So everything not prohibited should be required?

Post #303,173 by drook 1/27/09 11:59:21 PM Reply	So everything not prohibited should be required? -- Drew
Post #303,174 by beepster 1/28/09 12:00:34 AM Reply	? Not even remotely in orbit of the point :-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,176 by drook 1/28/09 12:32:04 AM Reply	Don't know what point you were trying to make So I just responded to what you actually wrote. States would be allowed to chose for themselves whether to adopt the stricter California standards. That's apparently a bad idea, since you keep criticizing it. You propose instead that if there's going to be a change that the stricter standards should be mandatory for everyone. So, you are proposing that the only appropriate choices are prohibit the tougher standards, or require the tougher standards. The actual change being proposed -- to allow states the choice -- isn't acceptable to you. So like I said: Anything not prohibited is required. -- Drew
Post #303,178 by beepster 1/28/09 1:05:17 AM Reply	Lead This stance says "do it if you want to"...not "do it". And what it introduces is the strong possibility of fragmentation...so it gets harder for auto makers to deal with, EPA to manage and enforce, etc. For such a smart guy, I don't see that as smart policy. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,180 by drook 1/28/09 1:13:29 AM Reply	Now: two standards; future: two standards - no fragmentation -- Drew
Post #303,181 by beepster 1/28/09 1:57:39 AM Reply	Not how it works fighting to grant an exemption for CA. Other states are working on "similar" proposals. Some others my have "slightly different, but still stricter than fed so they pass (precedent..wonderful thing to set) Soon you end up with 45 different standards. http://www.ombwatch....5/1/378?TopicID=1 I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,183 by Another Scott 1/28/09 7:13:29 AM Reply	"Similar Legislation" != "Similar Standards" As Drew said, there are only 2 standards. The implementing legislation would naturally be different for the different states (they can't just Xerox the California law). You're wrong on this, Beep. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,185 by beepster 1/28/09 7:38:42 AM Reply	Of course I am I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,199 by Ashton 1/28/09 4:56:34 PM Reply	The obdurate path is never an easy one..
Post #303,600 by CRConrad 2/4/09 11:30:49 AM Reply	Les'see - where does BeeP usually stand on "State's Rights"? Funny, though, isn't it, how that oh-so-holy Right of States to decide shit for themselves is suddenly not all that important any more, when there's a chance to turn it into criticism of the President? Colour me all surprised, an'all... (Ya gotta, 'coz I sure ain't on my own accord.) Bill: May they be the longest fucking four years of your life.
Post #303,602 by beepster 2/4/09 11:58:54 AM Reply	National versus State versus Local I agree, in most instances I will side on the rights of the states to decide for themselves. There are certain areas where I believe this makes no sense whatsoever..and these generally will fall to areas where consolidated action makes the most sense...areas like National Defense..where I don't believe Utah needs to be out contracting for their own tanks, etc. Another such area is this general environmental legislation. If it makes sense for Obama to talk about cap&trade policy to govern all electrical generation facilities at the Fed level then why does in make sense to push auto emissions down to the state? We've got an example of how fragmenting that type of legislation can be with gasoline (my point) and if its THAT important to the country then he should lead from that vantage point. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,603 by drook 2/4/09 12:25:31 PM Reply	But with gas, don't we need different formulations? Gas that won't freeze in a Minnesota winter won't work very well in an Arizona summer. We need regional variation. You could argue that we don't need as many formulations as we've got, but that's not what you're saying. -- Drew
Post #303,621 by beepster 2/4/09 7:52:16 PM Reply	That's what I'm saying the number now creates false shortages etc... I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,633 by drook 2/4/09 10:21:41 PM Reply	Okay So based on your posting history -- and no, I'm not going to go find specific examples -- you think that in the absence of regulation dictating otherwise, businesses will tend toward behavior that will generally be good for the economy. And that government regulation can be driven more by ideology than economic theory, and therefore will tend to be bad for the economy. Any problems so far? So, you're saying that the fuel shortages were entirely due to the regulation? And it's a coincidence that gas companies just so happened to be booking record profits at the same time? And this is completely unlike the artificial power shortages in California? Just trying to understand your position. -- Drew
