• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Every decision we make has lots of baggage with it, known or unknown.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? (hint, door #2)

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

People identifying as christian while ignoring christ and his teachings is a strange thing indeed.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

Oh FFS you might as well trust a 6-year-old with a flamethrower.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

I’m more christian than these people and i’m an atheist.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

Those who are easily outraged are easily manipulated.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Screw ’em

Screw ’em

by DougJ|  February 2, 20091:34 pm| 140 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

This is why Nancy Pelosi is the only Congressional leader I like. Here’s a discussion of her attitude towards House Republican opposition to the stimulus package:

“I think the take-away here is ‘screw ’em,’” half-joked a House Democratic aide.

“Remember, you have a speaker who has dealt with that for a couple years. She dealt with it as minority leader, she dealt with it as speaker [under President George W. Bush],” another staffer close to Pelosi said.

“What she realized with Obama coming in was that, yeah, we can go through this dance, but at the end of the day, this was going to be a tutorial for the Obama folks,” the person added. “They’re all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night.”

I think that Obama is smart to jerk off the Villagers with all this bullshit about bipartisanship. And in the Senate, there are Republicans who will cross over to vote with Democrats (and break filibusters). But, honestly, who gives a fuck what Michelle Bachman and Jack Kingston and Tom Tancredo think about anything? Screw ’em is right.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « These Guys Kill Me
Next Post: How Did I Get On All These Email Lists »

Reader Interactions

140Comments

  1. 1.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    February 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Screw ‘em is right.

    Sounds good to me. Telling somebody to screw off is always right up there on my top three list of strategies.

    Okay, it’s in the top two.

    SHUT UP it’s my first choice. Why not? Legislation is about playing hardball in public and cake and ice cream afterward. The whole thing operates on theatrics.

    Fuck the Republicans very much. There is no way they will turn the Bushconomy into a plus for themselves.

  2. 2.

    4tehlulz

    February 2, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    >>I think that Obama is smart to jerk off the Villagers

    No comment really. I just didn’t want to be the only one with this horrifying image in my head. Fuck you DougJ.

  3. 3.

    TR

    February 2, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    If anything, a smart strategy would be to tweak the true nutjobs in the House like Eric Cantor and Patrick McHenry, and make them go insane. When these people throw tantrums — like Gingrich in his shutdown years — it is ugly and turns all but the diehards away from the Republican Party.

    Don’t just screw ’em. Egg ’em on.

  4. 4.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    If Pelosi really thinks this is a tutorial for Obama, she’s deluded. This is theater for the press corps. Obama knew it going in, and he made all the right moves–look bipartisan and willing to compromise, then make the Republicans screw you publicly. Now Pelosi can say "Screw ’em" without catching the huge political fallout in the media that Dems traditionally get when not caving to Republican demands.

  5. 5.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Frankly I would like to see less spending on new programs that have little to do with immediate stimulus and more money toward home mortgages and lower/middle class tax cuts. If Obama can cut this deal its FTW.

  6. 6.

    Balconesfault

    February 2, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    Feh on lower/middle class tax cuts. If government is going to spend huge dollars – and tax cuts should be viewed as government spending when you’re running big deficits – I want to make sure it’s getting spent in the right places. I have no real interest in tax cuts paying for purchases of 52" plasma TVs imported from China, for example.

  7. 7.

    jharp

    February 2, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    "But, honestly, who gives a fuck what Michelle Bachman and Jack Kingston and Tom Tancredo think about anything? Screw ‘em is right."

    And Mike Pence too.

  8. 8.

    sgwhiteinfla

    February 2, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Robert Gibbs just shook up the foundations and said the House Bill was a good bill that fulfilled all of President Obama’s criteria. I will bet you most of the Village is about to have a stroke right now.

  9. 9.

    TheFountainHead

    February 2, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    I think that Obama is smart to jerk off the Villagers

    No Quarter Headline in 5..4…3…2..

  10. 10.

    sgwhiteinfla

    February 2, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    I want to make sure it’s getting spent in the right places. I have no real interest in tax cuts paying for purchases of 52" plasma TVs imported from China, for example.

    Excepting for a moment that you think thats where money targeted to go to lower and middle class incomes will go, you SHOULD have an interest in them going to by a TV or a stereo or any other kind of goods or services because thats what our economy needs, an influx of cash. If buy buying that Tee Vee the consumer adds to a businesses bottom line then its likely that business won’t have to cut jobs or shut down. See Circuit City.

  11. 11.

    AnneLaurie

    February 2, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Of course the use of a vile, coarse vulgarism like ‘screw’ is going to cause an epidemic of pearl-clutching among the Republican bloggers… assuming they can take the time away from swapping obscene innuendos about Michelle Obama. Not to mention DougJ’s reprehensible description of our precious Fourth Estate, although it’s hard to avoid the word ‘jerk’ whenever Bobo Brook’s name comes up.

  12. 12.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Frankly I would like to see less spending on new programs that have little to do with immediate stimulus and more money toward home mortgages and lower/middle class tax cuts.

    My understanding is that government spending stimulates more per buck than tax cuts. That said, I’m generally for any kind of relief for the working poor.

  13. 13.

    ibid

    February 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Tancredo isn’t in Congress any more, which means you should care even less about what he thinks about anything. There are still at least 150 other names that you could use in his place while remaining faithful to the original sentiment, even if they aren’t as iconic as Tancredo.

  14. 14.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Hmmmm, renditions seem to be acceptable to the Obama administration.

    Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

    Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism — aside from Predator missile strikes — for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

    Didn’t Human Rights Watch condemn this program. I mean before. Not now.

    “Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “What I heard loud and clear from the president’s order was that they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured — but that designing that system is going to take some time.”

    This is unacceptable, in my opinion

  15. 15.

    Paul L.

    February 2, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    So she is a hypocrite who will spout any BS to get her way.

    "When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America," Pelosi said in an interview. "We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard."

    To quote Cheney "Go screw yourself" Nancy.

  16. 16.

    BDeevDad

    February 2, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    The GOS had a great take down from Barney Frank (another congressman with a good take on the Republicans).

    The largest spending bill in history is going to turn out to be the one in Iraq.

  17. 17.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    @DougJ: Hey, I’m all for the spending on education and infrastructure, but not all government spending is equally stimulating, especially if its just growing bureaucracy, and a lot of pork has been identified in the House bill (IMO). And I don’t see the tax cuts as necessarily "stimulating" but more as relief for the folks feeling the squeeze.
    I don’t want anyone "caving" to the Losers, but if some aid to those feeling the most pain right now is what it takes to define it as "bipartisan", then I say let’s party.

  18. 18.

    Maus

    February 2, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    This is why Nancy Pelosi is the only Congressional leader I like.

    Aside from all that complicity.

    “They’re all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night.”

    This however is the absolute truth. No honor to the American people, but absolute loyalty to a fellow congressperson.

  19. 19.

