralph Nader or John McCain? The truth is you defeat all your own arguments, and usually within the same post. It's funny (and wrong) that you point out none of us care, and yet there's still overwhelming and unquestionable support for Obama.

smithinjapan - I think VOR is just terrified that most non-Americans know more about what's wrong - and how to fix - the U.S. financial system than he does.

"Most non-Americans know more about what's wrong - and how to fix - the U.S. financial system"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Thanks for the knee slapper, Sushi!

Sarge - care to prove me wrong?

Go for it.

sushi: sarge is scared of the exact same thing... funny thing is, every time he posts he PROVES we are right. Look at his answer: "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Anyway, I stand behind what I said to VOR: everyone has the right to post an opinion, since that is the nature of this site, and no opinion is more 'valid' to the thread than any other. It's not a vote, after all. As to who knows more about what, it is often the case that the players in the field are too close to the action to see what's really going on -- and those on the bleachers have a better overall view.

Betzee

Nice to see you.

As for, Republicans.

"I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely."

8 billion dollars for a mag-lev train running from DisneyLand to Vegas?

Does anybody with a brain in their head actually believe that with all the environmental - ists on the W Coast that this train is going to be built. This is monetary relief to lawyers on both sides of the issue in Nevada, but united as cronies behind Harry Reid.

300 million for environmentally friendly golf carts.

$1.2 billion for "youth activities" (for "youth" up to 24 years old).

Insane.

This spending is insane.