Thinking Right

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 8:06 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Warning to friend GGG, this is part one of two, you may just want to cursor down. Jim documents the waste in Obamanomics quite effectively, primarily a waste arising from leftist overlords dictating private behavior unrelated to employment issues. Health care spending and similar forms of welfare will not increase business incentives to hire people. Dr. Sowell embraces a similar argument today, more below in part two. Our leftist friends do not understand causation of the immediate panic, much less have a clue on cure.

CAUSATION

Last summer FNMA and FHLMC collapsed, leaving many financial institutions with a large mound of unmarketable securities, unmarketable because there were plausible doubts about the quality of the collateral in the packages assembled by the quasi-Federal agencies. Compounding the problem were questions of the legal extent of taxpayer-obligation for the Federal securities fraud. The question of Federal responsibility for the securities fraud is now resolved: the taxpayer is covering the Federal misdeeds.

However, the unprosecuted Federal agency criminal acts left collateral damage – nominal insolvency of holders of the quasi-Federal securities, as there was no longer a market for the securities at any price (which remains true today.) Thus the conception of the TARP program, to suck the “toxic” securities out of the system. The theory ran aground when bureaucrats discovered that financial institutions did not want to sell their nominally worthless securities at the current market price of $0, and thereby locking in their losses and actualizing their individual insolvencies. For all banks, it made more sense to hold the securities to maturity, as most of the underlying loans were performing. “Holding securities” creates a liquidity problem, as securities purchases and sales are the traditional means for financial institutions to manage liquidity; when holdings are locked in, banks cannot convert current holdings to new investment opportunities, i.e., loans. As the problem of worthless “Federal” securities is widespread, the liquidity problem is systemic.

No Congressionally-allocated funds ever go unspent, and TARP funds quickly shifted to a new potential use, enhancing capital for highly-leveraged institutions. While inter-bank lending remains inhibited – the banks cannot trust the balance sheets of each other - and thus liquidity is still constricted, normal investment capital is slowly restoring, adjusting to the liquidity shock of last summer. Banks have money to lend, although there is no incentive for banks to lock into long-term relationships at current market rates - that would repeat the market errors that the FSLIC failure revealed in the 1980s. Rates will rise when the Obama-inflation kicks in.

The current contraction in employment, while immediately triggered by the limited liquidity of last summer, has an unrelated and greater causation. Two years ago Speaker Pelosi declared that the Bush tax cuts would not be renewed, thus promising to impose the largest tax increase in the history of the world. The promise appears increasingly likely, and surely now even leftists acknowledge the economic injury that such a plan will impose. The employment contraction today is due to employers’s anticipation of the economy of 2010. Unlike Louisiana democrats, normal businessmen know how to prepare for a big storm when they see it coming. Or if that metaphor does not suit you, think of the looming tax increase as a 500,000 gallon vessel containing gasoline, and the FNMA fraud as a flaming match, unrelated problems of disparate size that came together.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this

I think an embedded link is creating a problem with part two.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 8:15 AM | Link to this

This is part two of two. Dr. Sowell approaches the same argument as Jim, but from a slightly different angle, with an economist’s spin on Rep. Kingston’s obviously-valid argument. He mocks leftist intellectual inconsistency in the purportedly-Keynesian effort to address America’s business crisis, “What Are They Buying?” Extract:

“Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate, and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications, before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved.

“Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

“Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.”

…

“What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending? They are buying what politicians are most interested in— power.

“In the name of protecting the taxpayers’ investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.”

Lest Dr. Sowell’s argument escapes the reader, the Obama “cure” does not address the problem.

THE CURE

The short-term cure: Jim wisely observes the waste in the proposed spending, and Dr. Sowell correctly argues the threat of mismanagement by DC. The republicans have the power, and the duty, to cure – all the RNC needs to do is to promise to fund candidates to oppose any representative or senator, Republican or Democrat, who supports the $1 trillion wasteful spending spree. The cold-water of such common sense could serve the same prophylactic purpose as Bill Clinton’s 1993 defeat on socialized medicine, and could give Obama a legitimate basis to govern over a sound economy for many years.

The long-term cure: as the looming largest tax increase in history diminishes business prospects, renew the Bush tax cuts. Or better, repeal the corporate income tax entirely.

By Churchill's MOM

January 27, 2009 8:19 AM | Link to this

Bill Kristol will write about our next President, Sara Palin..

Bill Kristol and the New York Times parted company yesterday, one year after he began writing a weekly opinion column that became a high-profile target for his detractors on the left.

But the conservative commentator, who edits the Weekly Standard and appears on Fox News, won’t lack for media exposure. He will write a monthly column and occasional pieces for The Washington Post, as he did before joining the Times.

Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt called Kristol “very smart and very plugged in,” saying Kristol would be an influential voice in the coming debate over redefining the Republican Party. “It seems to me there were a lot of Times readers who felt the Times shouldn’t hire someone who supported the Iraq war,” said Hiatt, adding that he wants “a diverse range of opinions” on his page.

The Times hired Kristol for a one-year run during the 2008 campaign, and Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal told his paper that the arrangement was ending by “mutual agreement.” Rosenthal would not say whether the Times plans to hire another conservative. Kristol, who did not return calls yesterday, told Portfolio.com in November that he was “ambivalent” about continuing, noting that the weekly column was “a lot of work” and “I have a lot of things going on.”

Even some journalists sympathetic to Kristol say his Times writing was often predictable and not his best work, and noted that he had to correct three factual errors.

Kristol’s earlier punditry for The Post was also controversial. In July 2007, he wrote in the paper’s Outlook section that “George W. Bush’s presidency will probably be a successful one.” He also said the Iraq war could be won and that “military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected.”

In a typical missive, liberal blogger Arianna Huffington called it “the single most deceptive piece of the entire war.” Kristol said then that his views had not changed and “it would really be pathetic to adjust one’s analysis based on public opinion.”

By Saxby Chambliss LOBBYIST best friend

January 27, 2009 8:24 AM | Link to this

“Critics say the move won’t remove politics from the process — it simply shifts the power to bureaucrats at state and federal agencies, who will distribute billions for roads, schools and other projects,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle . “‘In the past, in the appropriations bills we could see a list of the projects. They were right there printed in the bill,’ said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group. ‘Now it’s going to be a lot more difficult to see where the money is spent. You will have to contact each agency and each program manager to find out where the money is going.’”

Indeed, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Some of the biggest winners in the package are federal agencies, which would see a huge infusion of money. The Social Security Administration would get $400 million to replace its 30-year old computer system. The Agricultural Research Service would receive $209 million for deferred maintenance at its facilities. The General Services Administration would get $600 million to replace its older fleet of vehicles with new alternative-fuel cars and trucks.”

That isn’t an economic stimulus plan. That’s a big-government stimulus plan.

In addition, skeptics note that only about 3 percent of the “stimulus” package would go to roads and bridges around the country — and the Congressional Budget Office estimates only about 7 percent of infrastructure money would flow into the economy by year’s end.

By Maniac is accurate

January 27, 2009 8:27 AM | Link to this

I’m having a lot of trouble finding the jobs in this. During the campaign, Obama sounded like he was describing was nothing but a Roosevelt-style jobs program. This doesn’t look even that good.

By Rag Head

January 27, 2009 8:30 AM | Link to this

Having lost ground in the House, business is engaging in an intense, behind-the-scenes campaign to insert friendly provisions in the Senate version of the $825 billion economic stimulus package.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pressing for a temporary income tax holiday for firms that buy back their own debt.

Credit unions want more flexible lending regulations so they can help ease the credit crunch caused by the hobbled banks.

Big manufacturers and firms are looking for a reduction in pension plan contribution costs.

And everybody wants a tax break on cash transferred from overseas to domestic accounts.

The wish lists go on and on, as they circulate around Washington in letters, e-mails and strategy sessions.

The primary focus of the campaign, for now, is the Senate Finance Committee, which will begin drafting its portion of the stimulus package on Tuesday.

But the pressure won’t end until a final version is delivered to President Barack Obama in mid-February, if all things go according to plan.

“We see opportunity at every junction,” said Dorothy Coleman, vice president of tax and domestic policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

“The Finance Committee markup is the latest major development. But even if we’re not successful there, there is the Senate floor and [House-Senate] conference,” she added.

A combination of desperation and serendipity is driving the frenetic lobbying effort.

No group is more eager for passage of the $825 billion package than business, which expects economic conditions to worsen considerably this year even with the stimulus.

A swift infusion of government cash into the market could keep some businesses afloat, and the proposed tax cut for working families might be enough to entice consumers to spend more.

But the oversized legislation also represents a golden opportunity to win changes in the law, or tax breaks — even temporary ones — that could be hard fought in a normal legislative season.

The credit unions, for instance, have been pressing Congress for years to lift lending restrictions on them, only to be bested repeatedly by the deep pockets and political connections of the big banks.

Now, the banks have fallen from favor, and the credit unions are trying to seize the moment.

“Lifting this restrictive lending cap is a win-win for everyone. It doesn’t cost the taxpayers anything, and it allows small businesses and credit unions to promote vital growth that our country needs now,” explained Fred Becker, president of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

The bulk of the business focus is on tweaking the tax code.

As crafted by the House, the stimulus package has about $550 billion in government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts.

The most expensive of the tax cuts is aimed at the middle class, while business says it gets only about $13 billion in direct tax relief and about $20 billion in tax incentives.

The relatively anemic business tax break section is one reason many Republicans have cooled on the stimulus package.

