Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
... As for any stimulus package, you are going to be able to point to
various projects as pork, but certainly, the final bill looks like it
will attempt to address housing, try to stimulate job growth and also
keep a lot of businesses afloat. Whether it will work, or be enough, or
in time, is a guess at best.

It's a given in our political system that all spending bills
come out of the House. The stimulus package was put together
by House Dems. Now it moves to the Senate where they will
translate it from the crayon to an actual typewritten package.
If Obama is half the leader I believe him to be the final
version will make sense.

I have seen no leadership from the messiah. ...

You should have your eyes checked.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I fully admit to being a partisan Democrat. What's ridiculous
to me is the partisans who deny that they're partisan.

Seems like the partisan's here see no evil, hear no evil from their side of
the aisle. ...

I've already suggested that you get your eyes checked, apparently
you're going to need a hearing test too. But you're right in that
I don't see or hear any "evil" connected with Daschle. He made a
very understandable error, reported it to the IRS and paid up in
full. Like I said, no harm, no foul as far as I'm concerned. But
having said that, he did have to withdraw from consideration and
he did so with grace and class. And I'm still not seeing or hearing
any "evil".

I am a registered Democrat and did not vote for Bush or Kerry or
Gore. They are all so bad I voted Libertarian. ...

In other words you'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw spitballs
at the players on the field instead of doing your civic duty.

And what we have for a
stimulus bill is mostly pork. Extreme pork. A 900 page bill that no one
that is voting on it has read, or understands. That will not stimulate and
will cost my great grandchildren gobs of money for the sins of my generation
and childrens generation.

If we don't pass a stimulus bill in a damn big hurry your great
grandkids won't have to worry about paying down the gobs of money
because they won't have any money. Yeah, it's *that* bad.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:50:04 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

If we don't pass a stimulus bill in a damn big hurry your great
grandkids won't have to worry about paying down the gobs of money
because they won't have any money. Yeah, it's *that* bad.

Mmmmmmm. "Hurry?" The stimulus bill, as now presented, doesn't need
to be hurried because most of the money spent will be months and years
from now. What is the hurry if that is the case? What we *need* is
relief for loans so that people can buy stuff like cars, homes, and
whatever else folks need loans for. The friend that is remodeling our
kitchen has very little work because there is hardly any money
available for loans. There is no banking relief in the present bill.
It will solve very little because it doesn't put people back to work
*now*. All the major car companies have a sales drop of more than 40%
because people aren't buying cars. New housing construction is down
for the same reason - no money. This entire thing started with
housing and bad investments by Fannie and Freddie. The relief should
start at the source, housing.

Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. *THAT* would
stimulate the economy. And, if you think the plan is going to
stimulate 3,000,000 jobs as Obama says, well, you do the math on how
much each job is going to cost *just to create it*. It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one. Spend the money on
people, not lawns, San Francisco historical crap, a "Mob" museum in
Vegas, etc. Pork is pork. No society has ever spent its way to
prosperity, and spending $300,000 to creat one job sure as hell is not
going to work.

Dave



Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Feb 8, 12:18*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:


Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. **THAT* would
stimulate the economy. *

So you're in favor of welfare, then?

--riverman

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

riverman wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. *THAT* would
stimulate the economy.

So you're in favor of welfare, then?

He'll have to get back to you on that, Limbaugh isn't on
the air again until Monday. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
What we *need* is
relief for loans so that people can buy stuff like cars, homes, and
whatever else folks need loans for.

and, after we relieve some loans, who in their right mind is going to lend
to the average person, knowing full well they may have no job to pay for it
going forward?? And, when the business property loans go up in smoke, we
'relieve' them, too. And, so on, and so on......


There is no banking relief in the present bill.

good, because there isn't supposed to be. It's an economic stimulus bill.
Banking was supposedly addressed earlier, during the Bush debacle, er,
administration...

It will solve very little because it doesn't put people back to work
*now*.

yes, it will, to some extent. Obviously, they won't pass the bill next week
and have them hired by the following weekend, but many of the projects will
hire folks relatively quickly. Further, several of the proposed grants will
keep people working, and thus save their jobs and those of the businesses
that cater to/support them.


It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one.

How, exactly, does the economy receive a stimulus without money being
spent?? A stimulus bill IS a spending bill, it's that simple.



Spend the money on
people, not lawns, San Francisco historical crap, a "Mob" museum in
Vegas, etc. Pork is pork.

you don't get it. Apparently, many on the right, bitching about this program
or that, don't get it. When you give money to a museum, the staff stays
employed, maybe some new folks get hired. When people attend that museum,
they also go to a local coffee shop, maybe shop in the nearby area, maybe go
out to dinner afterward. In all cases, enabling folks to keep jobs in those
small businesses. This is the theory behind this sort of package. I hope it
is enough to keep the nation from heading off the cliff, but NONE of us can
say for sure, at the moment. Still, I am stunned how some folks, with
seemingly some intelligence cannot see the percolation effect of federal
grants on the overall economy.
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:39:45 -0800 (PST), riverman
wrote:

On Feb 8, 12:18*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:


Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. **THAT* would
stimulate the economy. *

So you're in favor of welfare, then?

--riverman

Uh, where did I say that? The above paragraph is pure facetiousness.

But it *would* be better than spending all that money on pork. A
family of 5 would get, what, ~$15,000. Would not that be better than
lawns in DC, historical improvements in SF, a "Mob" museum in LV, and
the pork continues and continues.

Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:47:28 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

He'll have to get back to you on that, Limbaugh isn't on
the air again until Monday. LOL !!