Post #303,642 by beepster 2/5/09 2:01:06 AM Reply	sigh if you want to continue to invent my arguments, there's little need for me to be here. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,652 by drook 2/5/09 8:50:26 AM Reply	Not invention, logical extension -- Drew
Post #303,665 by beepster 2/5/09 4:40:22 PM Reply	Who's logic? Businesses will tend towards whats best for the business. Not absolute. In many cases that will also tend to be good for the economy. Don't think I mentioned anything about environmental law being led solely by ideology, though this latest religion called climate change is approaching that level. Just to throw a wrench in your works...it seems largely forgotten that I ended up in these forums oh so many moons ago advocating FOR further regulation and breakup of Microsoft. And you should know better than to throw that "record profits" nonsense around. I don't here anyone complaining about ArcelorMittal or IBM et al who had higher margins than the oil business. The numbers are bigger than everyone else's because they are the largest companies in the world. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,671 by Another Scott 2/5/09 6:02:50 PM Reply	Power comes from the # of dollars, not the margins. It isn't the profit margin that gets people riled up about the oil company profits, its the number of dollars. You know that. The large bank account balances give them the power (whether they use it at the moment (or ever) or not) to: buy up competitors; buy up promising technology and sit on it; buy up mineral leases that competitors might use to bring products to market faster than they might choose to do; buy up advertising to sway public opinion; contribute to political organizations, parties, and candidates' favorite causes; etc., etc. MS got to be powerful because it had a large bank account, not because they had (say) a 60% profit margin. It's not the margins that matter. If XOM is making huge profits because they're a huge company, well maybe they shouldn't be quite so big. They were split up once already, for very good reasons.... Comparing ExxonMobil's profits to some company that has a much higher margin misses the point. /soapbox. Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,692 by beepster 2/6/09 8:23:25 AM Reply	I don't think so There are still 5 to 6 real players in the oil business, the size factor gives a certain amount of power, but GE also made a higher margin and is right up there in size. Size is necessary in that business..what small business can leverage and put a dozen mobile rigs out in the ocean at a cost of 300-400million per that have a real chance of not paying back? Oil makes a nice target because its a one game industry and everybody needs it. Same as people bitch when their electric bill goes up. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,653 by boxley 2/5/09 9:23:08 AM Reply	part of the problem we had in atlanta was the lack of botique gas, we had to get a federal excemption the alleviated the situation a little bit
Post #303,647 by CRConrad 2/5/09 4:00:11 AM Reply	Didn't hear you harping on Bush for this, though. Didn't you have all the same eleventy-seven formulations of petrol under Shrub...? So where are all your posts criticising HIM for HIS "Lack Of Leadership" for not doing anything about that?() Naah, thought so. But you're still just as upstanding and pro-American bipartisan not-a-right-wing-fundie as ever, merely taking a principled stand in favour of smart solutions as opposed to Evil Partisan Big-Gubmint Politics, right? Yes, of course you are. And how ANYONE could EVER claim your pouncing on a Federal policy NOW, when it hasn't ever seemed to bother you BEFORE, would seem to indicate you're just sniping at it because there's another guy at the top of the Federal chain of command now, I really can't comprehend... So, BTW, exactly WHICH are those "most instances" where you "will side on the rights of the states to decide for themselves", if not shit like this -- are there any besides* the "rights" of redneck states to deny women abortion, to teach Creationism in public school science classes, and to deny some people the right to marry just because the person they want to marry has the wrong kind of equipment in their underpants (i.e, the same as themselves)? Inquiring minds are dying to know. We don't even need a complete list -- a partial one will do... (As long as it's referenced with links to how you advocated this under the previous Resident too, of course.) -- (*): And, hey, it was HE who was the oil-man; shouldn't he have been MORE expected than Obama (who AFAIK isn't particularly involved in that business) to have been able to persuade his pals to knock it off with the unnecessary shenanigans -- and to even be more aware of them in the first place?
Post #303,649 by beepster 2/5/09 7:21:28 AM Reply	sigh redux I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,688 by CRConrad 2/6/09 2:50:09 AM Reply	Yes, I guess sigh is all you can do - not having any answer.