Senate Democrats, hoping to draw more bipartisan support, have already signaled they’re going to beef up the business provisions. Versions of some of the most coveted tax breaks are already in the proposal by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

But business leaders and their trade representatives would like to see even more love in the stimulus. And they’ve commissioned special studies, blanketed the committee with letters and recruited industry bigwigs to make their case.

The Information Technology Industry Council, representing high-tech companies, retained Robert J. Shapiro, a former Clinton White House official, to prepare a report now circulating on Capitol Hill that shows the benefits of allowing global companies to bring cash back into the United States tax-free.

His conclusion: A similar measure passed in 2004 prompted U.S. firms to transfer $312 billion from overseas to domestic accounts and produced a $34 billion windfall in federal taxes.

The Chamber of Commerce is touting a plan that would help reduce the debilitating debt on corporate balance sheets.

According to the Chamber, the ratio of debt to gross domestic product today is 350 percent; it was just 250 percent in the Great Depression.

The Chamber has sent a series of letters to Congress — with a growing list of corporate names and trade groups — to push for a temporary tax break for businesses that buy back their own debt.

“You could save jobs, maybe create some, and strengthen the financial institutions’ balance sheets,” said Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s top lobbyist. “And everything I just said would be done using private-sector money.”

The Senate has warmed to this idea, but its stimulus draft only defers the tax on some forms of bought-back debt instead of eliminating it for two years, as business proposes.

The Business Roundtable, made up of chief executive officers of major firms, is appealing for adjustments in pension fund payments that could free up cash for expansion or salaries, said its president, John Castellani.

Amid concerns that pension funds were not being adequately financed, Congress two years ago imposed a new formula that requires fund managers to review their assets and liability ratios more often and adjust accordingly.

Since most of those assets are stocks, everybody’s ratios have gone haywire in the past six months as the market has tumbled. Achieving the proper balance under the new law could require billions of dollars in pension fund payments in the short term.

Businesses, labor unions and other groups want the Senate to insert language into its developing stimulus package to allow more time to make those financial adjustments so they don’t drain corporate coffers today.

“We are proposing things we think would help improve the availability of capital and cash for companies,” Castellani said. “We are talking to everybody we can reach.”

By Ga Values

January 27, 2009 8:34 AM | Link to this

This is a cut & paste of yesterday’s best post, everyone needs to reread it.

By David Truth Teller

January 26, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this

(1) Too much debt and spending is what created this mess. Now we’re supposed to do the same, only more, to get us OUT of the mess? What happens when the stimulus is gone? Maybe we’ll have sparkling infrastructure, but will we have a sustainable economy? I think the last thing we need is more stimulation. Do we give alcoholics even more alcohol to cure them?

(2) Since we, as a nation, don’t have $1 trillion laying around, we either need to borrow or print, right? Re: borrowing, see my first point. Plus, how do we know the rest of the world will even lend us another $1 trillion or more? And, if we end up printing, well, how’s that going to work? If printing was a solution, every country in Africa would be a wealthy paradise.

I think Americans are beginning to realize that they are a lot poorer than previously believed. This stimulus won’t change that. At best, it will just delay the inevitable and make it worse when it arrives.

By Middle man

January 27, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this

It’s not the size of the package that concerns me. I could care less what Boehner says - he had his turn and flubbed it badly. It’s the share that is rebates.

The economics of rebates are known from the previous round - i.e. no lasting stimulative effect whatsoever.

Barack, the window is closing on select bank nationalization as one of several means to turn this around.

Watch the Brits - they’ll probably move on this before the end of February.

By Wolfman

January 27, 2009 8:41 AM | Link to this

I’m the first to say that the tax cuts in this stimulus plan are a complete waste of money. We need higher taxes on the wealthy to get through this. That said, I don’t know that you can call the past lower taxes on the wealthy a “wholesale redistribution of wealth” to the upper class.

Lower taxes leaves money with those who earned it. While it may be morally correct to tax the wealthy at a higher rate and use those funds to underwrite the less fortunate, it’s higher taxes that are technically a redistribution of wealth.

By Better Way

January 27, 2009 8:42 AM | Link to this

take the trillion dollars divide it by 300 million or so citizens and cut each of us a check for $3,300 give or take. the overhead would be the cost of printing a check plus the envelope and stamp. that would be a real stimulus without the enormous loss to government overhead, waste and fraud.

By S Ga Values

January 27, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this

What I am furious about, as a taxpayer and early supporter of Barack Obama, is that no one is criticizing him or his economic appointments for an incredibly stupid bailout plan. Practically none of the allotments are going for programs which stimulate job formation - like infrastructure. Much of it is going for classic pork - like fancy new comuputer systems for government bureaucracies that usually don’t even work and moreover are not even really needed.

The Democrats are so stupid that they are giving money to the same rich people who stold America blind during the Bush and Clinton adminstrations. Why doesn’t the New York times come down stronger on this insanity by criticizing our new president who seems to already have his head in the clouds. Tim Geithner handed out $750B to rich bankers under George Bush. Now, he’s repeating the same process under Obama. What’s wrong with Obama’s financial sense and judgment that he doesn’t get it?

And though he talks tough, Barck Obama is acting like a wimp. The Republicans are never going to love Obama. He needs to get real and do the right thing for the economy - take back the tax breaks for the rich, don’t lend more money to the banks - lend it directly to Americans who are working hard but can’t pay their mortgages. Barack has only been in power a few weeks and already he is pushing the economy further down the path chosen by George Bush. Can someone get in touch with him?

I don’t get it. Why is Obama doing such stupid things economically? Republicans will only get on board when Obama succeeds. His current route will not lead to compromise and unanimity. It will lead to economic disater the Republicans will use to run against him in 2012. Why don’t reporters ask Obama why he is doing such stupid things? Is Obama so busy making pretty speeches that he doesn’t have time to read the stimulus package?

By Dusty

January 27, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this

Obviously this Stimulus Plan is catastrophic. Jim explains it CHILLINGLY well. If only Americans would listen. But I fear the Obama spell of enchantment from the land of Oz has not yet diminished. Democrats in Congress are using it for fuel. They refuse to “bite the bullet” and celebrate installing socialism.

I like Dr. Sowell’s solution as mentioned by Ragnar. Let the RNC support financially anybody running against anyone who voted for this StimBill. It is the least Republicans can do.

KILL THE STIMBILL!!

By Carl Row

January 27, 2009 8:46 AM | Link to this

Oh the Republicans know what is going on and what it means.

The Republicans know that millions of jobs have been lost - they even know that over 60,000 jobs were cut in the US on Monday 1/26 (yesterday) alone.

They do not care - not one bit, not for one second as it is not the upper 1% (incomes over $520,000) who are losing jobs except for a few Wall St types who will eventually find a new nest to feather among other Wall St types.

Republicans know that Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure - some from loss of their jobs, some from medical bills and some because they were financially clueless and bought into the Wall St Drivel that house prices only went up and option ARMs were the best thing since sliced bread.

Republicans do not care - not one bit, not for one second as the foreclosures are not happening in Palm Beach or on 5th Ave in NYC or in the privileged enclaves of McClean VA or Palm Springs, CA.

Republicans know that households are filing bankruptcy because of medical bills and that 50% of bankrutpcies are due to medical bills; and that 18,000 people die every year from treatable health problems because they can not get and/or can not afford health insurance.

Republicans do not care - not one bit, not for one second as it is not their family, friends or neighbors who are going bankrupt from medical bills or dying and they do not really know the people to whom it is happening and besides, they all must be worthless failures if they can’t pay $500,000 medical bills for cardiac surgery out of their pin-money.

Republicans know that they put wars of choice on a credit card and walked away laughing about the bills.

Republicans do not care - not one bit, not for one second as it is not them or their children who will be dying in the wars or paying the bill and having to live with services like schools, police and fire that are starved of money and can not function. They will stay save in their protected enclaves with private guards and private schools and fly on private jets.

Republicans know that something like 80% of their tax cuts went to the top 1% and particularly the top .1% (over $1,600,000) and the after-tax income of those groups went up 43 1/2% between ‘03-05 alone.

Republicans - particularly those in office- do not care - not one bit, not for one second as neither they nor their friends are in the bottom 95% whose income have stay flat or fallen for years. They may, however, be mildly annoyed that those tedious masses who are not in their income class have finally caught on to the inequity.

Republicans know that outsourcing manufacturing and jobs has left the bottom 90% of the US in dire straits.

Republicans do not care - not one bit, not for one second as it is not them nor their families nor friends who are suffering, and in fact, they are profiting.

Republicans know that without Social Security and Medicare that the bottom 90% could never afford to retire and would never be able to afford healthcare once they reached 55, let alone 85.

Republicans do not care - not one bit, not for one second as they would prefer that the peons who make up the bottom 90% continue to work until they die so that they and their friends can avoid paying out nasty things like pensions, and that those who do not have the cash for $39,000 a night in cardiac intensive care just die off and stop using up money that they think rightfully belongs in their bank accounts.

The Republicans most definitely know all these things. They simply do not care what the affect of their policies are on any but the upper 1%.

It is, after all, all about them and their avaricious, unsatiable desire for more and more and more money and wealth - even if they couldn’t spend it in all in 10 lifetimes, it is never enough.