    Martin

    February 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Excepting for a moment that you think thats where money targeted to go to lower and middle class incomes will go, you SHOULD have an interest in them going to by a TV or a stereo or any other kind of goods or services because thats what our economy needs, an influx of cash. If buy buying that Tee Vee the consumer adds to a businesses bottom line then its likely that business won’t have to cut jobs or shut down. See Circuit City.

    Except that only a small fraction of the TV price goes to *our* economy.

    We really, really need to stop the thinking that consumer goods == economy. It’s just not true. Stimulus should go into those things that are national investments – energy, infrastructure, research, arts, education.

  20. 20.

    sgwhiteinfla

    February 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Michael D

    That LA Times report has been debunked several places on the web even by people who are staunchly anti war and anti torture. Notice that the bulk of information comes from "unnamed" CIA sources. See Sullivan, Hilzoy, you already found HRW, the ACLU, etc.

    The crux of it is the executive order that President Obama already signed commands that all international treaties and conventions be honored. Extraordinary rendition ie rendering someone to a country to likely be tortured is expressly forbidden in the Conventions on Torture signed by Ronald Reagan. Now the term rendition encompasses quite a range of situations including extradition. There is no there, there in the LA Times piece.

  21. 21.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    @Michael D.: What about oversight? I mean if this is just another mechanism for arrest and detention, and we follow the Constitution, then I don’t see the problem. Of course "follow the Constitution" is the part requiring the oversight and frankly I’m not optimistic.

  22. 22.

    Balconesfault

    February 2, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    @Michael D.:
    Ahh – the problem here is that "extraordinary renditions" is a subset of "renditions".

    Renditions can and should take place under existing legal strictures. We want our intelligence community to be able to get their hands on the bad guys. We just don’t want them blowing off national sovereignty and international law after they’ve apprehended the bad guy.

  23. 23.

    SGEW

    February 2, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Hmmmm, renditions seem to be acceptable to the Obama administration.

    Before you freak, read Hilzoy’s analysis of the LATimes article you linked to.

    Also:

    "That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

    -Vice President Albert Gore, 1993

    [As quoted in “The Long War” by Benjamin Wittes]

  24. 24.

    sgwhiteinfla

    February 2, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Except that only a small fraction of the TV price goes to our economy.
    We really, really need to stop the thinking that consumer goods == economy. It’s just not true. Stimulus should go into those things that are national investments – energy, infrastructure, research, arts, education.

    I agree about extra funding for infrastructure et all but you are missing the point about consumer good = a good economy. Its not just whatever item you buy that helps the economy, its also the fact that you are buying it will help keep whatever business you bought it from financially viable. That in turn helps stem the job losses, which in turn helps stem the foreclosures. It all is interrelated and thats why it makes sense to include both.

  25. 25.

    TheFountainHead

    February 2, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Aside from all that complicity.

    Exactly. Pelosi and Reid and a handful of other Democrats can take a flying leap off the capitol building.

  26. 26.

    Face

    February 2, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    At least 1 Republican on record of demanding a filly on this stimulus package. Do they realize they have Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe in their caucus? Are they fucking dumb enuff to believe they’ll vote with the crazies and get hammered for it?

  27. 27.

    Paul L.

    February 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    @Michael D.:
    Wow, I agree with this one,

  28. 28.

    Brian J

    February 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    I honestly believe that Obama is interested in working with the other side and that even if members of his administration are more reluctant, they will because he tells them to do so. If, for instance, they came to the table with some ideas and plans for tax reform, I’m pretty confident he’d be more than willing to work with them, even if he had to make major concessions. I wonder, of course, how many concessions he’d have to make, since he’s far more moderate than the stereotypes suggest–he’s suggested he’s very much in favor of corporate tax reform that lowers the rate, broadens the base, and ends loopholes, for example–but the point stands.

    That said, since the Republicans simply offer a new angle at which they can pull their legs behind their head and let corporations and the wealthy mine them for tax cuts each time no matter what the question is, there’s bound to be less progress than if the Republicans were serious about offering alternatives to what the Democrats might propose. And since much of the press seems to think that a compromise involves giving the Republicans everything they want, no matter what, I’m not sure what he can do to please them without being a total doormat. But fuck both the media and the Republicans. He and his allies in congress won a resounding victory in two straight elections. If nothing else, that entitles them to fight the game on their terms.

  29. 29.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    I don’t want anyone “caving” to the Losers, but if some aid to those feeling the most pain right now is what it takes to define it as “bipartisan”, then I say let’s party.

    Republicans are the ones who don’t want any money going to anyone who pays payroll but not income tax. And they’re the ones who need it most.

  30. 30.

    Josh Hueco

    February 2, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Dammit Paul, this day was turning out to be so beautiful and troll free but then you had to repuncture your Fountainhead Edition(tm) Ann Coulter playmate doll, and out of pique come over here and start throwing your feces around.

  31. 31.

    Martin

    February 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    This is unacceptable, in my opinion

    It depends on how it is handled. If you’re picking someone up from Pakistan who coordinated the Mumbai attack and delivering them to India, and it is made known that they were delivered to India (and that they didn’t just fall off the planet) then I think that is a tolerable situation.

    But its something worth keeping an eye on – I too would have preferred the practice end altogether.

  32. 32.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    -Vice President Albert Gore, 1993

    But it’s cold here today, which proves algore is wrong about global warming, so why should I believe him about this either?

  33. 33.

    Lola

    February 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    I have a hard time believing the Obama team is as naive as some liberal bloggers want to believe. I think if the Republicans in the Senate who for some reason seem emboldened push it too far and try to filibuster, President Obama will be thrilled. We have ample evidence of him reaching out to the House and with his popularity the anger will go against the obstructionists.

    I did, however, write and speak to Sen. Ben Nelson’s office to complain about his use of right wing talking points. His staff person even said he was upset about the program "to hand out condoms." I told her that after eight years of Bush democrats from all over the country are going to be pissed at Democratic leaders if they don’t support President Obama.

  34. 34.

    SGEW

    February 2, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Paul L. said:

    "@Michael D.:
    Wow, I agree with this one,"

    That’s a warning sign if I ever saw one.

    @DougJ: You forgot to mention that Al Gore is fat, as is Michael Moore, so therefore global warming is fake and the internet was invented by Ronald Reagan. Also.

  35. 35.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    @sgwhiteinfla: All of you. Thanks. I just stumbled on this just now and have not read the debunkings.

    THANKS for the links! I was hoping I was wrong. Sorry. At work and not much time to look around!

  36. 36.

    Napoleon

    February 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    @Michael D.:

    There is more to the story then just that.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016703.php

    I personally have no problems with renditions under those circumstances.

  37. 37.

    JenJen

    February 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    @Michael D.:

    re: Rendition

    Digby has a good post up about that LA Times article… and comes to the conclusion (citing Harpers) that both she and the LA Times got punked.

    Edit: I see others have already pointed out similar debunkings. Sorry for the redundancy!

  38. 38.

    SGEW

    February 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Mind you: even though Bush’s "extraordinary rendition" has very little relation to "rendition" as was practiced by President Clinton, it is still a very debatable issue (politically, diplomatically, and legally). So it’s not an either/or proposition (i.e., just because Clinton did it does not, naturally, mean that it’s a supportable position).

