Flashback

“Operation Ignore the Snakehandlers?”

Here’s where my fundamental conservatism kicks in…Bob, you mentioned on the radio show hat over time you moved from more conservatism to more liberal opinions through maturity. My own maturation process lead me from a relatively unconscious assumption that government just does everything (and failure to do so constituted some sort of bias or unfairness on the part of government) to a more critical “should government do this?” perspective. Mostly – I’ve concluded that government involvement distorts the marketplace in ways not always readily seen (I think similarly about “insurance”).I’m not unhappy with our existing stimulus bill, other than being sad that so many friends here are disappointed, and because I suspect the President is disappointed. Of my own free will, though, I’m thinking that this recovery package is going to do just fine. At a moment when government spending is needed – we’re spending… but we aren’t spending indiscriminately – which would inherently begin to lose multiplier value. The NYT piece on the Japan recovery effort demonstrated the risk of indiscriminate spending -bridges to nowhere do nothing for the economy – once they are built, the people are out of work and the cost of maintaining the thing exceeds the economic benefit to the communities connected by it – the very opposite of stimulus to the economy.Keeping in mind that the recovery bill is only one leg of the stool being built to prop our economy, it makes sense to be judicious about it – we’ve still got to spend up to 1 trillion dollars on Geitner’s bank bailout plan. And – if I’ve read that correctly – some of it is also “stimulus” because it refuels student lending and helps homeowners. Even if it does none of that – we’re told that it must be done (still waiting for Lee’s learnings he mentioned in the radio show). Despite the government’s power to print money (which Geitner’s plan depends upon), printing money isn’t always (or even usually) a good idea – it’s an inherently inflationary practice… and as someone who gets a salary on a job, I’d rather inflation stay down – because my salary isn’t going to simply rise to meet it.Last thing. Some of what people are complaining about (reduction of checks to ssi recipients from $500 to 200) are really annoying to me. For the kind of economic crisis that we’re in – that extra $200, or even an extra $500 does very little, structurally, to help anyone. Its 9/11 all over again. We’re talking about republican lack of imagination – how about our own? Won’t economic stimulus also come from our concerted efforts in our local communities? Won’t organized trips to local playhouses, expanded volunteerism at local churches and community centers, and the like – won’t that help with the economy – as well as begin to generate the institutions that can apply for the government funding reserved for community groups – so that the money can go to really successful efforts?In short – as a person who leans toward the conservative side – I’m wondering why we keep looking to government for every solution? I agree that now is a time for government to act – but I don’t agree that now is the time for government to act like a drunken sailor. Spend. Spend wisely. Spend a lot – but no more than is necessary… and just as important – empower people to make a difference in their own community.I am remembering that Obama started off his presidency signing into existence a National Day of Service.QT

All hail the Queen. Great post. We are in uncharted waters trying to pull our economy out of a spiraling dive. With a stimulus plan this enormous it behooves us to get the best bang for the buck that we can.

QT -

Some of what people are complaining about (reduction of checks to ssi recipients from $500 to 200) are really annoying to me. For the kind of economic crisis that we’re in – that extra $200, or even an extra $500 does very little, structurally, to help anyone.

I’m sorry Queen, I have to disagree on this one. I am a fiscal conservative and thus I am sympathetic to your overall stated position. However, on the SSI payment reductions you are totally, unequivocally wrong.Like Food Stamps, and money put into SSI is money that is directly spent immediately on necessary goods and services creating more jobs at grocery stores and other obvious business. This sort of spending has the highest stimulation multiplier possible.Unless you really believe that people receiving SSI are putting these payments into savings accounts or inverting in the stock market I would suggest that you reconsider your position. This is the first thing that you have written here that I haven’t considered to be very thoughtful. From whom did you get this notion that SSI spending does not provide stimulation? This is something I would expect to hear from Bill or Rush, not from you.People that receive SSI are generally in dire straights. SSI spending falls in the category of “every dollar you give to the poor gets spent as fast as you give it to them.” Nothing can be more stimulative than that.Are we really that concerned that we might overstimulate the economy? We do we insist on having a war against the poor and unemployed.Don’t lose your job. If you do, you’ll discover that there aren’t anymore jobs. Then you may find yourself receiving SSI.People like me are looking to the government because there is no one else to look to. There are no jobs available. If the government doesn’t help us, no one else will either. We’ve been yelling about job out-sourcing since 1999. No one listened to us, and now here we are.Would you prefer that we just kill ourselves so that you can reduce government spending? How about getting all the money back from Halliburton. Corporate welfare is great, but not a penny for real, live humans. Lovely.

