The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Well that didn't last long.

 

 

You're right, he has lost 6 of those 8 points in a few days time. Obama is back to only two points above his low water mark again, with the disapproval higher than it has ever been.

[whitesoxfan101]

Reminds me of the talk of the permanent majority the GOP knew they had. They thought all they had to do was blame nancy pelosi and and crazy liberals and they would always win. The Democrats are going down the same path, no ideas just need to blame GW Bush and Rush Limbaugh for everything. It might work short term, but if the economy is crap and things are going bad in 2010 and 2012 using Limbaugh as a strawman won't work. Blaming Bush won't either. After a couple years people aren't going to except that. It's going to beabout what the Democrats accomplish/have happen to them.

 

Now this I completely agree with. I really don't think either party has much of any ideas right now to be honest though.

[bmags]

"The 1,000-foot long bridge is part of a state highway route that crosses the Osage River a tributary of the Missouri River about 30 miles southwest of the state capital in Jefferson City. The project is expected to cost $8.5 million."

 

It has nothing to do with building a bridge TO somewhere. It's THROUGH somewhere. And the bridge was over 70 years old!

Here is a map of the area.

 

I'm not saying it's the worlds most important project, but if they find it important to their local economy... then isnt that the point behind the stimulus? If you look at the map, it's the only way to cross the river without going way south and either through or around Lake of the Ozarks, or going far east, then north, then backtracking. I dont know the inter-city commerce traffic down there, but I can see how it would be important to have trucks rolling through.

 

correct, it's very literal to say Tuscambia is a bridge to nowhere. If it was just those inhabitants I'd see your point. But in fact with Missouri you have two polar cities with much commerce between them, those are connected by 70, but commerce from the southeast was inhibited by the crumbling infrastructure there. As pointed in the article, trucks could no longer travel along that road.

[southsideirish71]

2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York

 

1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa

[HuskyCaucasian]

1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa

I've been to iowa... my wifes from iowa... it's needed lol

[StrangeSox]

Pig odor research is important if you live anywhere near a pig farm.

 

http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/mera/iloodoreffects.html

 

 

[Balta1701]

Grape Genetics research is very useful in understanding and preventing disease outbreaks focusing on those particular fruits, in addition to improving crop yields, reducing need for fertilizer, etc.

[Cknolls]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=news

 

 

 

And who is the chair of the Ways and Means committee? Why none other than Charlie Rangel

 

 

LMAO when I read this. Oh yeah, and holding my breath for the ethics investigation into Rangel.

[Cknolls]

 

President Barack Obama told AFL-CIO union leaders Tuesday in a videotaped address that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will pass, signaling his full backing for legislation that makes union organizing easier.

 

"We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act," President Obama told more than 100 top labor officials in a closed-door meeting at the labor federation's winter gathering in Miami, according to people at the meeting.

 

 

 

What special interests?

[Cknolls]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bre...,0,900628.story

 

 

What a piece of s*** this guy is, he should be used as shark bait. Hopefully he gets the full 15 years and his a** is sore as hell when he gets released.

[southsideirish71]

Pig odor research is important if you live anywhere near a pig farm.

 

http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/mera/iloodoreffects.html

 

Maybe they can do the same for the people who live next to landfills, or sewage treatment plants. Animals and their feces smell. So if you are living next to a farm, its going to stink.

 

[Balta1701]

Maybe they can do the same for the people who live next to landfills, or sewage treatment plants. Animals and their feces smell. So if you are living next to a farm, its going to stink.

Harnessing the gas produced by landfills has been an excellent way to produce significant supplies of cheap, sustainable energy at the same time as reducing air pollution.

[bmags]

Just some background on where the pig odor research probably come from, it isn't about necessarily pig farms. But these pig farms have gotten huge, in missouri and iowa I know of, forgot the term, but it's been a huge debate - and there are just massive amount of livestock in a concentrated area. They have been completely unregulated in Missouri because they cannot figure out whose jurisdiction it is. But the smell that come from these things travels and is, supposedly, absolutely repulsive. So much that it affects nearby towns who aren't benefitting from any jobs at these places.

 

Surprisingly or not so, this has been a huge issue in Missouri.

[mr_genius]

All spending is good spending.

 

 

or maybe not

 

Deficits and Fiscal Credibility

A Democratic senator says no to a huge federal spending bill.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612545277023901.html

 

A good article from Democrat Evan Bayh

Edited March 4, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

All spending is good spending.