    Here’s hoping Lederman keeps him straight.

  39. 39.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    @DougJ: So far, but if I heard right, McCain and some other Senators are going to propose just this thing, even cutting payroll taxes for lower brackets.

  40. 40.

    Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)

    February 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    @Michael D.:

    Hmmmm, renditions seem to be acceptable to the Obama administration.

    Plz make sure that you have your facts straight, and that you understand the difference between "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition". The man has been president for 13 days. Maybe we should give it a month before we start with the "Gaaaaaah! It’s BushCo Term III" crap.

    Update: I see that this has been well covered above.

  41. 41.

    Balconesfault

    February 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    McCain and some other Senators are going to propose just this thing, even cutting payroll taxes for lower brackets.

    What? Obama is going to have to deal with Republican Senators forcing him to do what he promised to do during the general election – cut payroll taxes for lower brackets?

    Man, he’s just having circles run around him, tactically. Next I’m looking forward to them forcing him to set up a system where the uninsured can buy into Medicare coverage…

  42. 42.

    Jess

    February 2, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    I agree about extra funding for infrastructure et all but you are missing the point about consumer good = a good economy. Its not just whatever item you buy that helps the economy, its also the fact that you are buying it will help keep whatever business you bought it from financially viable.

    But there’s also the little problem that we’re consuming more than we’re producing, which is one of the reasons why we no longer have a working class that can afford to buy homes. We need to think about long term economic stability, not just buy more useless stuff.

    (that is, consuming stuff made overseas rather than here)

  43. 43.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    So far, but if I heard right, McCain and some other Senators are going to propose just this thing, even cutting payroll taxes for lower brackets.

    Good, I’m for that.

  44. 44.

    Balconesfault

    February 2, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    @Jess:

    But there’s also the little problem that we’re consuming more than we’re producing

    Yep – just because the economic model of the last umpteen years involved people buying lots of stuff from big box stores – it doesn’t mean that we need every big box store that’s out there. Sure those are jobs, but they’re not the jobs that make us more competitive on a global basis.

    I read somewhere recently (a Harpers index, perhaps) the order of magnitude or more shrinkage in the number of TV repairmen in America. Thanks to easy credit and globalist trade policies, everyone accepted the premise that it’s cheaper to toss the old TV aside when it has a problem and buy a new one. Going forward, if we’re not going to have an economy that’s making TVs (Zenith closing their doors about 10 years ago ended that, right?), we should at least have an economy where fixing TVs is promoted more than selling TVs.

  45. 45.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    @Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon):

    The man has been president for 13 days. Maybe we should give it a month before we start with the “Gaaaaaah! It’s BushCo Term III” crap.

    Can you please show me where I said anything of the sort? I think that I said nothing more than “This is unacceptable, in my opinion.”

    I didn’t get outraged. I didn’t call for the burning of Obama in effigy or anything like that. It’s since been shown to me that this has been explained and debunked. I thanked the commenters for providing me links. So don’t infer anything from my comment about this being nothing more than Bush III. Talk about crap.

    And, just so you know, if Obama does something I find to be unacceptable or outrageous, I don’t care if he’s in office 13 days or 7.9 years. I’m going to say something. I won’t be to Obama what right-wingers were/are to Bush.

    If you wanna be, go the fuck ahead! You’ll be just as bad as the assholes you hate on the other side.

  46. 46.

    benjoya

    February 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    @bootlegger: a lot of pork has been identified in the House bill (IMO).

    " a lot," as in "less than two percent"?

  47. 47.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    @benjoya: Two percent is about 20 BILLION.

  48. 48.

    Jess

    February 2, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    @Michael D.: Hence the words "less than."

  49. 49.

    Ash Can

    February 2, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    “They’re all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night.”

    Now I’m envisioning McConnell, Cantor, and other such lovelies being invited to a nice cocktail reception in the midst of some huge partisan battle over a big bill, in the evening of a particularly bad or good day for them — one on which they’d be more likely to actually imbibe, as opposed to doing the usual DC-reception thing of just holding the drink until the ice melts, maybe touching it to the lips once or twice. And lo and behold, someone at the White House has gone through the trouble of finding out what their very favorite beverage is, and there’s plenty on hand. And they’ve hired a generous bartender, too. Lots of jokes, lots of laughs, lots of freewheeling chatter…and eventually the hosts gently steer them over toward a sober-as-a-judge Helen Thomas to continue the conversation.

    OK, yeah, I know. There’s no way even Rahm Emanuel would be that diabolical. …Right?

  50. 50.

    Zifnab

    February 2, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    $1.9 billion for high-level physics research;
    $1.5 billion for universities to improve their biomedical research programs;
    $600 million for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to purchase new satellites to improve weather forecasts;
    $600 million to buy new cars for federal government workers, adding to the existing inventory of 640,000 vehicles; and,
    $335 million for education and prevention programs regarding sexually transmitted diseases.
    Separate criticism has been directed at $75 million for smoking cessation plan.

    I’ll be happy to argue whether these line items have a better time and a place than in the stimulus package. I’ll even be happy to debate whether or not these things count as "stimulus". But the GOP won’t be arguing about that. They’ll be arguing that physics research and investment in weather satellites and buying new cars (when the car market is tanking) and STD prevention programs are a waste of tax payer money.

    I’m exhausted with arguing over bullshit. We’ve got over $800 billion on the table that virtually everyone agrees needs to be spent – be it through unpaid tax cuts to large corporations or increased defense spending or large no-bid contracts to firms hiring foreigners to rebuild a foreign country’s infrastructure – and the nitpicking in attempt to derail the bill is getting embarrassing.

    Are you really going to throw down over $20 billion dollars in science funding, Mike? Is this the deal killer for you? Or do you have a better idea of where the money can be spent and you’re just keeping it a super special secret?

  51. 51.

    Wile E. Quixote

    February 2, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Paul, shouldn’t you be over at one of the Red State circle jerks eating the biscuit? I mean really all you guys can do is whine and cry about mean old Nancy Pelosi. If you guys are such big, tough, manly men they why are you constantly getting bitch-slapped by a San Francisco Democrat? Perhaps it’s because you’re actually a bunch of sniveling little punks. It’s too bad that we have weaklings like Pelosi and Reid as Speaker and Senate Majority Leader. I’d love to see the brutal beating that an effective speaker, such as Sam Rayburn and effective Senate Majority Leader, such as Lyndon Johnson could give to you weaklings.

    The more I listen to Republicans the more I realize that the Republican party is the political party of stupid, cowardly, chickenshit, little fear-crazed pussies. The Republicans are intellectually bankrupt and completely incapable of accepting any responsibility. We had a Republican House, Senate, Executive and a Supreme Court where 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents and not once did you whiny little shits ever accept responsibility for anything. Nope, all you can do is blame liberals, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hollywood, minorities, etc, etc, etc, for America’s failures, all the while your party was in power. Oh, and mindlessly worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan. You guys are even more pathetic, useless and fucked up as a political movement than the Democrats were in the 1980s, if such a thing is possible.