[b]Silly[/b] – I just remember the economic stimulus checks that we got on other occasions, and I remember how little difference they made, structurally, to people’s lives. Even the extra $200 to the local grocery store is nice – but then it’s gone – and the underlying reasons why people aren’t spending – haven’t changed. If people really need an extra $200, then they need it next week, and the week after that, and the week after that.Look – I never qualify for ANYTHING, and I’m always in need. I think government solutions are more than a little bit inadequate, and inflexible. I don’t begrudge anyone any monies they get from the government. My dad was on disability when he died – and I remember how much of a challenge it was to get him properly set up with all of the services he needed… I’m grateful for the help he was able to get. I’m not knocking government spending – I’m just questioning our choices. An extra $200 a month – good. An extra one-time payment of $200? Wasteful spending in a time when our spending efforts are more strategic than tactical. If that was one of the sources of shrinking the stimulus – it was a well chosen source. I’d have preferred to give an extra $50 per check over time than to give an extra $500 once.QT

Oh. One more thing. Silly Git – I respect differing opinions, but I don’t respect even a little bit the assumption that my opinion can be shoehorned onto everything you don’t like just because you don’t like it.If I had my druthers – corporate welfare would be cancelled almost entirely. Any corporate handouts not strategically benefiting us (i.e., drug research, green cars, etc) would be ditched. I am not setting up an “either or” claim. I’m stating across the board, my opinion that government spending ought to be wisely done.QT

QT-

I don’t respect even a little bit the assumption that my opinion can be shoehorned onto everything you don’t like just because you don’t like it.

If I had my druthers – corporate welfare would be cancelled almost entirely.

I apologize. I am guilty as charged. I already know that you are as unhappy with the ridiculous spending that we have had to put up for for quite some time as I am. I should not have lumped you in with the people that think corporate welfare is great but welfare for humans is bad, because I already knew that your opposition is to both and therefore your position is consistent.

I’d have preferred to give an extra $50 per check over time than to give an extra $500 once.

Yes. So would I. I’d even settle for $10-20 per monthly check, but $50 would be a better stimulus. I didn’t really like the one time payment either, but we desperately need job creation.

I’m stating across the board, my opinion that government spending ought to be wisely done.

Ultimately, we are in complete agreement. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. I completely retract my previous criticism.

the utter lack of celebratory posts about the final recovery bill throughout the blogotubescould be because of the things that got cut of the final bill – like the caps on executive salaries.And no one’s jumping up & down because we have to spend a tremendous amount of money. Just think what this country could have been like if the money had been spent when it should have been – fueling green technology, retrofitting schools – instead of having to spend so much all at once. just remember the economic stimulus checks that we got on other occasions, and I remember how little difference they made, structurally, to people’s lives.The difference is that THOSE checks were a stand-alone “stimulus” to the economy; there was no add’l investment by the gov’t – it’s that “people know better than the gov’t what to do with their money” conservative fiscal philosophy. And the people who needed the checks the most – the working poor – got shafted in that whole deal. However, a check for $200 or $400 in conjunction with other programs, can make a HUGE difference to people who are trying to decide between buying food or buying medicine. Yes, they will still need extra money next month, too, but THIS month, they might be able to have BOTH! They might not consider it wasteful.People who live paycheck to paycheck spend money when they have it.

Thank you for your decency, SillyGit. And, apologies for the bulletin board code around your name earlier – that’s habit.Anyway – here’s some good news:15 stimulus items that could really matter.QT

OsfhRt hi! http://msn.com my site

OsfhRt hi! http://msn.com my site

1QVZ5S hi! http://msn.com my site

The way this whole thing went down really highlights the biggest difference between Congressional democrats and Congressional republicans – balls.Say what you will about the republicans (I know I do), but the bastards have balls the size of Texas. When they want a piece of legislation passed, pretty much nothing will stand in the way of it getting through. Not even facts. The SOB’s are actually willing to go around claiming that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse; or that homosexuality is a threat to the American family. If it weren’t so infuriating, I’d admire the audacity and the fearlessness.And the democrats just lay there and take it. They’ll sometimes raise a minor fuss or act indignant, but eventually everybody knows what’s coming. If the democrats are in power, it’s capitulation and concessions. If the republicans are in power, it’s a quiet and dignified surrender. Hell, a lot of times they’ll even vote with the republicans out of fear that they’ll be viewed as “out of touch liberals,” or “soft on terror,” or whatever bullshit catchphrase the republicans are throwing around this week.Harry Reid must be the single most ineffective ‘leader’ in human history; Pelosi is a close second. If we had a liberal equivalent of Newt Gingrich leading the way, Lord only knows what catastrophes we might’ve avoided over the past 8 years (or at least lessened their impact).To use a cliche from the sports world, the democrats “play scared.” They play not to lose. Now that they’re in power, they’d rather base their actions on what will keep them from losing that power by conceding to the republicans and making themselves appear more “moderate” – not realizing that the republicans are going to go on CNN and fling dung completely regardless of how far the democrats cozy over to the middle.

QT -Thanks for that link. I misunderstood your first comment and then gave you a hard time based on the misunderstanding. You cleared the misunderstanding and I realized that I was wrong and felt that I should apologize since I may have hurt your feelings. I have an conscience and live by the golden rule so I admit when I am wrong and apologize when I have been an ass. In other words, you needn’t thank me for doing the right thing.I’m very glad that real conservatives still exist. I miss Buckley, Dirkson, and Goldwater. We could have used them the past 8 years.rogect8 -I have been saying the same thing for about 6 years. Changing what you do expecting that Fox News will not say bad things about you is stupid. Fox News is going to say bad things about you no matter what you do because you are a democrat. You might as well do the right thing.

b3b1252054how long does diazepam stay in your system