Or, more properly, does it merely reflect the fact that if conservatives continue to allow liberals to define the issue, that the typical, distracted, non-political junkie is more likely seduced by the promise of government largesse than they are by being told they have the wherewithal to make their own way.

If this is the ‘government as it is, not as we wish it to be’, that conservatives are supposed to come to terms with, yeah, Sara, it most assuredly is scary.

That’s a lie. You know its a lie which makes you a bald faced liar. You refuse to accept the fact – a fact that hundreds of economists have made clear – that there is a lot of wasteful spending in this bill

In #1 I say:
Are we going to manage to piss away a goodly portion of those funds? Yes. And gravity is real and the sun rises in the east and car dealers lie.

Which would make me not a “bald-faced liar” but a realist.

You say:
Using an economic crisis for pork, for passing unrelated spending, for rewarding loyal constituencies may be the most cynical move any president has made in my lifetime.

This is hysterical and ahistorical drivel, and you know it. Your list was composed almost entirely of things which would certainly create or support jobs. 50 million for watershed rehab for example. Is that work done by waving a magic wand, or is it done by guys with shovels? Guys who get paid to wield those shovels.

3.7 billion for green renovations on military bases. Is that done by magic or by guys digging up barrels of sludge and disposing of same?

Is some of the spending bullshit? As I pointed out in comment #1: duh. Is some of it stuff that would have been spent anyway that we’re pretending is new stimulus? Yes. Is the bill imperfect? Of course it is. Jesus, this is our government we’re talking about, it hasn’t yet achieved the kind of perfect free-market efficiency we might see in a CitiBank or a Lehman Brothers or a GM.

Suddenly you want to apply the “perfection” standard to legislation? Have you been applying this consistently over the years? Your list amounts to 1.5%. The full list, according to my rough math, is about 10%. Even assuming either list makes any sense (and neither does) you think a 10% fudge factor is cause for this much outrage? The greatest betrayal of trust in your lifetime? A lifetime that includes Vietnam, Watergate, Desert One, Iran/Contra, Abu Ghraib among so many, many others?

So let me understand this. Unless a program burns money or ships it off to a foreign country, I would assume at least ONE person receives that money. And if I assume that ONE person doesn’t hoard it all, but spends some of it, some economic activity will occur. That would suggest that regardless of how the money is spent jobs are created.

Call me simplistic, but since the past 8+ years the government has spent more than it had and increased federal spending, why haven’t we continued to create jobs? As best as I know the Federal budget has increased every year over the past ___________ decadesand yet we haven’t seen a coincident steady drop in unemployment. And would it be fair to say that if the federal government just spent “enough” money it would eliminate unemployment?

There may be some Republicans blaming Clinton for (____________), I believe the courage lies in identifying issues/faults with any past administration regardless of party. That will move the discussion beyond partisanship.

For example, George Bush, IMHO, expanding a program, with good intentions, that was already headed toward bankruptcy (Medicare). Bill Clinton, in his desire to address unfair real estate practices and expand the value of home ownership to lower income brackets, pushed regulation to “strongly encourage” lenders to lend to those with less than stellar credit. Both of these actions had great intentions but lead to seriously negative financial consequences. And I’m one who believes in better access to costly prescription meds and in the value of home ownership.

“And, I’m sorry, but did you see “midnight basketball” on Rick’s list?”

I probably wasn’t explicit in creating “hypothetical”, but not too unreal, examples to illustrate how either “side” can, with good intentions, waste money.

Shhh. You’re making sense. They want a stimulus that doesn’t cost any money. And then they want cheesecake that doesn’t make them fat and whiskey that doesn’t make them drunk. Reality not welcome.

That’s a lie. You know its a lie which makes you a bald faced liar. You refuse to accept the fact - a fact that hundreds of economists have made clear - that there is a lot of wasteful spending in this bill - spending that will not energize the economy and belongs in separate legislation but the cowardly Democrats won’t present it that way because they know they can’t get $13 billion for special ed or another billion for NASA, or the tens of billions that will be added for new programs that deserve a separate vote.

It is dishonest to present this bill the way Obama has. You are party to a fraud - actually, gleefully supporting a fraud upon the taxpayer. Using an economic crisis for pork, for passing unrelated spending, for rewarding loyal constituencies may be the most cynical move any president has made in my lifetime. And you saying that most of us here don’t want to spend money is an outrageous lie because you know it is not true.

ed.

Thanks for letting us know what you do all day.

:
:

I’ve noticed that our liberal antagonists here aren’t defending the bill beyond

1. It’s only a small percentage of total spending

2. George Bush did it

Anyone who jokes about wasteful spending, probably doesn’t work that hard. Confiscating a person’s income to “piss a goodly portion of it away” is evil, not funny.

This cavalier attitude towards people who pay taxes is sick, sick.