 

This is of course, the reason why "Governing by eliminating spending that sounds funny" isn't always the best way to govern. Because sometimes you need to balance these things versus the amount of money available, etc.

[mr_genius]

This is of course, the reason why "Governing by eliminating spending that sounds funny" isn't always the best way to govern. Because sometimes you need to balance these things versus the amount of money available, etc.

 

Of course, but there needs to be balance. At which point spending becomes unbalanced seems to be the point of contention.

 

I added a good article to my previous post.

Edited March 4, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Of course, but there needs to be balance. At which point spending becomes unbalanced seems to be the point of contention.

 

I added a good article to my previous post.

Certainly can be. But simply saying that "Volcano monitoring" shouldn't be funded because it sounds funny is the policy game that a number of people, like Senator McCain, have spent the last few days playing. The question can't be "does pollution related to pig gas sound funny", it should be "What do we get out of this study/work" (which, btw, is another reason why scientists would rather go to the NSF for basic research funds rather than using earmarks for funding).

 

And regarding Bayh's article, why does everyone lately seem to think "This is really big!" is an argument against something? Sen. McConnell argued, from what I could tell, that he was going to oppose the stimulus bill because if you stacked up a lot of dollar bills it would go really high. Bayh does a version of this by saying basically The national debt is really really big! in that article as one of his points.

[mr_genius]

Certainly can be. But simply saying that "Volcano monitoring" shouldn't be funded because it sounds funny is the policy game that a number of people, like Senator McCain, have spent the last few days playing. The question can't be "does pollution related to pig gas sound funny", it should be "What do we get out of this study/work" (which, btw, is another reason why scientists would rather go to the NSF for basic research funds rather than using earmarks for funding).

 

And regarding Bayh's article, why does everyone lately seem to think "This is really big!" is an argument against something? Sen. McConnell argued, from what I could tell, that he was going to oppose the stimulus bill because if you stacked up a lot of dollar bills it would go really high. Bayh does a version of this by saying basically The national debt is really really big! in that article as one of his points.

 

Again, it's about the balance within government spending. There are millions of good issues which the government can spend money to address. What is the federal governments role in funding? It should be to better the nation as a whole. I believe that current spending levels are too high; the balance between negative effects of deficit spending and possible positive outcomes is out of whack. What we are doing now is causing more harm than good.

 

As far as why is it the 'funny name' stuff, the answer is marketing. Politicians believe the general public needs to be spoon fed cute little bits like this. Truth is it's fairly accurate. Slogans, logos, and marketing. You can base an entire political campaign on it and win.

[mr_genius]

Maybe they can do the same for the people who live next to landfills, or sewage treatment plants. Animals and their feces smell. So if you are living next to a farm, its going to stink.

 

^^^

[MexSoxFan#1]

the blame Rush Limbaugh for everything angle will fall apart. it's really a terrible strat. from an economy on the brink to Obama's major failures dealing with Russia it really appears that he is in over his head.

Wow,talk about the honeymoon being over...President Obama isn't even half way to his first 100 days and already you've come to the conclusion that "he's in way over his head"...jeez,the GOP didn't get us into this mess overnight and Obama and the dems won't get us out overnight either.Fortunatly the American people realize the scope of our problems and are squarely behind the prez.

[southsider2k5]

Wow,talk about the honeymoon being over...President Obama isn't even half way to his first 100 days and already you've come to the conclusion that "he's in way over his head"...jeez,the GOP didn't get us into this mess overnight and Obama and the dems won't get us out overnight either.Fortunatly the American people realize the scope of our problems and are squarely behind the prez.

 

Well by my recollection, Bush was labeled over his head from about Day One, and has been blamed for a recession that started even earlier. I guess Obama got a bigger chance in that respect.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well by my recollection, Bush was labeled over his head from about Day One, and has been blamed for a recession that started even earlier. I guess Obama got a bigger chance in that respect.

Did anyone really blame Bush for the 2001+ recession? That's pretty absurd.

 

[StrangeSox]

Did anyone really blame Bush for the 2001+ recession? That's pretty absurd.

 

That's politics. Always blame the opposition ideology and leaders for whatever failures happen in the real world.