  52. 52.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Are you really going to throw down over $20 billion dollars in science funding, Mike? Is this the deal killer for you?

    Did I say anything about that?

    I just said that approx. $20 Billion, aka “less than 2%” is a helluva lot of money. :-)

  53. 53.

    Svensker

    February 2, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    You guys are even more pathetic, useless and fucked up as a political movement than the Democrats were in the 1980s, if such a thing is possible.

    It’s possible. The Dems weren’t batshit insane.

  54. 54.

    J Royce

    February 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Wile E. Quixote says: "the Republican party is the political party of stupid, cowardly, chickenshit, little fear-crazed pussies … You guys are even more pathetic, useless and fucked up as a political movement than the Democrats were in the 1980s"

    Thanks, that brought a smile to my day. Cat pics just weren’t doing it.

  55. 55.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    @Balconesfault: You don’t need the sarcasm, I see the game Obama’s playing, and winning.

  56. 56.

    Sandra S

    February 2, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    It’s the Dems turn to tell Repugs to f*** off and screw themselves. For an empty party filled with empty people who trashed and bankrupted America, these Republican blowholes have some nerve trying to obstruct a government that was elected by a large majority of voters. In my book, Republicans are traitors to America and Americans. They have a dark-hearted agenda that they have pushed for years playing hardball, screwing us all – it’s time they screw themselves and get out of the way of real leadership.

  57. 57.

    Balconesfault

    February 2, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Sorry. Reflex.

    Although properly, I think the Medicare opt-in provision will be forced on Obama by Republicans who are determined that the uninsured pay to be included in the Medicare system, after the Democratic Congress floats the provision that they be included for free.

    In a perfect world…

  58. 58.

    SaneOne

    February 2, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    Is this the forum for potty mouthed 5th graders??? And you want us to take you seriously? Um…. yeah….

  59. 59.

    Adrienne

    February 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    If you guys are such big, tough, manly men they why are you constantly getting bitch-slapped by a San Francisco, evil, Librul, Botoxed Democrat in heels and lipstick?

    Fixt. &. Pwned.

  60. 60.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    $1.9 billion for high-level physics research;
    $1.5 billion for universities to improve their biomedical research programs;

    Um, dudes…anyone calling this "pork" has a SERIOUS problem with biology–I can see the straight line from these things to freakin’ awesom economic growth.

    Am I surprised that it comes from the biology-challeneged portion of the political spectrum?

  61. 61.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    @Michael D.: "Pork" acts as a stimulus. Do you think physicists take that money, light it on fire, and study how the ashes float? No; they spend it, often on equipment made in the USA (which still has a nice portion of the high-tech equipment industry). AND you get nice science out of it. Ditto weather satellites and car fleet purchases (a de facto small auto industry bailout). STD education and prevention pays PEOPLE to do those things, which equals jobs. Sure, it ain’t digging holes and filling them up, but it’s still stimulus.

  62. 62.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    @benjoya: Depends on how one defines "pork" now doesn’t it?

  63. 63.

    patrick

    February 2, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Feh on lower/middle class tax cuts. If government is going to spend huge dollars – and tax cuts should be viewed as government spending when you’re running big deficits – I want to make sure it’s getting spent in the right places. I have no real interest in tax cuts paying for purchases of 52" plasma TVs imported from China, for example.

    Amen. I personally would rather not get the $1k my family would get and have that $$ spent on spending of some sort that would make it less likely that I’ll be laid off in 4 months. right now the only thing a middle class tax cut will do is reduce personal debt, as people try to get out of a hole in preparation for the worst, which won’t help to stimulate the economy.

    how about the asshat repubs who want to strip out the "buy american" clause in the stimulus. why should we subsidize a stimulus of china, korea, india, canada, mexico, & the EU etc, with out tax dollars?

    personally, the "buy american" clause needs to be extended, as it probably won’t help me (I’m in an engineering service job), since our biggest competitors are the Indian engineering services companies who charge less than my salary. Even if the CAT’s and Deere’s see an uptick in sales from new infrastructure spending, their equipment development is all being offshored to India, which doesn’t do anything to help the large number of engineering professionals out of work from staff reductions in the manufacturing sector.

  64. 64.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Paul L. says: Wah! Why are paybacks such a bitch?

    To be fair, at least Pelosi took them out to dinner before screwing the House GOP. And she used lube.

  65. 65.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    why should we subsidize a stimulus of china, korea, india, canada, mexico, & the EU etc, with out tax dollars?

    Because the WTO will screw us raw if we don’t.

    Our trade partners are very unhappy with that clause.

    It smacks of old fashioned protectionism and has the potential to hurt us in the long run.

  66. 66.

    The Moar You Know

    February 2, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    @Wile E. Quixote: Paul’s way too busy trying to excuse the actions of the Duke Lacrosse team (you remember, the ones who were guilty of raping a stripper, but who got off on a technicality) to care about spending time over at Red State.

  67. 67.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Going forward, if we’re not going to have an economy that’s making TVs (Zenith closing their doors about 10 years ago ended that, right?), we should at least have an economy where fixing TVs is promoted more than selling TVs.

    That’s where people who argue that every other goal of the Obama administration needs to be separated from stimulus. It’s all connected. Part of our huge problem is trade deficit–we buy more goods from overseas than we sell. So how can we fix that?
    Stop buying so many overseas goods (such as, say, oil)–energy research, which also adds jobs and spending to the US economy AND potentially develops multiple products with high overseas demand.
    Make our goods and services here more price competitive overseas–nationalized health care.
    Cranking money into the economy under the current model of consumption seems to maybe be good short-term, but just exacerbates the problem long-term. We have to get out of the debt-consumption mode and into a production mode for long-term economic planning.
    Short term, why not just declare a tax holiday on all domestically produced goods and services? At least then those dollars "spent" are most likely to go where they create not only retail jobs, but manufacturing/service jobs.

  68. 68.

    The Moar You Know

    February 2, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    And you want us to take you seriously?

    @SaneOne: Doesn’t matter if you do or not. We won.

  69. 69.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    @Shygetz: Big difference between buying shit, which multiplies the effect, and lavishing more on bureaucracy. I doubt what I call "pork" is even what Boner and the House R’s are calling pork. My only point is that direct spending is preferable to building new government bureaucracies that will need funding further into the future when we will need to be paying down the debt on the money we just borrowed. Direct spending and some relief for hurtin’ families, that’s it IMO.

  70. 70.

    anonevent

    February 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    Here’s the graph showing the best way to invest:

    All of the lines where each dollar spent turns into more than a dollar in the economy are those that give money to people that have to buy basic items, mainly food. The value of the dollar starts to taper off the more likely the person is to save the money, which is why tax cuts for the wealthy have almost no effect.

  71. 71.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    @Bootlegger: Which bureaucracies are you referring to? The "pork" list I saw was heavy with research and capital equipment. I didn’t see any sprawling bureaucracies like a new Department of Hope and Change.

  72. 72.