By CJGC

January 27, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this

The Citizens for Tax Justice have published a report comparing the effects of the proposed Democratic and Republican tax cut plans, first for the whole country and then state by state. http://www.ctj.org…

Under the Democratic proposal about 55% of the tax cuts go to those in the lower 60% of the income distribution. Under the Republican proposal only 5% (that’s not a typo) goes to the bottom 60% of incomes. For the top 5% of incomes (above $244,200) under the Democratic proposal they get 1.5% of the tax cuts, but under the Republican proposal they get 43.5%.

With millions already unemployed and millions more fearing layoffs it’s a no brainer about which plan makes more economic sense, to say nothing of which is fairer. The Republicans support money and the Democrats support people.

Check it out.

By Copyleft

January 27, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this

“single-payer universal health care, in particular; affordable housing and the federalization of k-12 education.”

Isn’t it amazing that Wooten tries to paint these things as BAD? Geez, these fascist idiots really have gone over the edge.

By Winder Bob

January 27, 2009 8:50 AM | Link to this

If these banks for the wealthy refuse to lend their bail-out funds to middle class businesses and families with good credit who need funds now, then we should take that money back.

It looks to me like they are simply sitting on that money, looking for stocks and property to buy on the cheap after the rest of us have run out of other savings and have nothing left to live on.

Just take the money back — now.

This was just one more slime-ball trick by the Bushies on their way out.

By Davo

January 27, 2009 8:50 AM | Link to this

More convoluted thinking from JW.

It’s not so much that his premise is wrong, but how he got there is pretty hard to follow. It reminds me of those horrible ‘Family Circus’ comics when it shows Jeffy’s long erratic walk around the neighborhood to simply croos the street.

So ya, I get it JW. Republicans encourage war and Dems support welfare. Politics 101.

By Buzzard

January 27, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this

Our country has been going down hill for almost 30 years Reagan started the ball rolling. The breaking of unions to lower wages the outsourcing of jobs the importing of everything. What did the the people of this country think was going to happen? All the lies told, spit out by repubs all these years. And most have bough it hook line and sinker. How dose everybody like Reaganomics and trickle down now? The rich have laughed all the way to the bank and the jokes been on us. The neocon rightwing (God,Gays,Guns) wrap them selfs in the flag repugs have sold there own country out all these years. Because of greed and power, I wonder if there proud of them selfs?

By GT Republican

January 27, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this

To give us an idea of the extent of the damage the Republicans have caused, here’s something to illustrate the size of that trillion dollar deficit:

A million seconds was about a week and a half ago.

A billion seconds was during the Nixon administration.

A trillion seconds was in 30,000 BC.

Why is anyone still listening to them? Great question. What happened to accountability?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this

At least one politician has a brain:

Dear X:

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts about yet another so-called “economic stimulus” proposal being considered in Congress. It is good to hear from you.

It is evident that our nation is in the midst of an economic crisis. In order to provide our lethargic economy a much-needed boost, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has introduced an $825 billion stimulus proposal that attempts to spend our way out of the current recession. While I agree that the Federal government has a role in restoring the prosperity of our nation, it is naive to believe that spending $6 billion weatherizing private homes, $600 million to train physicians to prepare for universal healthcare, $400 million for NASA to study climate change, or $50 million to repair cemeteries - all of which are included in this package, has the capacity to restore and grow our economy.

While the terms “hope” and “change” are commonplace in Washington, D.C., these days, uncertainty is what envelops American taxpayers. In fact, the only certainty that exists is that compounded with our existing $10.6 trillion deficit, the long-term costs of this proposal will burden future generations. Even more alarming is the observation from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that only 7 percent of the spending included in the proposal will be realized in 2009, while two-thirds of the spending will occur in 2011, the very year economists forecast the end of the recession. This fact certainly undermines the premise of a stimulus for a timely, temporary, and targeted economic recovery.

I fear that Depression-era spending of this nature will only encourage Depression-era conditions. The cornerstone of an effective stimulus must be jobs; not jobs artificially created by growing the government in both size and significance to individuals’ lives, but private sector jobs where innovation and accountability exist in practice, not solely in theory. Under the Democratic stimulus proposal, 4 million jobs are promised to be created; a noble goal. However, when questioned during consideration of the stimulus bill in the Ways and Means Committee, a representative from the Joint Committee on Taxation could not verify that even a single new job would be created. Even assuming 4 million jobs are created, at a cost of $206,000 per job, this figure is roughly four times the average earnings of private sector employees. This is yet another example of a government plan that offers low results at a high cost; a gamble our sick economy cannot afford.

Instead of taking a nearly trillion dollar gamble, I believe the path to our economic recovery can begin by implementing H.R. 470, the “Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act,” legislation I have co-sponsored which provides tax relief to families and encourages businesses to invest and innovate. Families will experience relief through a 5 percent reduction in income taxes, increased child tax credit, and protection from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Businesses will be able to make projections into the future and create new jobs knowing their tax rates will be stable, investments will be incentivized, and losses can be recovered. Providing individuals and businesses the ability to project for the future brings certainty to the forefront and calms fears. Americans deserve a stimulus that can provide long-term solutions, not just another excessive spending spree by Democratic leadership.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to call on me in the future if I may be assistance.

Sincerely,

John Linder Member of Congress

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this

Another great explanation why Obamanomics will not work.

By ron

January 27, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this

Good morning,It appears that Nancy’s economic stimulus plan to issue birth control to the masses has hit a snag.I’ve been noted as a man that can think outside the box,but I can’t connect the dots between enonomic stimulus and birth control.Sorry Nancy.

I also cannot connect between stricter auto emissions and a healthy economy,nor do I see a benefit requiring that only U.S. steel be used in the building of infrastructure.Au contraire,I see any form of nationalism as counterproductive.Should nations withdraw into themselves now,any recovery will take years longer.

Dear Ragnar,—-I see you also think outside the box.You took Dr.Sowell’s comment about tax cuts to mean corporations.How does that put extra money into people’s pockets immediately?I really thought he was talking about individual tax cuts also.

Last week I found a slip in a used book some individual was using to figure out his finances.A grand total of $981 for credit card payments for the month of March,2008,out of a total availability of $2400.How many individuals are there out there like this?They have no more credit available and no more money for discretionary spending?Here is the problem with your economy.There’s nothing left to spend.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this

Dear GT @ 8:59, If you check the stats, the last time the republicans controlled Congress, the unemployment rate was 4.5% (Oct. 2006). Even one year later the rate was only 4.7%. But it began the slow rise around the time Nancy Pelosi declared the intention to end the Bush tax cuts, also around the time the democrats passed the higher minimum wage. The current unemployment rate is 7.2% Wonder how high it will get before the American voters wise up? You fit the usual leftist “cultist” template, citing the role of “people” rather than citing any particular “policy.” Contrary to leftist theology, people make little difference in politics, rather it is the policies that they attempt to implement (or not.) Think of all the good Obama could do for the country simply by renewing the Bush cuts of 2002. Instead, look for corporate welfare.

By Conservative

January 27, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this

Are the executives at Merrill, who mistakenly received $4 billion dollars of taxpayers money in bogus “bonuses” after they lost $27 billion and had to be taken over by government subsidized BofA, going to give the taxpayers money back? Or is DOJ/Treasury going to attempt to recover it?

By Copy Left

January 27, 2009 9:11 AM | Link to this

These republicans keep proving this proverb again and again: “You’ll never take the “Con” out of Conservative.” Never.

By UGA Exchange Student

January 27, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

Shoveling the wealth of the people to the very rich and claiming to sever America’s people - the crafty arrogance displayed by the GOP with cunning skill ceases to amaze me. They certainly know what they are doing when it comes to taxes and finance - sadly too many Americans were too dumb to see it in 2000 and 2004. The taxplan of Bush was under the sun and still so many voted for him.

Not that many Italians aren’t guilty of the same crime by lifting the robber baron Berlusconi into power…

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this

Dear ron @ 9:05, great post, I wish had written it. You ask: “You took Dr.Sowell’s comment about tax cuts to mean corporations. How does that put extra money into people’s pockets immediately?” Answer: it does not, and should not. The core problem is in the “short-term” mentality that has seized DC, instead of addressing the real problem, business concern over Washington’s future take. Once business believes it can do business, and not use all of its efforts kowtowing to the leftist overlords, businesses will again expand both payrolls and production. And until then, businesses will not.

By Copy Left

January 27, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

It is estimated that only 1% of the U.S. population owns approximately 40% of the nation’s assets, and their share of the assets keeps increasing, due to lowered tax rates from the Bush administration. There is no evidence that lower tax rates for the top 1% of the population has in any way stimulated the U.S. economy over the last eight years. In fact, since the top 1%’s assets are increasing at the expense of the rest of the population, the opposite is occurring. Tax cuts for the top 1% are probably de-stimulating the economy. An example of wealth concentration and its potential effect on the U.S. economy and employment is the Forbes 400 group. In 2008 the wealthiest 400 Americans (Forbes list) were worth $1.57 trillion. To put this into perspective, the wealth of just these 400 people, is equivalent to paying 30 million people, each a salary of $50,000 for one year.

By GT Republican

January 27, 2009 9:18 AM | Link to this

Ragnar Danneskjöld 9:09 AM

Why do you post this half truth every day?

By Redneck Convert

January 27, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this

Well, this stimulation bill needs to be all tax cuts and no welfare spending or junk like roads and bridges. The tax cuts might not do nothing to help the economy, but we will be all set to hunker down for the recession for the next 10 years with fat bank accounts. Sooner or later things will get better on their own and we might could get rid of a few million people that would starve to death and take theirselfs off of the dole. Better that than have one penny go welfare.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody. And remember to invest in beer stocks. People will go without food or a roof over their head but they will always come up with the money to buy beer. Just look at old Raghead. Drunk as a loon already this a.m., judging by the stuff he writes, and the day’s just started.

