Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[superaielman]

At this point I'm willing to accept 'Meeplina skating on Minnesota's countless lakes' as a reason to prevent Al Franken from taking office.


Edit: National review meltdown incoming. http://www.nationalreview.com/ I am completely with them on a lot of the budget, but pell grants both: increase our skilled job market in the short term thus increasing the government's tax base, and also help keep collages afloat, which employ hundreds of not thousands of people. I'm going to email the editors about that Pell Grant line in fact. Shale, you mind editing it when I'm done?

[Hunter Sopko]

26. $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension

Dude, we gotta keep the Joes properly funded!

[Luther Lansfeld]

I agree with a lot of the things in that bill, especially the education. That was supposed to outrage me~?

[Cotigo]

Man.  The Conservatives are getting more and more ridiculous by the day.  Usually I can sort of see some logic behind whatever they're talking about, at least some of the more rational ones, but... hell, there is not a single god damn thing on that list I didn't think was a damn fine idea.

Oh, and Super, they're not going to give a fuck about the pell grants.  Most of what they're bitching about (up to where I stopped reading) seemed to be funding for colleges and poor people.  OH NOES WE HAVE A PART OF THE BILL WHERE "YOUTHS" UP TO AGE 24 MIGHT HAVE AN EASIER TIME FINDING WORK HOLY SHIT THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS IF YOU NEED THAT AT 24 OH FUCKING WAIT IT'S SUPPOSED TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OR COMING OUT OF COLLEGE OH WELL WHATEVER FUCK THEM THIS IS LIBERAL FAGGOTRY AASDOFGKADFBA OIADFOSADIF AOIDS LIMBAUGHGasdkljfa;slkfj

Fuck.  Off.

[superaielman]

They're correct in that this isn't the time and place for a lot of that. This is meant to be a stimulus package, not the federal budget.

[Hunter Sopko]

They're correct in that this isn't the time and place for a lot of that. This is meant to be a stimulus package, not the federal budget.

I did kinda say to myself "Is this a stimulus or the budget?"

But again, it could be smoke and mirrors for the budget, as it would allow them to say "look how much we cut out of the budget!"

[NotMiki]

National Review can't support Pell Grants because anything the government does to help poor people is liberal coddling.  Poor people deserve better than to be helped, because helping them denies them their god-given right to make it on their own.  (this is similar to the god-given right for people with the last name Kristol to avoid the draft while attending Harvard and write endlessly about the importance of joining the military).

Also, criticizing the stimulus for giving money to the states?  WTF?  Do they know how many people are going to lose their jobs if the states go bankrupt, which a number of them are certain to do without assistance?

EDIT: there's a line in an old piece from the Weekly Standard, wish I could find it, but I'll paraphrase:

"Liberals like welfare programs because making the poor rely on them makes them feel more self-important.  Conservatives, on the other hand, love those who can stand up on their own."

I hate that kind of thinking more than anything.  Poor people don't exist so that the few who succeed can provide inspirational entertainment to people who like that sort of thing.  That kind of thing, advocated by guys like Kristol who had the helping hand of a well-connected parent, disgusts me.  And they believe people who help the poor are the condescending ones.  It sickens me.

[metroid composite]

In fairness, I see two sensible approaches to this kind of thing:

approach 1. OMG Let's help people!  Kittens and rainbows!
approach 2. I'd like to help people, but I think it's more important to keep purse strings tight.

Then there's the neocon view point, which makes no sense to me

approach 3. I refuse to help people out of principle.  I'm okay with big spending, though, as long as it's on something that doesn't help the poor...like nuclear weapons.

[Hunter Sopko]

Hey, nuclear weapons help the poor. It keeps them from doing foolish things like rising up and taking over. Thats no good for the poor!

[superaielman]

In fairness, I see two sensible approaches to this kind of thing:

approach 1. OMG Let's help people!  Kittens and rainbows!
approach 2. I'd like to help people, but I think it's more important to keep purse strings tight.

Then there's the neocon view point, which makes no sense to me

approach 3. I refuse to help people out of principle.  I'm okay with big spending, though, as long as it's on something that doesn't help the poor...like nuclear weapons.

The overall point they're raising is a good one. This is meant to be an emergency stimulus package, not the federal budget for next year. There's a hell of a lot of pork and bad spending attached to the bill, along with some things that should be in the federal budget. That said, as usual NR makes a good point then promptly fucks up another one just as badly, IE state money/pell grants.