    Steaming Pile

    February 2, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    @sgwhiteinfla: You’re right, you know. A highway or a bridge or a railway is something that was actually made in America by Americans. A 52" plasma TV is something made offshore, and other than giving the clerk at Wal-Mart where it was purchased something to do for about fifteen minutes, I don’t think it did all that much for the economy at all.

    Now, paying down credit cards, which is what a lot of people did with the last "stimulus" check, has a longer-term benefit, but that’s not what we’re after, is it? Right now, we need to stop the bleeding; we’ll take care of that ingrown toenail later when we get the patient out of the emergency room.

  73. 73.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    @SaneOne: No, we don’t expect you to take us seriously. We don’t even take ourselves seriously.

    Perfect grammar? Check. Clever repartee? Check. Factual accuracy? Fuck yeah!

    Seriouslyness? Du-ude. What do you think this is? A right-wing blog? We can haz LOL-speak. More than that? Do. Not. Want.

  74. 74.

    EriktheRed

    February 2, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    @SaneOne:

    Who’s "us"?

    If you mean conservative GOPers, then the answer is, "we don’t care".

  75. 75.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    @Shygetz: Who do you think is going to oversee these invested dollars? When you say we’re going to invest X-billion in "energy" for example, and you promise that every penny will be accounted for, well you have to pay somebody to decide who gets the money (and they will have to fend off lobbyists by the score) and to keep track of it. For example, 1.1 billion for a new agency called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

    Now, before you turn me into a straw man and knock me down, I’m actually all for investing more money in effective research, but it should be debated separately and not loaded onto a runaway train and called a "stimulus".

  76. 76.

    patrick

    February 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    I agree about extra funding for infrastructure et all but you are missing the point about consumer good = a good economy. Its not just whatever item you buy that helps the economy, its also the fact that you are buying it will help keep whatever business you bought it from financially viable. That in turn helps stem the job losses, which in turn helps stem the foreclosures. It all is interrelated and thats why it makes sense to include both.

    but you’re missing the point that a dollar spent on something not manufactured here (say, a chinese TV, or on some service like a massage, or detailing your car) has less than 1/3 the economic stimulus effect compared to buying a product actually designed, engineered, and manufactured here in the USA.

  77. 77.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    @Michael D.: Um. The "identified pork" is bounded above at approx $2G, Michael. I’ll be generous, and say that could be doubled — that’s 0.5%, dude.

    Let me give you some complementary figures, just for scale. The F-22 Raptor program has cost $65G so far. The JSF program is projected to cost $256G, provided no other expenses accure to it. By comparison to those, this is not an issue at all.

    Sorry, Glibertarian-boy. Your numbers just don’t work.

  78. 78.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    When you say we’re going to invest X-billion in "energy" for example, and you promise that every penny will be accounted for, well you have to pay somebody to decide who gets the money (and they will have to fend off lobbyists by the score) and to keep track of it.

    Now if only we had a department for such things. You know, one that had experience with disbursing money for extramural programs. That sure would be nice.

  79. 79.

    Xecky Gilchrist

    February 2, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    This is why Nancy Pelosi is the only Congressional leader I like.

    That’s a goodie, but there are a few things not to like…

    Has she put impeachment back on the table yet?

  80. 80.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    @Shygetz: No shit sherlock, it would be nice if this bill had us use existing bureaucracy. But it doesn’t. Moreover, the current bureaucracies you cite are already lousy with "burrowed" politicians and cozy with lobbyists. It will take time to reform them. In the meantime it would be George Bush-stupid to send good money after bad.

  81. 81.

    patrick

    February 2, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Because the WTO will screw us raw if we don’t.
    Our trade partners are very unhappy with that clause.
    It smacks of old fashioned protectionism and has the potential to hurt us in the long run.

    Since when has the US been subservient to a global governing body?

    The horrible trade agreements we are in are part of the problem, as they’ve atrophied our manufacturing sector, which is where real wealth is created. They started the race to the bottom with large corporations looking to maximize profits by exploiting third world countries and their lax envronmental and worker safety standards at the expense of loyal employees here in the US. Look back in history at Henry Ford’s model. He paid his workers enough to purchase his goods, which allowed FMC to dominate the early automobile industry in the US. The long term solution to this mess is to increase wages in the country, and redistribute the income breakdown to the point where the top 1% of income earners aren’t collecting 20% of the total income, like it is now.

    I’d be fine with giving a big middle finger to the WTO, and yes, it might be a painful shock, but long term, having a viable, thriving manufacturing sector is necessary for the health of our economy and for our national security.

  82. 82.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    No shit sherlock, it would be nice if this bill had us use existing bureaucracy. But it doesn’t. Moreover, the current bureaucracies you cite are already lousy with "burrowed" politicians and cozy with lobbyists.

    Biomed isn’t that burrowed. And I doubt high energy is that burrowed. The top admins might be, but the rank and file most certainly aren’t. And it’ll be pretty damn easy to figure out who’s walking the walk and who’s a figurehead Bush-ite.

  83. 83.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    No shit sherlock, it would be nice if this bill had us use existing bureaucracy. But it doesn’t.

    Oh, really? So the bill creates new bureaucracies to disburse the money? Link, please.

    Moreover, the current bureaucracies you cite are already lousy with "burrowed" politicians and cozy with lobbyists. It will take time to reform them.

    The DOE runs extramural research systems on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis. Non-research funds would be disbursed according to DOE regs, which are byzantine but generally require bidding. If you claim there are "no-bid" clauses in the "pork", or specific earmarks to specific researchers, please link. I have heard no such thing.

    As someone who makes his living primarily off of competitive extramural funding, allow me to assure you that, while there is favoritism, it is towards established researchers who already have a ton of money because they do good work. And, as someone who used to be involved with Departmental spending in both DHHS and DOE, let me assure you that both of these agencies have considerable rules in place to protect the taxpaying consumer for bidded jobs, including opportunities for losing bids to challenge the fairness of the award in court.

  84. 84.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    And, as someone who used to be involved with Departmental spending in both DHHS and DOE, let me assure you that both of these agencies have considerable rules in place to protect the taxpaying consumer for bidded jobs, including opportunities for losing bids to challenge the fairness of the award in court.

    Um, remind me. Who got muzzled in the Bush Administration? And who didn’t?

    I DON’T think burrowing is going to be a problem in the more science-heavy areas. Republican War on Science> anybody?

  85. 85.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Crap. Sorry. Dupe.

    My point is that I think the science oriented departments are not going to have the problem with burrowing as with other areas. They got screwed over pretty badly over the past eight years and I don’t think it’ll be that hard to figure out who’s BSing and who is being righteous.

  86. 86.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Since when has the US been subservient to a global governing body?

    Since we joined the WTO, that’s when.

    I can’t begin to count how many rules and laws were skirted or overturned by them because it hurt "trade".

    I’d be fine with giving a big middle finger to the WTO, and yes, it might be a painful shock, but long term, having a viable, thriving manufacturing sector is necessary for the health of our economy and for our national security.

    Unfortunately, one of the penalties of that would be very big tariffs on US products by all other WTO members.