By Wooten's Honest Doppelganger

January 27, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this

My theory about why the GOP so vehemently opposes the policies of Barack Obama is that they realize that once the American people experience a government that provides needed services and protections (e.g. universal health care, competently managed national security, investment in infrastructure, etc.) they will never, ever allow the GOP within a country mile of the levers of power.

We are now witnessing the pent-up frustration of a bunch of charlatans and crooks who had their chance at running the government, but failed to destroy it utterly when they had the chance. Now, the grownups are back in charge and the weepy crybabies like Rep. Boner can’t stand it.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this

Dear GT @ 9:18, because the brainless among us have yet to embrace the full truth therein.

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this

Q: Why does Ragnut post this half truth every day?

A: Because he is proud to have reached even the halfway mark. And despite it being fundamentally dishonest, it is all he knows.

By Copyleft

January 27, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

Not surprising that Linder, a priest of the tax-cut religion, suggests more tax cuts as the solution for all our woes.

Despite the fact that tax cuts have proven, time and time again, NOT to drive the economy. But then, facts are irrelevant to the deranged cultists of the fascist right… their mediocre minds can’t grasp such concepts anyway.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

Dear copyleft @ 9:15, “There is no evidence that lower tax rates for the top 1% of the population has in any way stimulated the U.S. economy over the last eight years.” Sort of like “no controlling legal authority?” Perhaps I can help some. The 2001 tax cuts” reduced the top marginal rates on income, phased in 2002 through 2006. The cuts for 2002 were first felt with the 2002 tax filings in first quarter 2003.

Unemployment in December 2002 was 6.0%,

fell to 5.7% in December 2003,

then 5.4% in December 2004,

then 4.9% in December 2005,

then to 4.5% in December 2006. But the democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate in November 2006, and early in 2007 Speaker Pelosi declared the Bush tax cuts would not be renewed.

Thus, in December 2007 the unemployment rate rose to 5.0%,

and in December 2008 rose further to the present 7.2%.

Amazingly, the unemployment rate almost perfectly reflects the prospects for Federal taxation.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this

Q. Why does Simple Answers post personal attacks only, rather than any intelligent thoughts?

A. Because “thought” is a prerequisite to “intelligent,” and Simple Answers has yet to achieve the former.

By The Real Conservative

January 27, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this

“What’s up with the Republicans? Have they no sense that their policies have sent the country hurtling down the road to ruin?”

We’re already well on our way there, Bob, and let me clue you in: liberalism is to blame.

Liberalism will, in the end, cause the complete destruction of this country. It has been sad and painful to watch the ever-accelerating unraveling of this once great nation.

I quote Tytler:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years.”

By Honest Banker

January 27, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this

Citigroup could be in some hot water over reports that the bank, which has received tens of billions of dollars in government bailout money, is buying a brand new $50 million corporate jet for its executives.

By Carl Row

January 27, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this

Halliburton will pay a $559 million fine to end an investigation of its former KBR unit if the U.S. government approves the settlement, the largest penalty against a U.S. company for charges of bribery under federal law.

By The King has no Cloths

January 27, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

Hartmarx, the Illinois clothing company that has made suits for President Obama, filed for bankruptcy on Monday as it suffered from a slowdown in higher-end retail spending.

By deegee

January 27, 2009 10:06 AM | Link to this

Upgrading systems and assets at federal agencies is stimulative to the economy. If the SSA is running 30-year old applications on a legacy system then the IT industry would benefit from a $400M upgrade. If the Agriculture department has deferred maintenance on its assets, then heavy equipment companies, parts dealers and mechanics would benefit from a $209M investment. Rather than give the car industry cash, wouldn’t it be better for the GSA to purchase $600M in new cars to replace an aging fleet? The devil is in making sure that the money is spent prudently on goods and services. I think that the Obama administration has already shown that they are watching what happens to the money as evidenced by the recent accountability changes to the TARP program. Citigroup had months to cancel their option on the $50M executive jet they ordered in 2005. Any coincidence that they decided early today that they won’t be accepting delivery on it?

By John Smith

January 27, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this

What the Republicans and the banking “industry” remind me of is the French court in the late decades of the 18th century. Whom the gods want to destroy they strike with blindness.

By Karl Marxx

January 27, 2009 10:18 AM | Link to this

The only way to stabilize this is to recognize that financial institutions will always find a new scheme to defraud the public. they should be replaced by a national bank that forces fiscal sanity down the throats of an unwilling public, who have been brain washed by 80 years of increasingly reckless credit policies to instant gratification. Maxing out credit cards is regarded as necessary when the house of cards atarts to collapse. Bailing out financial institutions that feel they can use the bailout money to pay their usual obscene pay and benefits, is an arrogant display that is saying to the us “sheep are to be shorn” and a congress of rich and pompous fools is incapable of even realizing how desparate the situation is.

By Honest Banker

January 27, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

According to a Times article a couple days ago, the Democrats are finally playing with the idea of NATIONALIZING the banks. They shouldn’t play with the idea, they should DO it: nationalize every bank that receives taxpayer money in the bailout. Sweden did it successfully a number of years ago and, when the crisis had passed, they turned the banks back to the private sector. Equally as important is that by doing this they wound up making a profit from the action. It’s called Win-Win.

Message to those Republicans (and DINOs) opposed to a temporary nationalization: stop being obstructionist in your blatant attempt to have President Obama fail. What the Republicans are doing by insisting on tax cuts that obviously haven’t worked is that they are leading the United States into a worse situation than it’s already in. It’s time for the U.S. to stop looking for socialist bogeymen under the bed. If a method works, use it. If it doesn’t work—as the past policies clearly haven’t —discard them. Nationalize!

By Rush Knows

January 27, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this

Let’s face it. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, Rush pretty much set out the Republicans Partys’agenda for the next four years: “Obama must fail at any cost”

By Glenn

January 27, 2009 10:29 AM | Link to this

Ahoy, Mr. Wooten and crew.

I concur with your thesis, that Bushphobia masked the Left’s deep contempt for anything barring the march of history into a bright new dawn of dependency on the Collective and its operators. That’s the social-psycho aspect of it, all right.

Then there’s the money angle. All these hogs are doing is throwing the usual slopfest they indulge in every time they come to power. Only this time it’s bigger and muddier than usual, in reverse proportion to the moneys available for the mudwaller. Wise conservatives see how to accrue power and shape policy in budget cutting and in the reduction of programs. Liberals reckon themselves impotent unless they can spend. For them, power is a function of the growth of government, not of government’s improved efficiency, and certainly not of its obsolescence.

Congressman Kingston’s overview of the stimulus package is astute, in my opinion, his warning about looming Hillcare, ominous. I also appreciate Dr. Scafidi’s crucial point about rat-hole education spending; moreover, most of the proposed new spending for education will go to brick-and-mortar construction and classroom technology — a Potemkin Village of Education. In the words of the sagacious Charlie Rich, “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors”.

What Democrats don’t know, they figure won’t hurt us.

By Steve Walker

January 27, 2009 10:33 AM | Link to this

At some point, the positions taken on economic issues by Republican politicians can no longer be dismissed simply as the wrong-headed, ideology-driven responses of doctrinaire conservatives. At some point — and we are at that point now — the stubborn demands for more goodies in the form of further tax cuts for the rich, and the refusal to support needed economic measures without such beneficence for the wealthy, become a threat to the nation.

It is ironic that the political party which so readily waves the flag and spouts patriotic slogans has come to stand for placing special interests above the national good in time of crisis.

By BeBe in B'ham

January 27, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this

Same Old Song”: Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

What I cannot understand is what good tax cuts will do for those have lost their jobs and thus no longer have the privilege of paying payroll taxes. These are the same folks who are least likely to have significant (if any) savings and no investment portfolios to benefit from tax cuts. Senator Boehner and his short-sighted confreres in Congress need to live and struggle as the rest of us do for a change. As it is, they think only of themselves — not those who are suffering and certainly not the nation’s economic future.

It’s time to get behind President Obama and do all possible to get this country back on track! We’ve had enough of GOP “solutions”!

By Peter

January 27, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

Gosh Jim………….Amazing spend some money at home, help the Poor and Children……. Gosh the next thing we may see is spending on America’s Infrastructure ?

I know Republican’s really don’t like Children, especially since they get in front of Spending on WAR !

Gosh Jim, let’s talk about America’s Children left behind…… Or was that “No Child left Behind” ? Gosh I guess if you don’t fund it then it really was all a bunch of Bunk.

Gee Jim it seems tragic American’s want to spend money on their children’s education…….but hey JIM…. you were the guy who wanted to cut funding for the HOPE to lots of kids……

We do know Republican’s don’t want to fund any social issues.

All the money must go to a few RICH, Greedy slobs who ran their companies into the ground …. and took millions in bonuses as they did it …or spend mega thousands to re-decorate the office as they loose Billions.

What will be the tab to “Save” the Banking industry 4 Trillion ?

And you are b*** about $825 billion ?

What was the reason George Bush gave Americans $600.00 back on their taxes ? Stimulus of the economy ?

I guess If Bush a Republican did it all is OK……. if Obama does it ……….Very BAD !

Put some lipstick on your Pig Jim….. We need more Fish Farms don’t we ?

