Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Even if the economy does turn around, wouldn't it have turned around without the stimulus package? Was it worth the price tag?
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
why, certainly, the stimulus worked!
we can all feel it working
unfortunately, EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY TWO BILLION DOLLARS later, not enough of us are (working, that is)
indeed, we readers learned yesterday that the stimu... (excuse me, we really shouldn't use that word, obama hates it, he prefers recovery act) cost in toto MORE than seven years of w-stands-for-what's-his-name's war which w had to LIE (our elitists' favorite word) to get us into
and you know who says so, are you interested to learn exactly who is the source who reckons the iraq war cost exactly 709B---why, it's none other than mr elmendorf, the moderate and measured mathematician himself
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Washington Examiner
the cbo also, you recall, assured us all that obamacare would save us 100B
even the interest groups have conspicuously scuttled that pitch
Dems retreat on health care cost pitch - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
the white house, too---don't talk health care, leadership demands of its candidates
Democratic candidates ignore legislative successes - latimes.com
to be fair to mr elmendorf, it is rather difficult to forecast the gdp in 2020 merely by reading entrails
but wasn't obamacare passed just a few months ago?
ie, that was fast
meantime, michael bennet says---trillions spent, NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT
Yahoo! Message Boards - General Electric Company (GE) - Dem Sen: Trillions in Debt, 'Nothing to Show for It'...
do you know michael bennet?
why would he say such a thing?
Last edited by The Prof; 08-25-10 at 10:55 PM.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
There's a significant difference between saying:
The Stimulus was a success
The Stimulus had a short term positive affect
The Stimulus had a positive effect
The Stimulus had a short term positive affect but not worth the long term potential damage
The Stimulus did some good but was inefficient
The Stimulus did some good but could've been done in a better fashion
All of those acknowledge what is basically said there, "Hey, if you look at last year and compare last year with stimulus and without, with would've been better", but as you diverge from that there's a lot of different ways it can go.
I think those saying that its done NOTHING good are being a bit ridiculous, I also think though often times people are using exaggerated hyperbole when they say the Stimulus has done nothing good where in reality they're saying their overall view (including efficiency, long lasting effects, etc) of it is negative.
Personally, I'm in that later half of those above.
Now I do have a question for Don in regards to his list he posted, specifically concerning the tax cuts:
Two-year tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people: 1.05
Extension of first-time homebuyer credit: 0.55
One-year tax cut for higher income people: 0.40
Corporate tax breaks: 0.20
What is the "spending" part of this equation for these things? Its obvious with transfer payments, the government is GIVING people money. However the government isn't "spending" anything by not taking additional money, so what is this .20 or .40 or 1.05 coming from in relation to the [spending] * 1.5 equation?
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.