The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[SacTown Chronic]

Rise so high, yet so far to fall
A plan of dignity and balance for all
Political breakthrough, euphoria's high
More borrowed money, more borrowed time
Backed in a corner, caught up in the race
Means to an end ended in disgrace
Perspective is lost in the spirit of the chase


(Megadeth cyber-hug for scaeagles)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm getting really tired of being silent.

So don't be silent.

So much for openness. The dems will not even allow the "stimulus" bill to to be posted online for 48 hours to be read by those who would care to. They don't want the details of the spending to come out because every detail that comes out, well, sucks. They said they would, but now they won't.

It should be made available but regardless it doesn't really matter if it is or not since the bill is now beyond the point when it can be changed. 5 days won't particularly matter so I hope Obama does make it available for review before he signs (though I doubt he will).

Turns out that the tax cuts will result in about $8/week to the average worker! WOW! That's amazing. During the campaign, Michelle Obama was mocking the small size of the Bush stimulus checks as being too small to relaly help.

A key difference being that unlike the Bush stimulus that amount (I'd been seeing $13/week but I'm sure the number can be sliced in various ways) is not the complete extent of the stimulus.

Obama says the Caterpiller will be able to hire back recently laid off workers if the package passes. Problem is the CEO of Caterpiller said there will be more layoffs even if the so called stimulus passes.

That's true, but it misrepresents Caterpillar's CEO as saying that the stimulus package won't help. In fact he said that the government needs to spend even more. All he said was that the stimulus package wouldn't help immediately and that there would likely be more layoffs before things improved.

This is a contradiction of what Obama said, but it appears that Obama may have said what he said because that is what the same CEO told him a couple of days ago (and is now contradicting himself).

OH! And the whole concept of the "fairness doctrine".

I agree. The government should not be regulating the airwaves at all. If someone wants to set up transmitters and interfere with the local talk news stations broadcast that should be their right.

Seriously though, I do agree that the fairness doctrine is an anachronism.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So don't be silent.

It should be made available but regardless it doesn't really matter if it is or not since the bill is now beyond the point when it can be changed.

That's true, but it misrepresents Caterpillar's CEO as saying that the stimulus package won't help. In fact he said that the government needs to spend even more. All he said was that the stimulus package wouldn't help immediately and that there would likely be more layoffs before things improved.

Self imposed silence. Wanted to back off and see what would happen with Obama and the dem congressional control without jumping on everything that I disagreed with.

It does matter. Too much money to violate the calls for transparency.

I think Obama was trying to mislead regarding the Caterpillar stuff. He wanted it to seem as if this bill would make an immediate impact if passed in putting pressure to act immediately.

[Moonliner]

I'm not sure what's worse, the Republicans who always operate in the shadows or the Dem's who promise to work in the light then shoot out the bulb at the last second.

I would like a chance for a public review, the markets are closed over the weekend so I don't think the country would suffer irreparable harm waiting the 48 hours.


I'm keeping an eye on this site: ReadTheStimulus.org

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think Obama was trying to mislead regarding the Caterpillar stuff. He wanted it to seem as if this bill would make an immediate impact if passed in putting pressure to act immediately.

Unless, as has been suggested (though I don't know the provenance of it) the CEO of Caterpillar had told him that passage of the stimulus would result in them holding off on some of the announced layoffs.

In which case Obama was lead out on the branch and then had it cut off behind him.

If that was not said to him then yes it was misleading.

[Stan4dSteph]

I think Obama got told something and then the CEO decided to go back on what he said.

[BarTopDancer]

My unemployment (as well as the unemployment of my co-workers) is an indirect result of Caterpillar's volume dropping. They are our largest client and when they aren't hiring and moving people my [former] company is effected. Also, CAT is a global company, and their volume is not solely dependent on the state of the US economy. When demand drops off throughout the world CAT runs into issues.

I don't think anyone expected an immediate fix to the economy. It took us a long time to get to where we are, it's not going to be fixed overnight.

[scaeagles]

Well, I suppose it is all conjecture about what happened. I'm certain Obama fans and non Obama fans will disagree as to exactly why that happened.

[Alex]

I make no claims as to what happened. But if there are conflicting versions I have no basis on which to choose one over the other. And pending that, I don't see why I would choose the one that assumes malicious intent.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This American Life did another episode in its series of simplified explainers for the economic meltdown. This one specifically on how the banking industry works, what the collapse really looks like on paper, and the theories behind the competing proposals to try to reverse it.

This one didn't really impart any drastically new information to me, it pretty much reaffirmed what I already knew. But it was a good crash course none the less.

What it definitely solidified for me is how pissed off I am at politics in the country. Specifically, the stupid backlash to the idea of "nationalizing the banks." It's socialism!!! It's unamerican!!!! Damn pinkos!!!

Leave me alone with your ideological B.S. Who cares if it can be labled socialism? Is that a reason to ignore an option that has been proven to work? The US has been involved in rescuing collapsed banking systems in many countries around the world. Guess what they've advocated, and done? Temporarily nationalizing banks!! Gasp!

Now, there may be some very good reasons why it might not work in this particular case. Among other things, since the whole world is feeling this one, and in some sense, banks outside the US are in worse shape, if the government buys the banks, there may not be anyone to eventually sell them to (since the idea is to only nationalize temporarily, not own them forever).

But whether are rational arguments against it is beside the point. The cries of socialism prevent a rational debate about it. They throw out a viable option, proven to have worked in similar, if not identical, situations. Simply because O'Reilly can attach an "evil" buzz word to it. Pisses me off. A lot.