By deegee

January 27, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this

Why Nancy Pelosi did not cause high unemployment:

1/03/2007 - Housing starts are expected to remain down in many parts of the country, due to increased marketing time and inventories of unsold homes that grew from a 3.7-month supply in 2005 to a 7.3-month supply in 2006 at the national level. Lower home prices and slower sales activity, combined with growing inventories of unsold housing, will make it more difficult for distressed homeowners to sell off their properties to avoid foreclosure. Higher mortgage rates will have an effect too — as rates are reset to higher levels on those “exotic” adjustable mortgages.

By The Judge

January 27, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this

I am enraged that the current administration seems to be going down the same path, with more billions for those very institutions that do not manage money for the good of the economy. We’ve stopped talking of millions (most people will not earn a million dollars in a life time), but hundreds of billions with resulting trillions of dollars of debt. And for what? So some fat cats can ride out the recession and pick up cheap bargains? This is not a policy that works for me.

By Bill Hall

January 27, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

Now that the Dems are in power you want a one-party state. It doesn’t work that way.

Pray tell why the Democratic plans will work. Don’t just tell us things are bad and that Republican suggestions won’t work. Truth is most government assistance doesn’t work. Japan fruitlessly spent years doing what the the Democrats want to do. Why should we be able to do better?

By Hog Farmer

January 27, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this

What do you expect the Repubs to do when the Dems are getting ready to pass out 1 trillion dollars? It is feeding time at the hog farm and both parties are lining up to get their share of the slop!

It will be are kids and grand kids that pay for this mess. Thank you Washington!

By Southern View

January 27, 2009 10:42 AM | Link to this

Republicans=Dixiecrats

Let’s get straight who Obama’s opponents really are. They are not Republicans. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and even George Herbert Walker Bush no longer exists. The old Republican Party has been transformed into the Dixiecrat Party, and it has more members in Congress than Strom Thurmond ever dreamed of. Just look at the numbers. And what rational person believes that the Dixiecrat Party has any worthwhile solutions to the nation’s problems? What party resting on such a narrow geographic, racial, economic, and ethnic base could have anything useful to tell the rest of us? The winning Democrats have no obligation to try to bring on board the thoroughly discredited Dixiecrat yahoos.

There is one legitimate issue raised by the opponents of Obama’s stimulus package. That’s the charge that it risks becoming a Democratic Christmas tree loaded with earmarks and special interest goodies. Congressional Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot if they simply substitute Democratic irresponsible spending for the Dixiecrat irresponsible spending of the past eight years.

By Jason

January 27, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this

“Amazingly, the unemployment rate almost perfectly reflects the prospects for Federal taxation.”

It even more closely reflects the expansion and popping of the housing bubble. Of course unemployment was low when money was cheap and home equity was sky-rocketing (even though most jobs created were of the low-paying service-sector variety). Employers were responding to the waxing and waning of demand, not the “prospects for federal taxation.”

By Glenn

January 27, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

“1/03/2007 - Housing starts are expected to remain down in many parts of the country…”

deegee:

Housing starts jumped 6.5% last month.

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 11:21 AM | Link to this

A gauntlet has been thrown! So, a point for debate, if the Rag is up to it…

Rag posits that economic behavior is driven by “prospects for federal taxation”. He also asserts that removal of any prevailing tax break (i.e., a tax policy whose removal would result in someone paying higher taxes) is akin to a tax hike that will inevitably result in a modification of economic activity to reduce the impact of the so-called confiscatory policy.

So far, I suspect Rag would agree that he holds these “truths” to be self-evident.

But let’s look at one such situation. During the Reagan administration, the long-standing policy of treating credit card interest as tax deductible (as mortgage interest is still treated) was eliminated. By Rag’s reasoning, credit card debt - especially that debt that was carried long enough to incur interest - should have plummeted in response. But in fact, credit card debt - which includes a hefty percentage of the debt carried by Rag’s venerated small-business owners - has skyrocketed. This despite the fact that credit card interest rates are often in the mid-to high- 20 percent range, far higher than that of the late 70s and early 80s when the credit card interest deduction was allowed.

How can this be? For it clearly contradicts one of Rag’s cherished articles of faith, and certainly someone as committed to “intelligent thought” and clear-eyed analysis would look at this example (just one of dozens) that so clearly contradicts his dogma.

Even Greenspan could admit that he had been dead wrong in his blinkered Randian infatuation. Rag can muster no equivalent honesty, but instead dresses his discredited cant in the pretty clothes and lipstick of pseudo-intellectual discourse, hoping that we will overlook the essence of Blanche duBois that lurks within.

By getalife

January 27, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this

No stupid.

The left were screaming bloody murder because w destroyed our country. Duh.

RW and their silly think tanks had their chance and failed miserably.

Now, where is Joe the reporter.

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 11:29 AM | Link to this

Glenn,

December housing starts were in fact down between 10.5 and 14 percent, depending on if you credit the figures from Bloomberg, Real Estate Association, or the census bureau.

Sale of existing homes in 12/2008 is in fact up 6.5% over Dec 2007. Alas, foreclosure sales account for over half the total.

But starts are way down, and will likely remain so as long as the excess inventory remains.

By deegee

January 27, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

Glenn, where are you getting your news? BTW, the historical data in my post at 10:37 was from 2007.

“December housing starts fell 15.5% to a new cycle-low 550k (consensus 605k), down from 651k in November. Building permits fell 10.7% to a new low of 545k (consensus 600k), down from 615k. * Starts and permits have fallen 45% and 51% respectively from a year ago, and both are down over 75% from their peak in late 2005/early 2006. * The declines were across all four regions, with housing starts falling the most in the Midwest (-25%) and South (-22%). Single-family starts in the West fell 23%, but the one bright spot was a 51% rise in multi-family starts in this region.”

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Dear Simple Answers @ 11:21, no contradiction, rather apples and oranges, or the economic distinction between “consumer debt” – a measure of consumption - and “capital formation,” a pre-requisite of growth. We would agree that federal tax exemption of credit card constituted a what the leftists call a “subsidy” of private credit, and we would agree that removal of the subsidy did not have a disincentive effect in use of private credit. We would also note that the later Reagan years were one of rapid growth for the entire economy, primarily due to the business tax cuts of earlier years. Normally as business expands and the economy grows, consumer confidence grows and people spend more money, sometime more than they have on hand.

Within that framework, what is the argument against destroying business confidence with higher taxes, i.e., government usurpation of private capital that otherwise would go to expand the economy?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Link to this

Apologies Simple, I worded my closing question in a confusing manner. Why would anyone consciously destroy business confidence?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 11:44 AM | Link to this

And Simple, while I have no real objection to hyperbole, “Greenspan could admit that he had been dead wrong in his blinkered Randian infatuation” crosses the line into patent falsehood.

By Glenn

January 27, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this

deegee and Simple Answers:

I stand corrected. Literally. As pennance for my mistaking yesterdays sales reports for figures on housing starts, I am, despite my bad back, making myself to stand as I type this.

With your permission I’ll sit in the corner instead. My apology, deegee.

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this

Greenspan in fact admitted that the central premise of his ideology had been proved wrong. He has feebly tried to backtrack that in subsequent remarks, but he laid it bare. Closed question as far as his opinion goes, though your own fealty to the Cult of Ayn is not in doubt. (In tandem with your obesiance to the Cult of Man Handed Ann, you are indeed a busy acolyte!)

More on “business confidence” later, sir, as I need to attend to my own commerce for a stretch. Yes, we Dirty Effing Hippies work, too.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

Dear Simple @ various times, let’s cut to the chase. I posted nearly 1,000 words to open the blog today, with a lot of facts and analysis, ideas that ought to be subject to challenge if wrong. Can’t you find anything in there to dispute?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this

Great article on the corrupt activities of democrat congressmen using TARP.

By Esther James

January 27, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten you had no problem with spending when it was for an unnecessary war, but you have a problem spending on Universal Healthcare, affordable housing and K-12 education? If my tax dollars are going to be spent anyway I am glad they are going towards something worth while rather than crippling young men. Mr. Wooten your day like George Bush’s day has past. I am glad to see you go. I saw your job posted on this website and all I can say is GOOD BYE. You have played out. It’s time to spend money on something that is going to benefit the citizens of this country.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this

Dear deegee @ 10:06, you posted a technical truth: “Upgrading systems and assets at federal agencies is stimulative to the economy.” Of course, abolishing regulations would stimulate the economy more, and abolishing federal agencies would do even more to stimulate the economy.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this

Dear Simple @ 11:54, you don’t fool me. You are no “Dirty Effing Hippy” – a “Dirty Effing Hippy” would oppose allowing The Man to steal from the people.

By hey Ragnar

January 27, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this

Ragnar, go get your own column. Your opinion is tedious and boring to the rest of Wooten’s readers.

By Doug

January 27, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

With the current Democrat plan this country isn’t long before it will be total socialistic. We are almost there and this stimulus should do it. It is time for the “working” taxpayers to wake up. The non working taxpayers already have their agaenda—they voted for it.

By Lib bait

January 27, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

“By hey Ragnar” “January 27, 2009 12:49 PM”

“Ragnar, go get your own column. Your opinion is tedious and boring to the rest of Wooten’s readers.” —- Isn’t that special. Some bedwetting lib doesn’t like a Conservative’s opinion on a Conservative column. Typical of the left: whine, pitch fit, moan, wet bed when s/he reads something that doesn’t jive with his/her progressive ideology.