Post #303,693 by beepster 2/6/09 8:35:08 AM Reply	Sure I have one but you'll make up one in your head anyway, so what's the point. Shrub, in this case, actually was driving from the center here..just driving from a position that most here didn't agree with. He didn't create the regulations, so my silence on the subject must mean I was ok with >him< creating the problem? Keep smoking your fish, my friend. Oh, and how well to you think it would have been received if Shrub had fought to repeal the Clean Air Act? As for rights of states/local...your list is actually full of nice contentiously worded stuff...my point on abortion is abundantly clear (I'm sure you THINK I'm a fundie pro-life guy...ask around), as for teaching creationism I'm sure you THINK that I'm over at my PTA meeting telling them that the earth is only 6000 years old or some such crap, an again, ask around....sure it would be easy just to tell you you're wrong...but I get alot of entertainment value from reading you, Ash and the others that play this "logical extension" game when someone DARES to disagree with your POV. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,697 by drook 2/6/09 9:45:25 AM Reply	Here's the problem with the way you present your agruments "Oh, and how well to you think it would have been received if Shrub had fought to repeal the Clean Air Act?" That statement only makes sense if the only alternative to inefficient legislation is no legislation. Whatever point you may have thought you were making is obscured by the appearance that you discount the possibility of effective, well-written legislation. -- Drew
Post #303,700 by folkert 2/6/09 9:51:37 AM Reply	But I think his point is... Well-written, Effective legislation is not possible, even today, maybe never.
Post #303,702 by beepster 2/6/09 10:18:32 AM Reply	Bwah ha ha ha "effective, well-written legislation." out of our Federal government? Are you KIDDING ME? Have you read the bailout? Do you think there may be a reason why people vote against it? We don't have the money to spend, yet we need to spend it. And we have Pelosi trying to tell people that giving away condoms SAVES MONEY. And you are trying to tell me that effective, well written legislation is possible? What did you put in those brownies? I want some. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,709 by Another Scott 2/6/09 11:45:10 AM Reply	You're conflating things again... The Legislature directs the policies of the government. The Executive agencies write the rules and regulations that implements those policies. Your earlier complaints about eleventy-seven types of gasoline were a Regulatory issue, not a Legislative issue. You seem to be mixing them up again here.... *Have you read the bailout?* You mean the TARP? The proposal by Bush's Treasury department that was originally 3 pages and forbade oversight? That bailout? *Do you think there may be a reason why people vote against it?* Oh, I guess you mean the Economic Recovery Act. The thing they're debating now. It's not a "bailout", btw. There are lots of reasons why people might vote against it - politics among them. *We don't have the money to spend, yet we need to spend it.* You're aware that the Treasury and the Fed have dumped $Ts into the financial system in the last few months, right? Government makes money all the time. As do banks when they issue new credit cards. Since there has been sudden and severe disinflation / deflation, the government has had to step in to provide capital and liquidity to keep the economy from imploding. Fortunately, since we're not on the gold standard any more, it can do that. Do you think that we don't need to spend a lot of money to get the economy out of its deflationary spiral? *And we have Pelosi trying to tell people that giving away condoms SAVES MONEY.* How about some context... http://mediamatters....tems/200901270022 In fact, the family planning provision, as Democrats have pointed out, does not mandate either limits to family size or eugenics but, rather, as Talking Points Memo noted, would expand "the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies." On the January 26 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) stated that rather than limiting people's family planning decisions, the provision actually would have "give[n] people choices that, in some instances, based on personal choice, will reduce health care costs in the future, that, of course, then reduces the burden on federal taxpayers." [...] Pelosi responded, in part, by stating: "Well, the family planning services reduce costs. It reduces costs. The states are in a terrible fiscal budget crisis now. ... One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is -- will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too." [...] Moreover, studies have shown that family planning services, particularly contraceptive use, do indeed save the government money. For example, a 2008 Guttmacher Institute study found that "[n]ationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth costs." The authors of the 2008 study calculated the savings from avoidance of unwanted pregnancies by "comparing the public-sector costs of providing contraceptive services with the public-sector maternity and infant care costs that would have been incurred." The study did not calculate savings that would have resulted from "averted abortions (or miscarriages)." Additionally, abortion was not included as a "contraceptive method" used by the study's "respondents who had received public-sector family planning care in the past year." From the report: [...] To hear the right wing noise machine, it's clear: Pelosi is a woman, and she's from California, and she's a Democrat, so she must be an idiot, right? The government can never do anything right anyway, right? Why do you buy into this crap, Beep? Finally, the Economic Recovery Act is about more than stimulus: H. R. 1 Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill. The demagoguery of the Republicans on this family planning provision made them take it out of the bill, so it's not even there any more! Stepping off my soapbox.