    So yeah, damned if we do. Damned if we don’t.

  87. 87.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    I DON’T think burrowing is going to be a problem in the more science-heavy areas.

    You think…Wrongly.

    Remember, the Bushies stuck true believers in the science heavy areas. Health, Environment, Education..etc.

    They must be cleansed with fire. It’s the only way to be sure.

  88. 88.

    The Silent Fiddle of Nero

    February 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    We really, really need to stop the thinking that consumer goods == economy. It’s just not true. Stimulus should go into those things that are national investments – energy, infrastructure, research, arts, education.

    Actually, spending money does stimulate the economy, but the larger the enterprise you give money to, the more chance it ends up stagnant in some large firm’s over large bank account. Spend money at Mom and Pops and then Mom and Pops have money to spend elsewhere. The smaller the pockets who receive your money, the better chance that money floats around to help others.

  89. 89.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    @Shygetz:

    Oh, really? So the bill creates new bureaucracies to disburse the money? Link, please.

    Lazy.

  90. 90.

    Svensker

    February 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    @SaneOne:

    By "us" I presume you mean right wingers?

    You guys have such a problem with saying words like "fuck". But initiate an unprovoked war? No problem! Bomb the crap out of people who did nothing to you? No problem! Throw people in prison, throw away the key, then torture the crap out of them? No problem! Say "fuck"? OMG, the incivility of it all!!

    Your opinion means so much.

  91. 91.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Unfortunately, one of the penalties of that would be very big tariffs on US products by all other WTO members.

    I hate to say it, but in the case of a trade deficit as harsh as our current one, even after a round of horribly punitive tariffs on all sides, our trade deficit would still improve.

  92. 92.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    @Shygetz:

    As someone who makes his living primarily off of competitive extramural funding, allow me to assure you that, while there is favoritism, it is towards established researchers who already have a ton of money because they do good work.

    And when was the last time someone dumped billions into that funding pot?

  93. 93.

    MikeJ

    February 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    IIRC, WTO has allowances for government purchases being locally sourced. i.e., it ain’t necessarily illegal just because somebody on tv says it is.

  94. 94.

    [delurk]...[/delurk]

    February 2, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    @Balconesfault:

    (Zenith closing their doors about 10 years ago ended that, right?)

    Actually, Zenith stopped manufacturing TVs in the US 40 years ago, and they were the last holdouts.

    Lately, there’s at least one brand assembled in the US (from commodity parts, of course): Olevia.

    I don’t know if they’re any good; I’ve never seen one in a store. You can buy them on some of the home-shopping networks, however.

  95. 95.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    @Bootlegger: Um..every year. (And that ignores the influx through DARPA, DOE, and NASA, which are also very significant.)

  96. 96.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    @Bootlegger:
    But the linked article cited this as an example:

    So the stimulus also devotes $1.1 billion to create a new bureaucracy called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

    IMHO the authors of the linked editorial—at the WJS–are not worried about new bureaucracies. They’re (as representatives of the business sector) worried about the government not paying money for drugs and medical care that’s ineffective.

  97. 97.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    @TenguPhule: This is not an either/or situation.

    But I don’t think the scientists are going to sit still for crap from holdovers from the past eight years.

  98. 98.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    @TenguPhule:

    They must be cleansed with fire. It’s the only way to be sure.

    I totally agree.

    However, I’d guess that the size of the problem is much worse at DOJ, where hiring of career lawyers was politicized.

    The number of politicals in science agencies who burrowed in is probably much smaller. Though I agree that they oughta be drummed out, too.

  99. 99.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    The number of politicals in science agencies who burrowed in is probably much smaller. Though I agree that they oughta be drummed out, too.

    Bet they’re easier to find, too, in the sciences.

  100. 100.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    @Bootlegger: Are you talking about the Comparative Effectiveness Research "bureaucracy"? What, pray tell, does that have to do with energy research, which was the original target of your screed?

    Regardless, that’s a new council of 15 people…hardly a bureaucracy. The funding is for existing systems within AHRQ to look into CER. The Council will take the findings and make recommendations to the President and Congress.

    But, if you’re lazy enough to take WSJ op-ed pages as fact, then I see how you could have been misled.

  101. 101.

    Ash Can

    February 2, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    And you want us to take you seriously?

    You took a wrong turn at Google. Daily Kos is that way.

  102. 102.

    djork

    February 2, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Part of our huge problem is trade deficit—we buy more goods from overseas than we sell. So how can we fix that?

    If the dollar is the reserve currency of most of the world, don’t we technically have to run trade deficits?

  103. 103.

    Shygetz

    February 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    @Bootlegger: Clinton. Doubled the NIH budget over 5 years. The result was a huge boom in research and education, and actually LESS favoritism in the disbursement process; projects by young researchers had a much better chance to get funded because the payline was lower. The current payline is so high that it’s hard for new researchers to break into the good-ole-boy’s club of established researchers whose reputations color their proposals.

  104. 104.

    MikeJ

    February 2, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    If you spend money with no oversight it’s a boondoggle. If you spend money with oversight it’s creating a huge bureaucracy.

    If you spend money by asking Lockmart to deliver some airplanes we don’t need twenty years from now you’re keeping America strong.

  105. 105.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    … and more money toward home mortgages …

    After the complete calamity of the housing bubble, why on earth would anyone want to dump $$ into a vain effort to reinflate the bubble?

  106. 106.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    @liberal: I didn’t say "they" were, I said that "I" am worried about it. Despite what demi claims, money like this has never dumped into any of our existing bureaucracies before and the current bill calls for spending a significant portion of it on new bureaucracy, in large part just to oversee the money being spent.

    Again, I’m not opposed to oversight, its a great idea. So is investing money in research. But this bill is suppose to be out stimulating the economy NOW, not a vehicle for everyone’s wet-dream government spending. Research, investment in the future, should be debated separately IMO.

    You’ll notice the WSJ also cites the number of lobbyists already clamoring at the gates. Hell, the guy who produces Girls Gone Wild wants a piece of it.

    I say, again, give it to existing bureaucracies like the states, or unemployment and Medicaid for laid off workers. Give back payroll and income taxes to low-wage workers. Build and outfit some schools. Spend $1,000,000,000,000 if that’s what it takes, but we can’t spend it on more fucking bureaucracy right now. Now is not the time to spend our kids’ money on our favorite pet projects without some more oversight and deliberation.

  107. 107.

    Blue Raven

    February 2, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    Paul’s way too busy trying to excuse the actions of the Duke Lacrosse team (you remember, the ones who were guilty of raping a stripper, but who got off on a technicality) to care about spending time over at Red State.

    Far be it for me to defend a troll under the usual circumstances, but there is a wide difference between "getting off on a technicality" and "found not guilty due to a lack of evidence." There were no incriminating DNA samples on the stripper’s body. Also, her story kept changing in ways inconsistent with a victim but consistent with a liar. No DNA, no clear story, no rape. Thank you, please drive through. (Note: This is being noted by a woman who thinks Mike Tyson didn’t stay in prison long enough.)