Well anyway, it appears that one of the lipstick wearing pigs in the Pelosicrat’s stimulus package has been tossed overboard into the vast depths of the liberal sea to once again be raised one day, to be sure. Can we toss overboard funding for the “arts” too? I’m sorry, but looking at some fugly iron sculpture made by some stoner in a downtown park just isn’t my idea of doing much for the economy.

“From NBC’s Mike Viqueira”

“The provision within the stimulus that would allocate money for contraceptive programs through Medicaid will be pulled out of the package.”

“NBC News confirms that the president called Henry Waxman, the chairman of the committee that inserted the contraception provision into the stimulus during the mark up last week, to ask him to remove the measure from the bill, according to a Democratic leadership source.”

“In short, the idea has simply become too controversial. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s defense of the program over the weekend, where she indicated that it would be a money saver, was not well received.”

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

Rag

Picking a paragraph at random from your opening pontification.

Two years ago Speaker Pelosi declared that the Bush tax cuts would not be renewed, thus promising to impose the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

Really? The largest ever, ever? In the history of the whole wide world? And you accuse me of hyperbole.

Two points here…first, the GOP of the past 20+ years is habitual in declaring any tax increase as “the largest in the history of the world!!!”, so this particular game of crying wolf is especially tiresome. Especially when one considers that the largest tax increases in US history (adjusted for inflation) were passed by Reagan, and that those increase fell disproportionately on the working class. Yours is not factual argumentation; it is standard wingnut emotionalism that ignores reality.

Second, yours is lawyeristic rhetoric on a par with Clintonian quibbling over the meaning of ‘is’. The GOP dominated government (controlling the executive branch and both houses of congress) legislated a series of temporary tax cuts that were designed to expire in 2010. This is simply allowing the GOP legislation to achieve its stated end point. Calling it a tax increase is freshman level sophistry. Again, an assertion lacking fact, but brimming with hysterical emotionalism.

Rag Fail.

The promise appears increasingly likely, and surely now even leftists acknowledge the economic injury that such a plan will impose.

In fact, no. “Leftists” do not acknowledge this, as there is no such thing as monolithic ‘leftist’ thought. Again, cheap emotionalism, coupled with strawman toppling. The most recent Nobel Prize winner in economics surely does not agree with this, and he surely fits your overbroad definition of ‘leftist’. So, abject falsehood.

Rag Fail.

The employment contraction today is due to employers’s anticipation of the economy of 2010.

This is where you approach half-truth, and it is the use of such half-truths in service of the big lie that makes your brand of conservative debate so toxic.

Many businesses are indeed battening the hatches for the anticipated economic storm. But you attribute this tightening to future tax policy. From my personal business dealings, I know for a fact that a substantial slice of the rising unemployment tide is directly attributable to the evaporation of viable short-term credit markets for small businesses.

So, a short refutation of a few of your points, as requested. I do not expect this will stop your habit of posting emotionalist appeals in the cloak of intellectual finery. Alas.

You asked for debate. Then you asked for refutation. You got both. You will no doubt declare yourself victorious, and as I’m signing off to tend to work, you will no doubt declare me in retreat. Enjoy your little victory dance.

By Peter

January 27, 2009 1:06 PM | Link to this

Ragnar wants American’s poor, and American’s dead……so does Jim…..if you are not Rich, die for God’s sake !

Thus we have WARS……

Please No spending on Health care…..or EDUCATION……

WHY ?

Change may occur ….and that is Not good for ………..”A few, the Proud, the Greedy, the Republican’s” !

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this

Apologies. The italics feature did not work in my post, making difficult to tell which bits were quotes from Rag, and which my own. Rag will recognize his own words, and it’s really not worth the time to fix for anyone else.

By Buzz

January 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Link to this

Copyleft - your name calling makes your comment as valuable as Pelosi’s contracptives to the stimulus package. First READ and find the true meaning of fascist as you clearly need an education. Shame to see you are a product of good tax payers money. Need we say more? If you really understood economics and read a little you would notice that social programs do not create economic value which leads to prosperity for ALL those that want to work. Thats not me saying that. Harvard economists are saying the same thing. So stop with the name calling. Join in a real debate and leave your diaper and other childish name calling, remarks at the door.

By Lib bait

January 27, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this

Ah, I spoke too soon. The Pelosicrats want ACORN funding now, that corrupt social organization under investigation for voter fraud. No, you can’t make this kind of stuff up under Democrat rule:

“Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House. House Republican Leader John Boehner said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.”

You will not hear one peep from the Libs on Democrat spending, let alone on a program that operates while under investigation for voter fraud. Not ONE.

By Glenn

January 27, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this

Actually, I don’t have a problem with the price tag of the stimulus. Scaling an appropriate stimulus is for e.g. CBO and the Council of Economic Advisors to figure. Going into Election Day, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that it needed to be big and it needed to be fast. I’ve no idea whether $825B is enough, or too much.

It’s trite simply to say that, golly, that’s a lot of money, though the sticker-shock alone is one of the hurdles Obama will have to clear if he’s to retail the package to the People, as most of us are unfamiliar with the sheer scale of U.S. federal budgeting. It’s similarly facile to figure an amount in proportion to some category of spending, such as national defense, we happen to dislike at the moment on policy grounds. That’s a hippie’s guns-or-butter reduction sauce, the logical equivalent of a bait-and-switch.

CBO says it’s not fast enough, that it won’t affect conditions on the ground soon enough. Boehner and others in the GOP quarrel with the ratio of tax cuts to spending. And then there’s the undeniable fact that the Act is a casing for a sausage the first ingredient of which, under the Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug regulations, is pork.

I’ve got two beefs though, and they aren’t those. My first is that the package is a “house divided”: federalization vs. federalism. I’d like to see virtually all the spending allocated to the states, where it can be more deliberately and efficiently allocated.

My second beef is that the spending package, the bulk of the Act, is incoherent. It’s a hodgepodge. There comes a moment annually in the federal budgeting process when the call goes out to “load up the truck”, meaning that a narrow window has opened in which to wire earmarks. Suffice it to say that the hotels in DC revert to their peak-season rates for a week or two. This stimulus bill makes the aggregate of a year’s earmarks look like a hair on the ear of a piglet. But the Act does resemble the pork run in that the spending is all over the map.

Again, my concern is that it lacks a focus that could bring coherence to diverse programs. It lacks the overarching clarity and purposefulness of one of America’s grand efforts: the settling of the Louisiana Territory, the creation of a transcontinental railroad, the winning of World War II, the journey to The Moon.

Would it be possible for both parties to agree that a $500 billion - $1 trillion package could be assembled around a vast initiative to gain energy independence, and to let that be the stimulus to our economy? Lots of room there for infrastructure investment in our grid; for focused R&D investment; for increased federal expenditures on secondary and postsecondary education; for further aid of our auto industry; for tax credits for both businesses and for struggling homeowners. Speaking of housing starts, one even could envision federal assistance to the housing industry, in return for greener homes.

By Barry

January 27, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this

OK all you smarty-pants types - on both sides - educate me. Last week Richard Rahn, writing in the Washington Times, said the stimulus package, as proposed, “…will cost the typical American family more than $20,000 (a small portion of which may be returned as tax credits)…” Is this fact, half truth, hyperbole? I await my educational moment of the day.

By Copyleft

January 27, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

Buzz: “If you really understood economics and read a little you would notice that social programs do not create economic value which leads to prosperity for ALL those that want to work.”

And I never claimed they did. What I did was point out that pursuing tax cuts as a magical cure-all for any and ever economic problem is blind, cultlike behavior with no foundation in reality, as history has repeatedly shown.

Infrastructure spending, progressive tax structures, and targeted stimulus programs produce economic recovery and growth. FDR’s programs gave us roughly three decades of prosperity… all with a staggering 90% top-bracket tax rate!

And if the label “fascist” bothers you, you might want to reconsider your support for fascist policies.

Fascism, n.: An authoritarian, corporate state characterized by excessive nationalism, aggressive paranoia toward other states, suppression of dissent, and policies that favor the moneyed interests. It is specifically anti-liberal and anti-democracy, and is heavily invested in authoritarian thinking.

If you can’t recognize the priorities of the former Bush administration in that list, your failure is your own fault, not mine.

By Peter

January 27, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

Hey Barry……..Good question………”By Barry

January 27, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this

OK all you smarty-pants types - on both sides - educate me. Last week Richard Rahn, writing in the Washington Times, said the stimulus package, as proposed, “…will cost the typical American family more than $20,000 (a small portion of which may be returned as tax credits)…” Is this fact, half truth, hyperbole? I await my educational moment of the day.”

How about this question……How much will the 2 WARS cost American’s ?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this

Dear Simple @ 1:02. you took 172 words to contradict my assertion (“largest tax increase in the history of the world”) when – if you had a single fact on your side – you would merely need two words, a name and date, to cite a larger one. Of course, as large as the American economy is today – compared to any other economic force in the history of the world – you will have none. It will, in fact, be the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

As to “even leftists acknowledge the injury,” I deny asserting a monolith, and indeed I would need cite only two to meet the standard I set. I respectfully cite Obama and Biden, as each acknowledges the need to “delay” the increases until the economy improves. Too bad they don’t go all the way and fix the tax rates to consciously improve the economy. I suppose you could dispute my assertion that Obama and Biden are “leftists” but that frankly would be argumentative on your part. However, we would agree that not all leftists enjoy the comparatively clear vision of Obama and Biden, as your citation of Krugman proves.

As to the discomfort caused by the credit contraction, even my writings cite credit contraction as an immediate trigger for the downward spiral, but it was indeed the prospective tax increase that placed the economy at the edge of the abyss.

