I'd add that DC is more accepting of a Democrat president due to the general demographics and party leanings of the citizens. He'd definitely get a more rosier reception than a Republican president.

As I said, he was loved before he got here. Having said that, if Bush spent time going to Ben's Chili Bowl instead of heading to his ranch in Texas, I have no doubt that Washingtonians would have a higher opinion of him.

I don't believe Clinton spent a lot of time in the city, either. Chelsea went to private school. Amy Carter went to DC Public Schools and that made Jimmy much more loved by Washingtonians.

We have a real inferiority complex here, seeing as how we are treated as second-class citizens by the U.S. Government. Seeing a President that wants to partake in the life you live can do a lot for morale.

And that's really just a cultural difference. People out here in flyover country just don't enjoy life in places like D.C. It's fun to visit, but wouldn't want to live there. We want open space and friendly people. I've been out in that area and here in Missouri and I'm well aware of the stark cultural differences.

Conversely, people in places like D.C. or NYC wonder how in the hell people live without urban areas where you walk or take public transportation everywhere. Obama fits into that culture well because he's from Chicago. Bush and many people that live in the middle of the country want out of that chaos as often as possible. D.C. people don't get that.

There's nothing wrong with either of them. It's just a totally different way of life, so it's shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Obama fits in well and Bush does not even with political leanings set aside.

Not a bad speech. I look forward to seeing if there is any meat behind it.

That's what she said.

It's not that we don't get that. It's that a) he lived here and never once went into the city, b) the federal government is based in DC, c) people (republicans generalized) think it's fine to deny Washingtonians their rights but don't even want to come to the city because of infrastructural issues (or just plain dislike of a city)

We "get" that people don't like the city. That has nothing to do with the fact that Bush NEVER spent any time in DC outside of the White House.

My sentiments as well. Good speech- now time to put some actions behind those pretty words.

SI

That's what she said.

Same old style over substance in my opinion.

Then again, Obama can do no wrong in Democrat eyes*. Barack Obama: Get zombified!!!!



*And he can do no right for Republicans, of course.

You know, I really don't feel that this is true. I think it might be true for those who like to argue politics on message boards, but I don't think it's true up and down the line. It seems to be a simplification that makes fighting the fight easier in a way that reminds me of the recent atheism vs. christianity thread, where often nuance was lost in the desire to score a point. FWIW, I've been registered Republican since 18, but I voted for Obama and have been mostly happy with him so far. I think I've been happier about him than many of my liberal friends.

Doubt it does.

Dude, I'm not xenophobic. My dislike for Obama is totally personal. I've been totally pissed at him ever since he showed up at one of my Klan rallies a few years ago and shouted, "Where are the white women?"

Really?

Please tell me you're joking, Noop.

I don't think he is in the klan but you can never be to sure.

Funny, you say that....I thought the prerequesite for being a Seminole fan was to be a member in good standing of the Klan...that, and having sex with barnyard animals at least once a month... :p

I also don't think Obama actually showed up at a klan rally, but hey, you never can be too sure.

Dude, video proof....

I don't see where you're getting this. There were all of two comments in this thread and both were basically "cute speech, now do something"

SI

I should slap you in the face. You just described a Gator fan except you didn't include the jhorts and a mullet.

:D

I didn't read the thread. I was referring to what I've seen and heard since Obama took office.

Look, I have no personal animosity toward him, but I'm disturbed by the reverence the guy gets despite his lack of any executive experience. It's just sheep-like. I'm not saying everyone's like that, but the vast majority of citizens that support Obama support him because of his persona and legend, not his specific policies and decisions.

Either way, I hope the US thrives during his reign, because I love this country and I want it to succeed. I just don't think his aspirations for a huge federal government will take us in that direction.

I don't see how anyone can judge a President this quick. Takes years for their policies to take effect and decide whether they worked or not.

You kind of just supported my point.

I don't know bankruptcy law, so I don't know how this should come out, but when you are buying anything for 43 cents on the dollar, you have to assume that you are taking a fair amount of risk.

If I had a pension, and that plan started doing things like buying debt of troubled companies at deep discounts, I would be mad as hell at the pension managers. There is a time and a place to take that kind of risk, and a pension fund for teachers and cops isn't it.

All that said, maybe the law is on their side and, if so, I hope that the Second Circuit rules in their favor. Equal justice under law.

Added a poll. Wanted to get your opinion after the 100 days.

I can not think of one campaign promise that he has kept (that I care about).

Interesting graph here. The lines represent the Democrat estimates from January of what unemployment would do if the stimulus were passed and what it would look like if it were not passed. Well, the stimulus was passed, yet the actual unemployment numbers have landed well above what was estimated if it wasn't passed according to the Democrats.

Attachment 728

Big wins for conservative lawmakers over in Europe. Claims abound that the conservative stance against stimulus packages and large deficits were a key in the gains.

Conservatives racing ahead in EU parliament voting - Yahoo! News

More attacks on Obama's perceived excesses while traveling. I do think Grassley's comments come off a bit silly, but Obama's staff has to be very careful in handling these perceptions. The press tried to paint the whole trip as a return to the Kennedy presidency, yet it was then noted that the first lady and the kids had to stay for shopping, showing them going into VERY expensive boutiques. That's not going to fly well with people who continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Grassley: Obama's "Got Nerve" To Push Lawmakers From Paris

Also, I have deep concerns about the Obama plan to expedite stimulus spending in 2009. It didn't seem that important to do that when the bill was passed. Now with Obama's approval numbers wavering, he suddenly wants to speed it up? You can't build up a record deficit soon enough I suppose.