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,726 by beepster 2/6/09 5:54:01 PM Reply	Am I. So if you think its good to give the states money to help with their budgets..why attach strings. And don't defend Pelosi. She is an idiot. Its captured in way too many soundbites. It has nothing to do with being a woman, or from California. And separating the legislation from its regulatory impact is just a tad non-sensical don't you think? There can't be one without the other. The legislature writes and passes the laws. Enforcement is executive. And the Recovery Act was supposed to include things that were immediate in their impact. (18 months) There's alot of stuff there that isn't. In Beltway terms thats called pork. Thats business as usual, not CHANGE. Weren't we promised change? He's done some good things so far...and he's hit or miss on some others. The no strings money given to wall street was a mistake. The first "stimulus" giveaway to you and I was a mistake. The bill that came out of the House would be a mistake. The Repos talking about getting us out of this with tax cuts as the majority is a mistake. The infrastructure development stuff is all good. We should have been doing that for a long time. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,731 by boxley 2/6/09 6:31:24 PM Reply	the stimulus to you and I was not a mistake the mistake is providing infrastructure spending with zero maintenance money, thats a HUGE hole for future local governments and yes pelosi by her attitudes and writing is indeed an idiot although a better quality idiot than denny
Post #303,735 by drook 2/6/09 7:54:06 PM Reply	Black or white, again ... strawman much? "So if you think its good to give the states money to help with their budgets..why attach strings." Sure. And if giving the states money is good, then giving them more money is better. And if giving them more money is better, then giving them even more than that must be better still, right? Until the proposal becomes so obviously bad that you can point out it never should have been tried to begin with. -- Drew
Post #303,738 by beepster 2/6/09 8:15:03 PM Reply	Excuse me? "Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill. " Don't believe my detachment of strings is a strawman. Your "endless supply" might be, though. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,743 by drook 2/6/09 9:18:54 PM Reply	What did you mean by strings, then? "Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill." And the explicit purpose of the TARP was to cover bad mortgages. But because there were no "strings" they instead used it to buy up other banks, and pay themselves huge bonuses. -- Drew
Post #303,746 by beepster 2/6/09 10:34:27 PM Reply	Your point? Which state is California interested in buying? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,749 by drook 2/6/09 10:58:45 PM Reply	Thought it was obvious, but okay My point is without "strings" there's no reason to believe the money will be used for its "explicit purpose". -- Drew
Post #303,750 by beepster 2/6/09 11:14:29 PM Reply	Block grants happen all the time and go into state general funds. Maybe NY should buy CT. Almost everybody in CT works there already. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,667 by CRConrad 4/22/09 8:03:14 AM Reply	Year by year, you sound more and more like... ...some fucking echo of Rush Limbaugh. Were you guys required to hand in your brains the first time you voted for Shrub, or something?
Post #303,710 by jake123 2/6/09 11:46:06 AM Reply	That's not a problem with government per se that's a problem with your government. Which, under your system of governance, makes it a problem with the US citizenry. You guys are in a liquidity trap, and face the very real prospect of deflation. Considering the debt levels that the US faces, that's a very dim prospect. You also have a very real crisis of confidence in the domestic market, coupled with what has come to be a boatload of contempt outside of it due to US behaviour over this decade. Those communist bastards at the Financial Times seem to think the problem is that the bill doesn't spend enough money (http://www.ft.com/cm...ml?nclick_check=1) and is very worried that the rump of the Republican party might manage to scuttle anything effective in that bill. Say Bill, it's been proven in every other industrialised economy that giving away health care saves money, in large part through the power of monopsony. Why don't we take a look at what the long term costs of teen pregnancy are, and compare them to giving away those condoms... it may very well be that giving away condoms saves money... it's pretty clear that private health care sure doesn't.