But you are correct on one point – I do declare myself the winner here.

Dear Barry @ 1:28, 100,000,000 families x $20,000 each = $2 Trillion. Sounds like hyperbole to me, unless he is talking about long-term ripple effects, from the collapsing economy likely to remain uncured by the proposals on the table. There the lost income could push the total up. I’d still say hyperbole.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Link to this

Dear Copyleft @ 1:58, “An authoritarian, corporate state” i.e, dictating business policies from the central government, a la TARP’s late control of the bank activities

“characterized by excessive nationalism,” who opposes free trade here? Who championed free immigration?

“aggressive paranoia toward other states,” I think we would agree that al Qaeda is not a state, or perhaps you argue that Iran should be allowed to develop nukes unmolested? Hurling the “paranoia” epithet does not mean there are no true enemies of freedom in the world.

“suppression of dissent,” can we talk about Fairness Doctrine?

“and policies that favor the moneyed interests.” Such as Barney Frank’s banker friends, or Chris Dodd’s relationship to Countrywide?

“It is specifically anti-liberal” do you even know what that means? Hint, it has nothing to do with the democrat party

“and anti-democracy,” just who went to court in Florida in 2000 to overturn the voters? Who routinely attempts to suppress counting military votes? Whose policies intentionally remove the right of free men to cast their economic votes in the marketplace, preferring the superior knowledge of the overlords?

“and is heavily invested in authoritarian thinking.” Who are the cultists among us?

By SaveOurRepublic

January 27, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this

Churchill’s MOM @ 8:19 AM - A point of clarification, Bill Kristol is an arch-neocon (son of Neoconservative “founder” Irving Kristol), a Zionist/AIPAC shill & ardent Globalist. He (like fellow RINO/Neocons & Marxist Dems) is a traitor to the Republic by virtue of his embrace of Globalism (over defense of the Constitution & the American middle class).

Regarding this preposterous “stimulus” pitched by (our new “god”) “Bacrock Obuma”, it’s a certain failure indeed. The further empowerment of (big) government via squandering of taxpayer (fiat) dollars is NO solution for this economic crisis (by design). Increasing govt spending and debt is NOT the method for recovery. Entrepreneurship is the key driving force in economic development & private property is paramount to the efficient use of resources. Less government is the best government!

The sad, sober fact of the matter is that the Globalist puppets on “Crapitol sHill” will never execute the corrective actions to rightset our economy. Those being…abolishment of the (private) Federal Reserve (of the Central Banking Cartel), abolishment of federal income tax & IRS (the collection agency of the private Fed), return to the gold standard (ala Breton Woods) & end of fiat currency, & greatly slashing federal spending (by 25-45%) starting with the extraction of troops in the Middle East.

By Jason

January 27, 2009 2:32 PM | Link to this

“If you really understood economics and read a little you would notice that social programs do not create economic value which leads to prosperity for ALL those that want to work. Thats not me saying that. Harvard economists are saying the same thing.”

Larry Summers would beg to differ.

By The Conservative

January 27, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this

The stimulus package is moot. only a third actually gets activated this year.

The problem for Obama is not being perceived as creating welfare states, or being soft on crime or terror, or even trying to steal JFK’s camelot act. No, Obama’s problem is that for the first time in our history, a president took the oath of office without having a platform. The sixty eight million votes he won last november have sixty eight million reasons why they voted. Everyone who looked at or heard from Obama has their own ideas about what Obama’s mission is.

He never really said anything concrete.

Thus, all sixty eight million voters will be disappointed. The honeymoon is probably already over. The only people who will emerge with a better opinion of Obama are the conservatives, who expected him to immediately cut and run from Iraq.

Obama cant possibly succeed into a second term. There’s no issue-continuity. Will we be better off four years from now? comparing what?

Four and out. Obama is a one termer.

By deegee

January 27, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this

Glenn, I am glad that you mentioned the 6.5% uptick in existing home sales. It speaks to a point that I think is kind of important. A lot of people that have been financially conservative over the years are upset at the thought of the government’s proposals to stem the tide of foreclosures by writing down principle, etc. in order to keep people from foreclosing. They wonder what incentive there is for people to live within their means. My opinion is that if you have good credit and cash you have an extraordinary buying opportunity. Assuming that we will pull out of this in our lifetime, financially responsible people have a chance to make a reasonable profit in real estate. At issue, when is the right time to buy? With an 11 month supply of homes on the market and increasing unemployment it’s kind of hard to judge.

I agree with you in that we need a national consensus on energy independence and a focused stimulus plan. In hindsight, all of the programs that you mentioned in your post were extraordinarily successful. Certainly there was opposition to them at the time they were being proposed. Fortunately we had the kind of leadership that ensured that they were developed and completed. I believe that we are as close to consensus as we have been in decades. We just need to keep the momentum going and stop with the obstructionist rhetoric.

By Ga Values

January 27, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this

Just got back from lunch with a friend in Covington. He is my age and the retired VP of operations from a large Georgia bases Mfg. company. We are both convinced that the end is at hand. Until we are able to rebuild our manufacturing base we will not recover. If we are able to recover it will not happen in my lifetime, which I estimate at less than 10 years. This is from the AP.

“Americans’ mood about the economy darkened further in January, sending a widely watched barometer of consumer sentiment to a new low, a private research group said Tuesday, as people worry about their jobs and watch their retirement funds dwindle.

The Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index edged down to 37.7 from a revised 38.6 in December, lower than the reading of 39 that economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected. In recent months the index has hit its lowest troughs since it began in 1967, and is hovering at less than half its level of January 2007, when it was 87.3.

”It appears that consumers have begun the new year with the same degree of pessimism that they exhibited in the final months of 2008,” Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. ”Looking ahead, consumers remain quite pessimistic about the state of the economy and about their earnings.”

The Present Situation Index, which measures how shoppers feel now about the economy, declined slightly to 29.9 from 30.2 last month. The Expectations Index,which measures shoppers’ outlook over the next six months, decreased to 43.0 from 44.2.

Franco added that until she sees considerable improvement in shoppers’ outlook for the economy, she can’t say that ”the worst of times are behind us.”

The downbeat report prompted Wall Street to give up an early advance. The Dow Jones industrial average was down 17 points at 8,098 after being up as much as 85 points.

Economists closely watch consumer confidence since consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity. But the latest signs of a nervous consumer spur fresh alarm about the economy and the health of the retail industry, which is struggling with the most severe spending retrenchment in decades.

Stores limped through the weakest holiday period since at least 1969, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers. And retail sales appear to be only deteriorating in January as shoppers continue to be whipsawed by massive layoffs across all sectors of the economy. The unemployment rate, now at a 16-year high of 7.2 percent, could hit 10 percent or higher later this year or early next year, according to some analysts’ projections.

Several big companies announced layoffs Monday, sending thousands more to the unemployment lines.

Drugmaker Pfizer Inc., which is buying Wyeth in a $68 billion deal, and Sprint Nextel Corp., the country’s third-largest wireless provider, each plan to slash 8,000 jobs. Home Depot Inc. is shedding 7,000 jobs, and General Motors Corp. said it will cut 2,000 more jobs. Caterpillar Inc., the world’s largest maker of mining and construction equipment, announced 5,000 new layoffs on top of several earlier actions.

Meanwhile, a report on home prices released Tuesday offered more bad news about the slumping housing market. The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-city housing index showed home prices dropped by 18.2 percent in November, the sharpest annual rate on record.

The Consumer Confidence survey — derived from responses received through Jan. 21 of a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households — showed that consumers’ overall assessment of current conditions remain pessimistic. Those saying that business conditions are ”bad” increased to 47.9 percent from 45.8 percent, while those saying they are ”good” declined to 6.4 percent from 7.7 percent last month.

Consumers’ short-term outlook also remains gloomy. Those expecting business conditions to worsen over the next six months decreased slightly to 31.1 percent from 32.9 percent, while those anticipating conditions to improve was little changed at 13.3 percent in January, compared with 13.4 percent in December.

By Copyleft

January 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this

I know it’s futile to try to reason with a zealot, but for the general edification of all, I’ll once again answer Ragnar’s absurd lies.

“An authoritarian, corporate state” i.e, dictating business policies from the central government, a la TARP’s late control of the bank activities.

Incorrect. Rather, it’s corporate lobbyists’ blatant ownership of legislators to the point of actually writing the legislation for them. (Not to mention the countless “customized” loopholes, special credits, and exemptions extended to corporate interests to help them avoid paying taxes, fines, and penalties for their behavior.)

“characterized by excessive nationalism,” who opposes free trade here? Who championed free immigration?

Free trade has nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with corporatism. “Excessive nationalism” takes the form of worrying about flag pins on lapels, flag-waving, and stickers on SUVs. Unquestioning jingoism, presented courtesy of the right-wing media.

“aggressive paranoia toward other states,” I think we would agree that al Qaeda is not a state.

Correct. Excessive paranoia takes the form of calling for pre-emptive strikes and assassinations of foreign leaders who dare to disagree with us, or who simply pursue their own interests rather than complying with ours.

Hurling the “paranoia” epithet does not mean there are no true enemies of freedom in the world.

Correct. And quite a few of them are here within our borders, calling themselves “conservatives.” Remember how eager they were to dismantle our freedoms in the name of “National Security”?

“suppression of dissent,” can we talk about Fairness Doctrine?