[Taishyr]

I'm just wondering where a lot of these complaints were the past eight years, but hey, that's me.

Definitely agreeing with super on part of this; this isn't the budget. Granted, I expect even more bickering at the budget time, so it might as well get through now. Meh.

[Grefter]

It is different when you are waging a war Tai.  War is good for economy don't you know?  Also it is bad to coddle the poor with money, but it is perfectly good to do the same to foreign countries (with bullets).

[superaielman]

I'm just wondering where a lot of these complaints were the past eight years, but hey, that's me.

Irrelevant (For all that I strongly agree). This is nearly a trillion dollar stimulus package that isn't part of the federal budget, there is no reason for most of those listed items to be there. I understand pork happens in the federal budget, but some of these items make me shake my head. It also gives the Republicans plenty of ammo to torpedo the bill if nothing else, which isn't a good thing at this point.

[Cotigo]

Oh, yes, sure, it's not the budget.  I'm not quite sure that matters; most of these will get through anyway, so it's not like it really matters.  That's a semantics nitpick if I've ever heard one.  NR's just pissy that the NeoCons* aren't in power anymore and are going to piss and moan about every little thing.  Which is really, really pathetic because there are, y'know, VALID fucking reasons for criticizing the new administration (Dashell, and the other tax-evading cabinet appointees, anyone?).

And... really.  It gives the impotent republicans something to torpedo the bill.  Right.  What are they going to do.  Be ornery until the democrats decide, "hey, you know, even though we've got both houses it's time to give up and let 'em have their way"?

*On an unrelated note, we (Americans) need to come up with a good nickname for somewhat sane conservatives. Well, once they resurface on the political stage.  I motion we steal from GB and Canada and start calling them Tories.  Or something in that vein, you know?  Something... catchy.  Whatever, we have some time before we have to deal with that, it seems.  

[Grefter]

That would be terribly unpatriotic to not be behind the President on this though Zenthor.  You are either for the Stimulus package or you are against the Money Lenders.  These Money Lenders are American Citizens that are out there every day doing their best to make America proud, distributing money to the Rich in the name of America.

Edit - And before anyone throws a wobbly it is a fucking joke, shut the fuck up, calm down, take deep breaths and go get another fruit cup.

[Taishyr]

* Taishyr throws a Wobbly at Grefter. Wobblies were the red stupid things in EB weren't they?

<mild rant present, government's managed to piss me off lately so the ire's directed toward them. ducking out of the topic afterward, need to take care of my heart and all. <_<>

super: On the one hand, sure, it's irrelevant. On the other hand I don't particularly care anymore about what the government does outside of foreign policy since I'm convinced any action by anyone there, either side will fuck shit up, they're trying to solve a intricate puzzle with a hammer but that just makes it harder in the end and this applies to both sides.

The right had eight years to object to the accumulation of, let me see if I can find the number... at least 2.5x the amount being proposed here? Maybe more, these tables don't include 2008 and I always did suck at this. EDIT: Estimates I can find say the national debt's about doubled, but that the amount was far higher than I anticipated anyway (we're apparently past 10 trillion) anyway. Yeah.

Put plainly, you're right, super: it should be in the budget. It's not, it is being handled in a different procedural format at an arguably inappropriate time. In the end ideally it ends up the same way but the government isn't stalled if this shit doesn't go through like it could be if a budget isn't passed, unless I misremember my entire government class learnings which is possible! But returning back to my point, ohnoes different procedural format. I'll agree that it probably should be in the budget, but frankly getting it done now doesn't matter all that bloody much, either way either it's passing or the Democrats will fold like a wet blanket again and the timing or where it's being done doesn't really matter jack of shit from what I can tell unless the Republicans plan a coup during the next uh... month or two? So eh.

And this is why politics can go fucking burn.

Zenthor: If I didn't suspect at least 3/4ths of Congress was involved in tax evasion on some level, I'd be more in agreement on that criticism too. But blanket disrespect for them and all.

[Laggy]

A fired-up Barack Obama ditched his TelePrompter to rally House Democrats and rip Republican opponents of his recovery package Thursday night – at one point openly mocking the GOP for failing to follow through on promises of bipartisanship.

In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.

“I welcome this debate, but we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin,” said President Obama – sounding more like Candidate Obama than at any time since he took the oath of office less than a month ago.

Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.

"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

Stabbing hard at Republicans who once aligned themselves with his predecessor, Obama made it clear that the problems he seeks to address with his recovery plan weren’t ones of his making.

“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.