  108. 108.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    @Shygetz: Hey asshat, I wasn’t critiquing investment in energy. Read my post above where I specifically say that. Idiot.

  109. 109.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    @Shygetz: Once more for the slow-witted, I’m not opposed to spending money on research. Just not as a "stimulus".

  110. 110.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    @djork:
    IIRC Buffett has a reasonable plan to limit imports.

    Of course, I don’t see how the hell we can really make up for all that petroleum we’re purchasing.

  111. 111.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    @liberal: I dunno, avoid foreclosures, lower house payments, reduce the toxic assets we’ve already purchased. Need more?

  112. 112.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    Despite what demi claims, money like this has never dumped into any of our existing bureaucracies before …

    I don’t think that’s true. The example I’m thinking of is the one @Shygetz: mentions: the enormous increase in the NIH budget.

  113. 113.

    Balconesfault

    February 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    @[delurk]…[/delurk]: Olevia, really? Bought one a couple years ago

    I actually have a bit of an annoying lag while changing channels – but otherwise have been happy with the performance, running digital signal off an antenna.

  114. 114.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    @liberal: Over 5 years, with deliberation and plans for careful implementation, and it still wasn’t the kind of cash we’re talking about now. This stimulus is a full third of our regular annual budget!
    Again, I’ll say it again, we should invest more in research on energy, but not this way. Not in panic mode. Our kids’ money, and make no mistake about who we’re borrowing it from, should not be spent on our liberal wish lists. We shouldn’t cram it down the country’s throats just because 1) we can, and 2) everyone is scared shitless.

  115. 115.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    I dunno, avoid foreclosures, lower house payments, reduce the toxic assets we’ve already purchased. Need more?

    Those are all terrible reasons.

    The money needed to do this would come from taxpayers generally. The benefit would mostly go to banks, and perhaps some of it would go to homeowners.

    Banks, and those holding "toxic assets," shouldn’t be bailed out with free dollars from Uncle Sam. Banks that are failing or likely to fail should be seized and put into conservatorship, with shareholders wiped out and bondholders taking a nasty haircut.

    There’s absolutely no reason to bail out homeowners. No one forced them to buy during the bubble. There are a few who were screwed by evil mortgage brokers, but that’s too bad—the Constitution doesn’t allow bills of attainder, so there’s no way to recover the loot pilfered by scum mortgage brokers; that horse has already left the barn. (Going forward, mortgage brokers should be forced to accept fiduciary responsibility towards those buying loans through them.)

    The idea that we need to make people whole because an asset they own (well, "own" would be more like it) has plummetted is ludicrous, inequitable, and sets a terrible precedent. If they’re really in that much trouble, they’re already under water and have nothing do lose anyway.

    For every homeowner you "help," someone who could have purchased the home at the price when it’s foreclosed is prevented from buying it. Why should be be playing favorites? Why should the family who is prevented from buying by elevating prices be kept out of homeownership with a program funded with their own tax dollars?

    (Plans to help broke homeowners rent their homes at market rates, OTOH, are entirely reasonable IMHO.)

    Finally, the housing bubble was so enormous that any effort to stop its bursting is bound to fail.

  116. 116.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    Over 5 years, with deliberation and plans for careful implementation, …

    Not clear to me that it was really all that careful. There’s shit-tons of pointless biomedical research out there.

    …and it still wasn’t the kind of cash we’re talking about now. This stimulus is a full third of our regular annual budget!

    That’s apples to oranges. I’m comparing the increase in the NIH budget to the particular program the WSJ is attacking.

    Again, I’ll say it again, we should invest more in research on energy, but not this way. Not in panic mode.

    I agree with your general sentiment there.

  117. 117.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    ust not as a "stimulus".

    Just not as a "stimulus".

    Research money is stimulating.

  118. 118.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    What in God’s name are you talking about? As @Blue Raven points out, the prosecution had no case.

  119. 119.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    But this bill is suppose to be out stimulating the economy NOW,

    Contrary to popular myth, stimulus does not dump a shitload of money on the street the day after the president signs the bill.

    Even road work will only pay workers after they’ve worked.

  120. 120.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    @TenguPhule: In 10 years. Which is fine. But that should be a separate issue, and that is the ONLY point I’ve been arguing.

    @liberal: I’m not talking about direct payments, maybe a lower interest rate program. And we, you and I, are the one’s currently buying those assets so if we want a return on our investment its not a bad idea. Further, it shouldn’t be permanent, a temporary stabilization as opposed to an inflation of the market. When things settle down and companies aren’t laying people off in droves we free it up again.

  121. 121.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    February 2, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    cutting payroll taxes for lower brackets.

    Let me guess … for people who already hardly pay any taxes, or for people who are poor but now will be able to start businesses, like taco wagons, ice cream pushcarts, and shoe shine stands?

    Talk about jump starting the economy, whoo-boy!

  122. 122.

    Bootlegger

    February 2, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    @TenguPhule: Like to tackle the straw man eh? Don’t forget to wear your helmet.
    Obviously I meant in the near term as opposed to the long.

  123. 123.

    LanceThruster

    February 2, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Pelosi’s got a long way to go for me to think of her as anything but a sellout. She said "screw-em" to the Democratic constituency that wanted her to make a stand on many other issues when it counted (including impeachement).

    I view her as a sort of 5th columnist; not always stabbing you in the back, but always capable of doing so.

  124. 124.

    Fencedude

    February 2, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Speaking of Pelosi and impeachment, has anyone considered what would have happened if she had, by some miracle, managed to get both W and Cheney impeached and kicked out of office?

    Interesting thing to think about…

  125. 125.

    liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    @Bootlegger:

    I’m not talking about direct payments, maybe a lower interest rate program.

    Someone’s gotta pay for that. Either it’s the investors in the bonds that the mortgages back, or it’s taxpayers.

    I don’t mind screwing the investors, but it has to be done in a fair sense. Which means seizing banks, etc, as I outlined above.

    And we, you and I, are the one’s currently buying those assets so if we want a return on our investment its not a bad idea.

    It’s a terrible idea. What’s the return on the investment? Again, all it’s doing is unfairly benefitting particular people for something which they aren’t owed by a social safety net—viz, support of asset values, ownership of a home, etc.

    Further, it shouldn’t be permanent, a temporary stabilization as opposed to an inflation of the market. When things settle down and companies aren’t laying people off in droves we free it up again.

    But of course it’s going to inflate the market (beyond true fundamentals), as long as it’s in place. When it’s set to expire, there will be a huge lobbying effort to keep it in place. Finally, you’re actually doing those homeowners a grave disservice in the long run, to the extent that they pay principle, because when when the program expires they’re going to lose their homes anyway.

    The primary goals—people having a place to live, and homes not being targetted by thieves and vandals—can be met by programs allowing families to stay in their homes after foreclosure if they pay market rent.

  126. 126.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Obviously I meant in the near term as opposed to the long.

    $10 million atom smashers ordered in the next six months are just as near term as getting road crews out there.

  127. 127.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    When things settle down and companies aren’t laying people off in droves we free it up again.

