Comments | ontd_political: 50 De-Stimulating Facts

bluetooth16 in ontd_political

50 De-Stimulating Facts

Feb 05, 2009 18:03

Senate Democrats acknowledged Wednesday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill in its current form. This is unexpected good news. The House passed the stimulus package with zero Republican votes (and even a few Democratic defections), but few expected Senate Republicans (of whom there are only 41) to present a unified front. A ( Read more... )

stimulus

Comments 88

(The comment has been removed)

squid_ink February 5 2009, 23:22:18 UTC

pork seems to be code speak for "something i don't like"

like ... I dunno... HEALTHCARE FOR CHILDREN

suck on that, National Review.

syndicalist February 6 2009, 00:29:20 UTC

Yes, anyone's red flag shouldgo up when they hear the word "pork" when it comes to govt spendng in the face of the worse economic catastrophe since the Great Depression.
In the 30s the GOP employed similar tactics; then they didn't call it pork, but"boondoggles." The public works projects that employed people and which created infrastructure we still use today - they were all "boondoggles."

hellooo February 5 2009, 23:40:46 UTC

I agree :/ Increasing funding for the USACE makes sense when large parts of the stimulus plan involves pretty big projects like seeking alternative energy and repairing infrastructure. It's basically what they do. Obviously how the money is going to be spent should be carefully monitored, but the pure fact that it's going to the USACE doesn't automatically make it pork.

Plus, a lot of these seem to have long-term economic effects, rather than being more immediate 'stimulants.' Which also makes sense, since it is technically an 'economic recovery bill,' first and foremost.

Thread 5

squid_ink February 5 2009, 23:21:18 UTC

the National Review?

I thought we were supposed to use REAL, not joke sources of news

It's like using THE ONION as a source.

bluetooth16 February 6 2009, 02:17:21 UTC

NR is one of the biggest conservative news/opinion sources. It's a whole lot more legit than other people. At least editors and actual professionals vet the stories.

train_diskense February 6 2009, 13:19:17 UTC

*laughs at your joke forever and ever and ever*

...OH WAIT YOU'RE SERIOUS. FUCK.

winniechili February 5 2009, 23:25:45 UTC

There is pretty much nothing listed there that is "outrageous."

Poor William Buckley. He's probably vomiting in his grave over what National Review has become.

jaded110 February 5 2009, 23:31:58 UTC

How... is ANY of this outrageous, exactly? Most of it is stuff we sorely need. (healthcare, especially)

asteelysea February 5 2009, 23:33:28 UTC

Clearly because a lot of programs that will help people who're suffering and long-ignored are not strictly stimulus programs (and what qualifies to these people besides tax cuts? Anything? Seriously, all these people benefiting from these various programs will be in a better place to spend money thereby stimulating the economy. Is it that difficult to think it through to that point?) then they are just ridiculously frivolous. I fail to see anything listed above that isn't worthwhile. It's just not shortsighted. But shortsighted never did anything good for us.

missmurchison February 6 2009, 04:02:48 UTC

Exactly. The poorest people are most likely to spend money when they get it, as anyone who's ever been in a grocery store in a poor neighborhood full of retirees on the day Social Security pays out knows. So if we want to get money into the economy and start it moving, food stamps and WIC coupons are a great idea.