“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”

After his remarks, Obama, clearly caught up in the moment, made the party get-together feel even more like a campaign rally with his signature call-and-response chant.

“Fired up?” he asked the Democratic lawmakers. “Ready to go!” a group of them shouted back.

In his speech, Obama went on to contrast the kind words of House and Senate Republican leaders with their increasingly strident opposition to the stimulus package.


“We were complimented by Republicans saying, ‘This is a balanced package . . . we’re pleasantly surprised,’” he said. “Suddenly, what was a ‘balanced package’ is suddenly out of balance.”

 

As the Senate deliberated in Washington – and packed it in for the night without finalizing a deal — Obama brushed pressed House Democrats to finalize the bill "without delay" when it emerged from the upper chamber.

"Let's think big right now," the president urged House Democrats. "Let's not think small."

Obama’s words bore only a vague resemblance to the prepared remarks the White House distributed to reporters as he began to speak. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Obama appeared to ditch his TelePrompter about a third of the way through the speech.

“He went to his heart, I think he spoke from his heart,” Clyburn said. “He went back to being the Barack Obama that Americans fell in love with when they went to the polls.”

Aside from getting over the shock of Obama finally getting out from his centrist/populist tone, this amuses me more than anything else. I can't say with a straight face it's the most objectively productive thing to bash the other side with a giant mallet, but damn do they deserve it. >_>

[superaielman]

He went about attacking in the right way as well. He's just defending the bill and urging action, not mudslinging. I like the tone of that.

[Taishyr]

...

Retraction of a previous statement: 99.995% of actions by anyone on any side will fuck shit up. The remaining 0.005% is that speech.

[Grefter]

Certainly shows a marked difference from Bush, finally someone in the position once again that if the situation calls for it they can think on their feet during a speech.  Eloquent if nothing else.

[InfinityDragon]

Oh, yes, sure, it's not the budget.  I'm not quite sure that matters; most of these will get through anyway, so it's not like it really matters.  That's a semantics nitpick if I've ever heard one.

Oh for fuck's sake, it's hardly a semantic nitpick. Budgets go through a lengthy process in both Congress and the White House in order to research and determine spending needs, where appropration comes from, and to where those available funds go. While the budget process is nowhere near perfect, at least there's a process that weeds out some of the friviolous shit and tries to make sure that everything in the budget will draw funding from a specified source.

A spending bill that large enough to resemble a budget proposal that doesn't go through the rigors of the budget process is going to have a much higher chance of having worthless items in addition to potential problems finding monetary sources for funding.

He went about attacking in the right way as well. He's just defending the bill and urging action, not mudslinging. I like the tone of that.

I'll grant it's a good speech for firing people up. Substantively, it's quite bad. Tying in with the "it's stimulus, not a budget" concern is why this inane push for urgency and rushing the debate? Sure, delaying it by months isn't good. By the same token, rushing isn't going to help anything at all since it leaves little to no time to formulate the most efficient provisions. TARP was rushed and it resulted in a horribly ineffective joke. Nothing has changed to indicate that this stimulus bill would fare better. The costs of another week or two of fine tuning and debate would be far less than the costs of a wasted $800b spending bill.

I have no idea why on earth anyone would want to defend this pile of horseshit as it stands now. Democrats are fucking idiots for introducing such a bloated pile of shit in the first place and relying on debunked (or highly criticised, if you prefer more subtle phrasing) Keynsian economic theory. Republicans are being fucking idiots for trying to add a bunch of ineffective tax cuts. The current compromise is an aborted fetus of a stimulus package; arguably the best possible infrastructure spending of all in that bill, education, has been slashed to ribbons while a bunch of worthless shit remains ($12b for the Office of Secretary of Health and Human Services? Seriously?).

tl;dr - The bill is a circus starring politcians  as the clowns.

[NotMiki]

On a lighter note, was discussing the pay cap for bailed-out executives with a coworker, and we came up with the perfect compromise: no cap on bonuses, but they come in the form of your company's stock, and can only be sold after your company pays back the money it borrows.

[metroid composite]

On a lighter note:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/4452251/SongSmith-Financial-crisis-soundtrack-composed-from-tumbling-share-price-graphs.html


More on topic: riders need to be taken out of the American constitution already.  Just vote on one thing at a time and stop attaching silly stuff to bills you don't like so that you feel justified in supporting them.

[Dunefar]

MC, riders aren't in the constitution.  I dunno where you're getting that.

[Cotigo]

I think he meant laws, and just didn't realise that not all laws end up in the constitution.