    Would you like to buy a bridge to Nowhere?

    How about some Nigerian Bank Funds?

  128. 128.

    [delurk]...[/delurk]

    February 2, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    @liberal:

    @The Moar You Know:
    What in God’s name are you talking about? As @Blue Raven points out, the prosecution had no case.

    99% of the time, when the right-wingers squeal about somebody being released "on a technicality," if you investigate, you’ll find that the "technicality" was that the prosecution didn’t have any fucking evidence!

    They’ll do anything to close that loophole!

  129. 129.

    TenguPhule

    February 2, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    for people who already hardly pay any taxes

    Sorry TCIMH, that deserves a slap in the face for following GOP doctrine.

    SS + MC + State = Not a happy camper

    Especially since I’m getting double & triple taxed on them.

  130. 130.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    February 2, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    I’m getting double & triple taxed on them.

    Mwhuh?

    I pay my yardman in cases of canned menudo. No taxero la dinero, comprende?

    Winkie, winkie.

  131. 131.

    les

    February 2, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    "Buy America" is a bad idea. Even without regard to treaty and other obligations, just because Tommy Friedman is an idiot doesn’t mean we can ignore the world. For one, this is a world wide recession; friends and allies are suffering too, and we’re fucked if they reciprocate–either by stopping purchase from us, or stopping lending to us ’cause they’re pissed. For another, our economy doesn’t work in a vacuum, and we can’t fix it independently of the outside world. For another–for good or ill–we no longer make everything we need, and we can’t gear it back up. We do make stuff the rest of the world doesn’t–reference our position in research tools noted above; Caterpillar, Boeing, etc.

  132. 132.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    This is why Nancy Pelosi is the only Congressional leader I like.

    We have a congressional leader? Who, and when did Nancy ‘keep our powder dry’ Pelosi quit?

    I saw Kit Bond on Hardball with Sheldon Whitehouse, the bit was about the stimulus package. Whitehouse pointed out the cost of an unnecessary war in Iraq and Bond said that going after the training camps in Iraq was necessary. Tweety didn’t go after him much about that lie, which did not surprise me.

    Bond kept going on about how we have to fix the housing market first, and that a jobs bill doesn’t do that. If Bond and the Repugs think that propping up inflated house prices is going to save the day then they are fucking idiots. Let them wrap their arms around that anchor. If people don’t have jobs then they are not going to be able to pay for their homes. End of story. If you keep the housing market propped up you are pricing homes out of reach of the the people you need to buy them. If there are no jobs and people keep losing more jobs, then how in the hell do you expect to prop up housing prices when nobody has the income to afford one?

    The Republicans just don’t get it, they are completely out of touch with reality. People are tapped out, buried in debt and wages have been flat for everyone expect the upper classes. Loose and usurious credit has its fangs sunk deeply into the neck of the economy, sucking out every drop of blood it can. We produce next to nothing and consume more than we make, exporting cash from our economy. The only money coming back is going into the pockets of the wealthy due to their outsourcing of labor, which suits the Republican party just fine. We are left to buy the goods with fewer good paying jobs in our economy so people buried themselves in easy credit, sustaining the Grand Illusion of a healthy economy.

    Our economic life cycle is broken and the only people/entity who have the money to fix it are the wealthy and the government. We already know that we can’t count on the wealthy for anything except for less pay and fewer jobs due to outsourcing, so it is the government or nothing. We have people who want to work, want to get paid and want to participate in the economy.

    The government let this happen and they damn well better fix it.

  133. 133.

    Sandra S

    February 2, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Lance Thruster:

    I used to be po’d at Nancy for taking impeachment of Bu$h off the table; but in retrospect, I believe the thought is that going ahead with impeaching Bush might have energized the right wing and Pelosi didn’t want to take that chance. As it turned out, it is probably better that things worked out the way they did. Now that she does have the power, I hope she gives the Rethugs hell or sends them there.

  134. 134.

    joe from Lowell

    February 2, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    I always liked Pelosi. I think that Reid has been dragging her down, and she had to give in and display a united front.

    Pelosi is the woman who answered "When are the Democrats going to put out their own Social Security bill?" back in 2005 with "Never. Does never work for you?"

  135. 135.

    kay

    February 2, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    This is the GOP Senate proposal.

    I don’t know where to start with this. Just an amazingly bad idea. I’m honestly shocked.

    Officials said the GOP was coalescing behind a proposal designed to give banks an incentive to make loans at rates currently estimated at 4 percent to 4.5 percent. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by the federal government in September, would be required to purchase the mortgages once banks have made them to consumers.

    Officials said loans to credit-worthy borrowers on primary residences with a mortgage of up to $625,000 would qualify, including those seeking to refinance their current loans

  136. 136.

    Maus

    February 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    @Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon): "Maybe we should give it a month before we start with the "Gaaaaaah! It’s BushCo Term III" crap."

    Never stop punching the media in the face when they continue to do this.

  137. 137.

    michigan_militia

    February 2, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    "Buy America" is a bad idea. Even without regard to treaty and other obligations, just because Tommy Friedman is an idiot doesn’t mean we can ignore the world. For one, this is a world wide recession; friends and allies are suffering too, and we’re fucked if they reciprocate—either by stopping purchase from us, or stopping lending to us ‘cause they’re pissed. For another, our economy doesn’t work in a vacuum, and we can’t fix it independently of the outside world. For another—for good or ill—we no longer make everything we need, and we can’t gear it back up. We do make stuff the rest of the world doesn’t—reference our position in research tools noted above; Caterpillar, Boeing, etc.

    It’s not like I’m saying to ban all imports, I’m just saying, if we want to stimulate the US economy, the best way to do that is to spend on US manufactured goods. Why shouldn’t the U.S. Government be able to require that goods purchased with our money be made in the US? you can still go buy your Korean made TV or your Chinese barbie doll if you want.

    RE: Caterpillar….you mean like the moto graders and wheel tractor-scrapers built in Brazil, or the dump truck bodies, and large graders built in mexico, or the articulated dump trucks built in England, that all have a significant amount of design and engineering outsourced to India?

  138. 138.

    Mark in UT

    February 3, 2009 at 12:52 am

    My God, you liberals are a bunch of losers.

  139. 139.

    excathedra88

    February 3, 2009 at 1:14 am

    @ Paul L.: so she is a hypocrite who will spout any BS to get her way

    Holy Crap, Pelosi is a Republican in drag

  140. 140.

    TenguPhule

    February 3, 2009 at 2:13 am

    Why shouldn’t the U.S. Government be able to require that goods purchased with our money be made in the US?

    Because sadly, a lot of the stuff is global commodities and/or manufactured elsewhere.

    Too many fucknuts luv them some free market and would shit the bed out of spite.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by HinTN (5/22/25)

Recent Comments

  • Bill Arnold on Late Night Open Thread: Frugal Times (May 22, 2025 @ 4:41pm)
  • Belafon on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:41pm)
  • Central Planning on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 4:41pm)
  • sab on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 4:34pm)
  • Formerly disgruntled in Oregon on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:28pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!