[southsider2k5]

Jim Cramer's excellent reply to the White House's attack on him. Instead of falling into the nasty and personal tone set up by Gibbs, he actually replies, as he did in his first rant, with more policy talk and anecdotal evidence.

 

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinv...te-house?page=1

 

Cramer: My Response To The White House

By Jim Cramer

 

When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.

 

I fight to help viewers and readers make and preserve capital. I fight for their 401(k)s, for their 529s and their IRAs. I fight for their annuities and for their life insurance policies. I fight for their profits, trading and investing. And in this horrible market, I fight to keep their losses to a minimum by having some good dividend-yielding stocks from different sectors, some bonds, some gold and some cash.

 

The lines are drawn pretty clearly: If you can help people make money to be able to retire, enjoy life, pay for college, pay down debt, etc., you are a "good guy," so to speak. If you take the other side of the trade, you are, well, let's say, a less favored fellow. And if you gun for the gigantic investor class that is out there that includes 90 million people in one form or another, whether it be 401(k)s or individual stocks or pension plans, then you are on my enemies list.

 

Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."

 

Limbaugh's dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.

 

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."

 

Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

 

The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.

 

Gibbs went on to say, "If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC, but the president has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."

 

How much I wish it were true right now that stocks played less of a role in peoples' lives. But stocks, along with housing, are our principal forms of wealth in this country. Only the people who have lifetime tenure, insured solid pensions and rent homes but own no stocks personally are unaffected. Sure that's a lot of people, but believe me, they aspire to have homes and portfolios. If we only want to help those who have no wealth to destroy, we are not helping the majority of Americans; we are not helping the broader population.

 

You can argue, of course, that Obama inherited one of the worst hands in the world. I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's "stewardship" of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming, although perhaps Gibbs hasn't seen my CNBC meltdown. Seemed pretty prescient to me.

 

I, like everyone else, have made less authoritative and wrong statements in the past, but that rant still stands as something that I am sure everyone in the Bush administrations' Treasury and Fed listened to. My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in October, might have eluded Gibbs, too.

 

But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.

 

We had a banking crisis coming into this regime, but now every area is in crisis. Each day is worse than the previous one for this miserable economy and while Obama's champions cite the stimulus plan, it's really just a hodgepodge of old Democratic pork and will not create nearly as many manufacturing or service jobs as we hoped. China's stimulus plan is the model; ours is the parody.

 

Sure there's going to be some mortgage relief, but the way to approach that problem is to eliminate the overhang, which a $15,000 tax credit for existing home sales could have dented if not consumed. I have offered a comprehensive plan of 4% refinanced mortgages for all by the government, not just those many considered deadbeats, to eliminate moral hazard. I have come up with a novel plan to cut the principal and spare the banks regulatory problems by offering them a certificate of equity, making them whole over time when the house appreciates in value, which will happen if demand is stoked and supply is shrunk.

 

I have offered a comprehensive bank plan to solve a systemic problem -- could all bankers really be malefactors of wealth, Mr. President, or given the endemic nature can't we just presume that it's an epidemic and finger-pointing is a worthless endeavor until things get better? Like after Pearl Harbor -- let's win the war and then investigate, and even try and convict the bad actors, instead of demonizing everyone who works at a bank right now, when we need them to right themselves without too much taxpayer help.

 

Which leads me to the true irony of not being political: I don't like talking politics. It is personal, but some things are a matter of public record, including my substantial six figure donations to the Democratic Party before I was no longer allowed to contribute by contractual agreement. I regard two Democratic governors as my friends, and helped back one of them in a major financial way and spoke and campaigned directly for the other.

 

I also made it clear in a New York magazine article that I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat, exactly the kind I have supported all my adult life, although I will admit to being far more left-wing during my teenage years and early 20s.

 

To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.

 

But these are issues that we have no time for now, on the verge of a second Great Depression. This is an agenda that must be held back for better times. It is an agenda that at this moment is radical vs. what is called for. I am proud to have voted for the Obama who I thought understood the need to get us on the right path, and create jobs and wealth before taxing it and making moves that hurt job creation -- certainly ones that will outweigh the meager number of jobs he's creating.

 

Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

 

So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.

 

If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.

[Rex Kickass]

Did he just seriously blame Obama for causing panic after defending his advising on national TV that millions of people should dump all their holdings out of the market in the same paragraph?

 

Oh wait, just consecutive ones.