Post #303,727 by beepster 2/6/09 5:58:18 PM Reply	Double edge on healthcare. There's a boatload of research done with that money that improves the level of care that everyone on the planet takes advantage of. Getting into a discussion of healthcare in this country is alot more complicated than simply a debate on public versus private. The problems in our system have alot to due with the marriage of care with insurance interests, visibility of expenses etc. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,733 by boxley 2/6/09 6:33:19 PM Reply	get rid of the last 8 months of life would slice our healthcare costs to the bone, get cancer? One round of chemo then fuck you. Sure free helthcare for all is fine for broken arms and pre-natal its the other stuff that bites you in the ass
Post #303,711 by drook 2/6/09 12:14:37 PM Reply	Wait, Greg was right, that is your point? Okay, can you be more specific: 1. The federal government, as currently constituted and with the current personnel, can't create effective, well-written legislation. 2. The federal government, as currently constituted and with any personnel (or party in charge) working in that system, can't create effective, well-written legislation. 3. Any federal government, constituted under rules that could be approved in the current environment, can't create effective, well-written legislation. 4. Any conceivable government can't create effective, well-written legislation (that yields better results than unregulated market forces). So which is it? Since you so clearly believe at least the first statement is true. -- Drew
Post #303,728 by beepster 2/6/09 6:10:28 PM Reply	Can't or won't? Its perfectly conceivable that the system could generate effective, well written legislation. And there are probably examples of it happening even now. Those laws are the ones that are limited to a finite set of options. To give an example..to be more effective, the current "recovery" bill being debated should actually be broken into about 30 separate actual pieces of legislation. That would cut each piece down to about 50 pages and allow the debate of each piece to have some substance. At its current form (1500 plus pages), noone can expect that it will not include something that is contentious and will delay the actual implementation. There's probably a good half of all proposed spending in that bill that not a soul would question (infrustructure, modernization) and all could be EFFECTIVELY legislated quickly. Its perfectly within their power to do it. They just don't. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,737 by drook 2/6/09 7:58:55 PM Reply	Right "There's probably a good half of all proposed spending in that bill that not a soul would question ..." I don't believe Obama could propose anything that the Republicans wouldn't question. I don't think you really believe it either. -- Drew
Post #303,741 by beepster 2/6/09 8:19:47 PM Reply	Sure I do. The building and infrastructure spending would likely pass without a hitch. Might even get a 100% vote. IIRC...that was about half of the bill. They may throw a bit of debate in, its politics after all...but it wouldn't have gotten the same response as the original bill. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,742 by Another Scott 2/6/09 8:31:33 PM Reply	Repairing the National Mall is infrastructure... http://www.nationalm...wsroom-010809.php [...] Bill Line, spokesman for the National Park Service, which maintains the Mall, likes to say it has been "loved to death," an American treasure battered by 25 million visitors a year -- more than Yosemite and Yellowstone national parks and the Grand Canyon combined. As the crowds have grown, the budget has shrunk, and with $350 million in overdue care, the park service cannot maintain a standard that befits what many consider a national jewel. [...] This cherished view, inspired by the wide streets of Paris, is protected by an act of Congress. But lately Congress has been blind to the Mall's poverty. The park service budget has dwindled to $31 million, even as more attractions bring relentless wear and tear. A $100-million appropriation for repairs failed to pass last year. [...] Bill, you're dreaming if you think that infrastructure spending would be supported by the remaining rump of the Republican party. Their actions say otherwise. http://blogs.abcnews...se-dems-stri.html Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,747 by beepster 2/6/09 10:38:34 PM Reply	Re: Repairing the National Mall is infrastructure... In a fairly limited sense. Didn't see them screaming about bridges and roads did you? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,748 by Another Scott 2/6/09 10:51:12 PM Reply	Some of them screamed about everything, at various points. http://tpmdc.talking...erican-people.php The stimulus bill that is being championed by President Obama, which was passed by Democrats in the House last night, is the worst piece of economic legislation Congress has considered in a hundred years. Not since the passage in 1909 of the 16th Amendment - which cleared the way for a federal income tax - has the United States seriously entertained a policy so comprehensively hostile to economic freedom, nor so arrogantly indifferent to economic reality. ... This bill is not a stimulus, ladies and gentlemen; it is a mugging. It is a fraud. http://www.humaneven...icle.php?id=30399 Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is working on a real stimulus plan for the economy. The DeMint Plan is similar to a plan rolled out by The Heritage Foundation: Keep in place the tax rate reductions scheduled to expire in 2011 and lower marginal tax rates across the board on individuals, small business and corporations. According to DeMint, his stimulus package will Âcall for a 10-percentage-point cut in the top rate (from 35 percent to 25 percent)Â and other rate cuts. DeMint explains that Âthese tax cuts would soften the recession and expedite the recovery to the tune of 500,000 new jobs in 2009 and 1 million new jobs in 2010 and surpass by 2012 the presidentÂs stated goal of 3.5 million new jobs.Â And a flying pony for every good girl and boy! Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,751 by beepster 2/6/09 11:18:42 PM Reply	His plan was garbage too but his criticism of the one in play was pretty spot on. Money spent now is emergency stimulus. Putting "long term investment" projects in that bill is pork. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,752 by Another Scott 2/6/09 11:22:04 PM Reply	You're not paying attention. See HR 1 preamble text again.