Which hasn’t been proposed, let alone passed? Sure. As soon as you’re willing to talk about “Free Speech Zones” and the cries of lunatics like Coulter and Hannity of “treason” every time Bush’s agenda was questioned… not to mention John “Watch What You Say” Ashcroft as Attorney General.

“and policies that favor the moneyed interests.” Such as Barney Frank’s banker friends, or Chris Dodd’s relationship to Countrywide?

Nope. Policies that are written by and for corporations, such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton buddies, the Blackwater mercenaries, no-bid contracts, and all the other fawning favoritism that the Bush administration specialized in—as, indeed, the Republican party of corporate interests has a long and distinguished record of doing.

“It is specifically anti-liberal” do you even know what that means? Hint, it has nothing to do with the democrat party

Hint: It’s DemocratIC Party. And yes, I know what “liberal” means. I rather suspect you don’t, given your frequent misuse of the term “leftist” to characterize anything and anyone you disagree with.

“and anti-democracy,” just who went to court in Florida in 2000 to overturn the voters?

Recounts are part of the democratic process, and it’s dishonest of you to pretend you didn’t know that. Both major parties are guilty of quite a number of efforts to insulate themselves from the inconvenience of democracy (mainly through redistricting), but only the Republicans made “discourage voter turnout” a cornerstone of their campaign planning.

Whose policies intentionally remove the right of free men to cast their economic votes in the marketplace, preferring the superior knowledge of the overlords?

What delusional creatures consider buying and selling the moral equivalent of “voting”? Other than anarcho-capitalists, Ayn Rand fanatics, and similarly intelligence-challenge cultists, of course.

“and is heavily invested in authoritarian thinking.” Who are the cultists among us?

As has been repeatedly demonstrated by your willful denial of facts and reality… you.

By Doug

January 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

This financial mess came to a beginning when the Neighboorhood Revitalization Act was indtroduced by Carter and expanded by Clinton. It was all about letting evryone have a house if they could or could not afford it (social lengineering). Then the greedy bankers and Wall Street (ex hippies with haircut and new suit)figured they could manipulate the system in their favor—and they did. It is going to take atleast a generation to straighten this mess out. Obama his his crowd will throw money to the wind during his only term.

By REPUBLICANS EVIL TIME IS UP

January 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this

NEO-NAZI CONFAGDERATES REPUBLICANS BELIEVE IN BOMBING THE INNOCENT STARVING THE BABIES THAT THEY SAY SHOULD NOT BE ABORTED BUT KILL THEM ONCE THEY GET HERE,LOOK AT THE ARAB AND JEW WAR WITH THE JEWS KILLING UNARMED HUMANS,SOUTHERN GA REDNECKS LIKE JIMBO HERE COMPLAIN ABOUT OBAMA TRYING TO FIX THE COUNTRY BUT SAYING NOTHING WHEN BUSH MESSED IT UP,IM GLAD YOU RACIST WHITES ARE GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE BECAUSE YOU FOOLS VOTED FOR BUSH SUXBY AND SONNY,NOW LOOK AT YOUR JOBS BEING SENT OVERSEAS BY YOUR REPUBLICANS NEO-NAZIS,YOU POOR WHITE TRASH TRY TO BLAME THE DOWN FALL OF THIS COUNTRY ON EVERYBODY BUT THE RACIST WHO WAS IN CHARGE WHEN THE COUNTRY WAS GOING DOWN.

P.S.WHEN YOU STUPID REDNECKS POINT THE FINGER YOU HAVE TEN FINGERS POINTED AT YOU. AND WHAT HAPPEN TO ALL THE GET THE TERRORIST AND STOP THE GAYS,AND THE GAYS HAPPEN TO BE UNDERCOVER REPUBLICANS!

By Raggedisnott Darnitskold

January 27, 2009 4:01 PM | Link to this

Ah, ye leftist heathen will never learn, will ye? For I, Raggedisnott Dingdangittyturdholle, am simply bursting (bursting, I tell you) with conservative knowledge and wit (the rest of the world calls it “bloviating rhetoric cobbled slapdashedly from single-sourced sites”, but nevermind that). Ergo, none can say me naught, for my cutting and pasting skills are second to none, and my selective recall has been honed to a razor’s edge of cherrypickedyness (don’t you just love my vocabulary? I made that up myself!). Facts? Bah! What need have I for such? I shall now grab my ankles, and with a mighty huff-and-puff, blow all ye leftie heathen off this board with a blast from my storehouse of rhetorical rectumtude. Then, I shall count the words in each and every one of my posts thus far, to ensure that the total surpasses those of all other posters’, for this, my disciples, is the surest proof of my intellectual superiority. Look on, ye lefties, and despair!

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

Sigh. Turn my back for a couple of hours and Ragnoid has carpet bombed the place with another blanket of bovine discharge. Thanks to copyleft for having the patience to unpack the lies of this mendacious hack. I will recall Ben Franklin’s admonition about arguing with a pig and forego any further substantive effort at engaging his fact-free nonsense.

The simple answers dismissal is all that this garbage delivery man deserves.

Q: Are the cowpies that Ragnoid leaves lying around this forum proof of his complete dishonesty or his lack of intelligence?

A: Yes.

By citizen

January 27, 2009 4:12 PM | Link to this

Just curious about something..if the big Banks had not accepted the first round of the TARP funds, would the stockholders of these firms ever know about the bonuses and lavish spending that these executives were doing even when the profits and stock prices were dropping? Could this have been a deliberate effort to expose the vulgarities of the people at the top of these firms?

By Peter

January 27, 2009 4:14 PM | Link to this

Funny Bunch the Republican’s here……..Why don’t All you Republican’s with “Bright Ideas” send them to Obama……..after all he is the First President in at least 8 years willing to “LISTEN”.

Write his web site, explain you ideas and see what may happen……

By TIMES UP EVIL REPUBLICANS

January 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this

NOTICE RAGNAR YOU EVIL NEO-CONS USE BIG WORDS THAT STILL END UP BEING LIES AND UNTRUTHS,YOU EVIL REPUBLICANS COME UP WITH SO MUCH INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY,BUT ARE TO STUPID TO SEE THAT IT WAS YOU DUMBA$$ NEO-NAZIS THAT BROUGHT AMERICA TO ITS KNEES, YOU SOUTH GA REDNECKS IN BLAKELY GA AT THE PEANUT FACTORY HAVE LOST YOUR JOBS, AND MORE OF YOU RACIST NEO-NAZIS ARE GOING TO LOOSE YOUR JOB.

P.S.THANK YOU BUSH THANK YOU BUSH FOR PUTTING YOUR SUPPORTERS IN A POOR SITUATION SO THAT THEY ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS AND HOMES.

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

Q: Why don’t All you Republican’s with “Bright Ideas” send them to Obama…

A: This is a trick question. The GOP had one idea many years ago, but it died of loneliness. Now there are none.

By deegee

January 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Link to this

Here are 8 republican bright ideas you can submit. BWAAAAAA

By Raggedisnott Dingleberriesmold

January 27, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this

Aiee! No matter how tightly I grip my ankles and strain, mighty though my flatulent indignation manifests itself, no amount of my posterior puffery seems to shake the twin nemeses plaguing me on my board this day. Avaunt, Simple Answers(whichhurtmyheadifItrytocomprehendthem)! Avaunt, Copyleft(ist)! Avast, ye demons of leftist witchery! I call upon the god Woo-ten (for is not our genial host in truth Wotan, the Norse Thunder god himself?) to aid me in ridding our fair blog of the double-Dutch derriere-kicking shown me at the hands of those vile lefties! Alas, ‘tis been a veritable sandwich of rhetorical drubbing, of which I find myself the unwilling filling…

By SaveOurRepublic

January 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Link to this

Ga Values @ 15:03 - Your Covington friend and you are right about on the mark. The “end” has been in the works for decades now & is reaching mach 1 speed. These egregious, treasonous, Globalist endorsed “free trade” agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT/WTO, etc.) have dismantled the U.S. manufacturing base. This (coupled with the current economic crisis) are leveraging mechanisms for the Globalist Elite to more quickly implement the North American Union (NAU/SPP). The NAU is modeled after the EU & will encompass a common currency, the Amero (ala the Euro) to replace the (intentionally devalued) U.S. dollar (Canadian dollar & Mex peso). Former Mex Prez Fox openly admitted this on Larry King Live (*video is on YouTube & Google Video). Make NO mistake, this is all by design to expedite the (long planned) creation of the NAU, which will then be merged with the EU, AU, ASEAN & other IGOs, for a One World Government…and THAT is the end-game!

By Simple Answers

January 27, 2009 9:52 PM | Link to this

Q: Is the poster named Save Our Republic just another garden variety wingnut conspiracy nut who piddles his pants whenever a helicopter flies by?

A: Yes. Loud door slams and car backfires also cause him to lose control of his evacuations. He’s also impotent, poor fellow.

By Churchill's MOM

January 28, 2009 8:16 AM | Link to this

Sarah Palin makes early move By Jay Bookman | Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 05:03 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Well isn’t that interesting:

“In a sign Sarah Palin wants to continue to be a player on the national political stage, the Alaska Governor has started a new political action committee to raise funds, SarahPAC.

The PAC is registered in Virginia and is modeled after HillPAC, Hillary Clinton’s former political committee. Palin’s committee allows her to raise money for other Republicans.

According to the Web site, the committee will also support Palin’s “plans to build a better, stronger, and safer America in the 21st century.”

Palin continues to have a huge political following. As of noon today, she has 464,000 friends on Facebook.com.”