Ah, yes, utilizing the First Rule as listed in "Fortenberry's
Discussion and Debating Manifesto":

"Without an argument, resort to ad hominem attacks. Name calling,
parentage, color of skin, ethnic background, religious beliefs, amount
of education are ALL open to attack.

"Warning: If this First Rule is used too often, people will think you
are a one trick pony."

Davey

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote:
It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one.

How, exactly, does the economy receive a stimulus without money being
spent?? A stimulus bill IS a spending bill, it's that simple.

President Obama said exactly the same thing this week in response
to some silly posturing by John McCain on the Senate floor. The
Republicans are great at peddling ignorance and rousing the rabble
and you have to give them credit for their sheer audacity, but
the GOP has nothing to contribute to the discussion. After eight
years of the deregulation and tax cuts and profligate spending
that got us into this colossal disaster the GOP has absolutely no
credibility whatsoever.

When I hear both the wingnuts on the left and the wingnuts on the
right whining about the same stimulus package I figure it's probably
a good start in the right direction.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:12:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
What we *need* is
relief for loans so that people can buy stuff like cars, homes, and
whatever else folks need loans for.

and, after we relieve some loans, who in their right mind is going to lend
to the average person, knowing full well they may have no job to pay for it
going forward?? And, when the business property loans go up in smoke, we
'relieve' them, too. And, so on, and so on......

Horse caca. With money available for home mortgages, those NOW in the
red because of bad Freddy and Fannie (Thanks to Barney and Dodd), can
pay for their homes by refinancing them at a payment they can afford.
Also, those in the market for a new home will put carpenters,
electricians, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, etc back to work.


There is no banking relief in the present bill.

good, because there isn't supposed to be. It's an economic stimulus bill.
Banking was supposedly addressed earlier, during the Bush debacle, er,
administration...

Uh, when did the housing **** hit the fan? Can you tell me? It was
right after Barney, Dodd, Omama, et al came into power in the 06
elections. Check out the economy before 06. Hell, I have never been
richer than I was in the summer of 06, neither have my children or
their children. The stimulus package that the Dems forced through
Congress last year WAS a debacle. Remember, Congress make the laws,
passes the bills, and spends the money. Stop blaming everything on
Bush. You sound like a Clinton basher with a dress on.


It will solve very little because it doesn't put people back to work
*now*.

yes, it will, to some extent. Obviously, they won't pass the bill next week
and have them hired by the following weekend, but many of the projects will
hire folks relatively quickly. Further, several of the proposed grants will
keep people working, and thus save their jobs and those of the businesses
that cater to/support them.

None of this "spending spree" will amount to immediated jobs, not this
week, not next, perhaps not until a year from now. Everyone is so
much in a hurry to pass this bill NOW because it is so URGENT, yet
none of the money will go where it is needed.

It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one.

How, exactly, does the economy receive a stimulus without money being
spent?? A stimulus bill IS a spending bill, it's that simple.

No! You stimulate an economy by cutting back on spending, and that
starts with tax cuts. Every time there are tax cuts, the economy
thrives. There are not enough tax cuts in this bill to amount to
anything. You can not spend your way into financial success. That is
just plain stupid. The people who produce the jobs (my daughter and
her husband, for example) need tax cuts, not more taxes. If they are
taxes further, they will simply lay off people to make up the
difference. Who is going to pay for all of this? The very people who
produce jobs.



Spend the money on
people, not lawns, San Francisco historical crap, a "Mob" museum in
Vegas, etc. Pork is pork.

you don't get it. Apparently, many on the right, bitching about this program
or that, don't get it. When you give money to a museum, the staff stays
employed, maybe some new folks get hired. When people attend that museum,
they also go to a local coffee shop, maybe shop in the nearby area, maybe go
out to dinner afterward. In all cases, enabling folks to keep jobs in those
small businesses. This is the theory behind this sort of package. I hope it
is enough to keep the nation from heading off the cliff, but NONE of us can
say for sure, at the moment. Still, I am stunned how some folks, with
seemingly some intelligence cannot see the percolation effect of federal
grants on the overall economy.

Ah, but I DO get it. "Maybe" being the operative word. MAYBE it
don't/won't. A new museum in Las Vegas is NOT going to produce any
jobs in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. New lawns in the Capitol are
not going to produce new jobs in Illinoise or Florida. Sprucing up
the historical section of San Francisco will not produce new jobs in
New York or New Jersey. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't Pelosi and Reid
from San Francisco and Nevada, and don't all these folks work in DC.
Well, I'll be! The little sobs! These and other pork loins are not
going to help with our curreent financial situation. They WILL,
however, put money into the coffers of Democrat supporters. All of
those jobs you list already exist, Tom. We need to put assemblers,
carpenters, plumbers, heavy equipment oprs back to work. We need to
put white, pink and blue collar workers back to work. This stimulus
package will fail to do that in its current form.

But, making MONEY available to small business entrepreneurs, to other
businesses that have laid off people, to allow the working class to
keep more of the money they earn so that they can *spend* it, or save
it will help us recover. You can not spend you way into prosperity.
On the contrary, it takes *prosperity* for governments to spend.

Ain't gonna happen with this Democrat Spending Spree.

The original problem started with the Houseing Crunch caused by stupid
loans made available by Freddie and Fannie. Loans that people could
not pay back. I wish the hell I could get a loan to buy a Bugatti
Veyron (only a mill and a half), drive it for a few months and then
have Freddie or Fannie pick up the payments. Sounds good to me. Hell,
I would gladly spend $10,000 to drive that little sucker for a few
months. And then the taxpayers could pick up the bill.

Solve the problem from where it started, Tom.

Dave