Post #303,764 by beepster 2/7/09 10:13:52 AM Reply	Re: You're not paying attention. See HR 1 preamble text aga So we can see what got written instead of what was promised? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,767 by Another Scott 2/7/09 11:03:04 AM Reply	Eh? http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=print [...] This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. (APPLAUSE) For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality... (APPLAUSE) ... and lower its costs. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do. Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply. MR. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. [...] It was never sold as "just" a stimulus package by Obama. He's been exceedingly clear about this. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,768 by beepster 2/7/09 12:30:28 PM Reply	75% spend within 18 months. They're not even at 50 last I heard. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,769 by Another Scott 2/7/09 12:51:07 PM Reply	More words, please. Who are you criticizing for supposedly promising something that isn't in the Economic Recovery Act proposals? Please be specific about your criticism. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,770 by beepster 2/7/09 1:11:04 PM Reply	Re: More words, please. http://whitehouse2.o...onths/discussions I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,776 by boxley 2/7/09 3:04:56 PM Reply	:-)
Post #303,780 by Another Scott 2/7/09 3:32:26 PM Reply	That's a number proposed by a citizen on a web page. What did he actually say? January 3: http://change.gov/ne...and_reinvestment/ ThatÂs why we need an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that not only creates jobs in the short-term but spurs economic growth and competitiveness in the long-term. And this plan must be designed in a new wayÂwe canÂt just fall into the old Washington habit of throwing money at the problem. We must make strategic investments that will serve as a down payment on our long-term economic future. We must demand vigorous oversight and strict accountability for achieving results. And we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down. That is how we will achieve the number one goal of my planÂwhich is to create three million new jobs, more than eighty percent of them in the private sector. Yes, Obama "endorsed" that 75% figure. But let's see what else he said: http://www.whitehous...etrics_report.pdf In light of this historic economic weakness, President Obama is working with Congress to enact an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, a nationwide effort to create jobs and transform our economy to compete in the 21st century. The plan invests in clean energy, health care, education and infrastructure; cuts taxes for American families and businesses; and helps protect the most vulnerable families from economic harm during the recession. This plan will also break from conventional Washington approaches to spending by ensuring that public dollars are invested effectively and that the economy recovery package is fully transparent and accountable to the American people. Overall, the plan will: Â Create or save 3 to 4 million jobs over the next two years. Independent analyses by Macroeconomic Advisers and Economy.com have confirmed that the recovery plan will meet this job goal. Jobs created will be in a range of industries from clean energy to health care, with over 90% in the private sector. Â Spend out at least 75% of the package in the first 18 months after passage. By including major fast-spending provisions like tax cuts for middle class families, measures to avoid state health care cuts, and temporary expansions of unemployment insurance, food stamps and health care for unemployed workers, the package will spend out at least 75% of its total commitment within the first 18 months after passage. The Administration will work with Congress to refine this package to ensure that it meets this 75% goal. It's a goal, not a "promise". HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,784 by beepster 2/7/09 5:07:02 PM Reply	Thanks for weasel wording for him. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,793 by Ashton 2/7/09 7:10:22 PM Reply	Thought the weasel was the Patron Saint of Reactionaries :-0 The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Post #303,744 by drook 2/6/09 9:22:18 PM Reply	Right, again "not a soul would question ..." "They may throw a bit of debate in, its politics after all." Please define "question" and "debate". -- Drew
Post #303,614 by Ashton 2/4/09 5:08:27 PM Reply	Now, now -- it's hard to be an Ayn-Marxist and keep your theology purely (puerilely?) in line with a Holy wallet-based philosophy of liff.. Groucho redux on tube recently; himself singing mellifluously his signature, (Whatever it is..) I'm Against It. Ha! Safari gots text buffers; leaving a > off a [i] tag produces the usual full-screen of bad-script-jabber but, Return gets the text back!

Welcome to IWETHEY!