As an aside, is this really how people tweet?

Grassley's first tweet: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."

A short time later: "Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said 'time to delivr on healthcare' When you are a 'hammer' u think evrything is NAIL I'm no NAIL."

I mean, I know it's twitter, but does he have an 8th grade edukation??

I think the real question is who let Grassley's grandson on his computer-box.

I'm not a 'tweeter', but my understanding is that those abbreviations and dropping vowels in words are relatively common due to the limit on the characters (think it's 140 or something like that). The 'k' instead of 'ch' in words also saves a character.

With that said, I'm not sure that our leaders should be using that forum to voice their opinion.

The idea isn't to get your opinion out. His staff is probably tweeting that to rile up the #tcot and true red blood conservatives who hang out on Twitter and who hate the President in the same way that Dems hated Bush, only without the track record.

Twitter is simply a medium to communicate ideas, engage your base or incite an angry mob.

I'd agree that it's little more than a form of a partisan blog, but I don't have any question that it is his opinion.

For the poll, there should've been an "about what I expected..." option.

I wish we weren't stuck with a two-party system. I'd love to see fringe parties get seats in Congress more often.

"The Hungarian far-right Jobbik party won three of 22 seats, with the main center-right opposition party, Fidesz, capturing 14 seats and the governing Socialists only four.

Jobbik describes itself as Euro-skeptic and anti-immigration and wants police to crack down on petty crimes committed by Gypsies."

"An exit poll in Sweden showed the Pirate Party, which advocates shortening the duration of copyright protection and allowing noncommercial file-sharing, capturing one seat with 7.4 percent of the vote."

There were a few white-only and/or anti-Muslim parties as well. Far more interesting than boring old Democrats and Republicans.

Our system requires too much money for that to work here. It would indeed make things more interesting and would diversify the nature of our minor parties beyond what we have now.

Proportional representation at the state level would change things quite a bit.

Yeah, now the EU has fascists in it. Good thing fascism doesn't have a long and terrible history in Eur... er, nevermind.

BTW, thought this was really interesting, given that virtually everyone is calling the BNP a "far-right wing party". The Press Association says: "The BNP wins came as the party appeared to attract significant numbers of disaffected Labour voters."

Example 5,082 why terms like left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, etc. are fucking useless and should be purged from any political discussion, especially when referring to a group of people and/or their beliefs.

Essay on this for the one person reading this who cares: George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

EDIT: See any of literally thousands of examples referring to "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a synonym for "torture."

Anyone who believed the Democrats numbers on unemployment was living in a different dimension. There is no way that money could have ever gotten into the economy that quickly.

I think the bigger problem is the lack of consistency with the government. This goes for both administrations. They kind of handle economic issues differently on a daily basis. Companies can't anticipate what is going to happen so they just say "fuck it, we'll lay people off to be safe". I guess the good news is that it looks like the worse of the layoffs are over and hopefully we can turn the corner by the end of the year.

How is this going to help healthcare? Won't you just hurt those companies and people who do get healthcare?

Will health insurance ‘haves’ pay for ‘have-nots’? - White House- msnbc.com

Is Obama nuts with his idea to pay for healthcare?

Terms of Service

Who does he think pretty much funds the arts, healthcare research and improvements, education in our country (in terms of the large private money/donations)? I still haven't seen a plan in to actually "fix" healthcare costs.

As much as I hate the conservatives, Obama is becoming just as bad in my view.

That plan ultimately hurts small businesses more than anything. Large companies will just pass along the difference by reducing salaries. It's small businesses like myself that utilize that tax benefits for my own health insurance that will be hit.

I'm fascinated to see what they can do with 2 votes. Maybe they can build a coalition with the Pirate Party.


Take "significant numbers" with a grain of salt, as apparently this election had record low turnout (and turnout for European Parliament elections is typically very low, especially in Britain).

Citation needed (from The Press Association), I think.

The Daily Mail- The neo-fascist party sent shockwaves through Westminster by winning two seats as voters turned their back on the political establishment.

...

Its share reached 16 per cent in Barnsley, 15 per cent in Rotherham and nearly 12 per cent in Doncaster - all Labour strongholds

The Telegraph- (headline) European elections 2009: BNP successes 'horrific' say main parties
The major political parties have condemned as "horrific" the election of two BNP candidates to the European Parliament after a dismal showing at the polls for Labour

...

It was the first time the party had won seats in a national election and its first in a parliament or assembly.

I realize that since we have divergent political views, you may be inclined to automatically dismiss anything and everything I post that has to do with politics, but I would hope you would at least recognize that this is troubling in a way that Sweden electing two members of the Pirate Party is not.

I think you have me confused with someone else.


Troubling, but not catastrophic. Other European parties have elected similarly extreme parties to the European Parliament, and Europe has not fallen apart (which is more a commentary on the standing of the European Parliament, to be fair).

Vlaams Belang: +2 seats
Austria Freedom Party: +2 seats
National Union Attack: +2 seats
National Front: +3 seats

I mean, heck, a political figure with the heft of Jean Marie Le Pen has been there for 5 years and it's not like Europe has turned into a fascist state (yet). :D

Furthermore most Europeans, and Britons especially, view the European Parliament elections as a chance to vote (if they do at all, and most don't) in a manner that registers their dislike for the more mainstream parties.

It would be interesting if we had more democratic elections to see what kind of people get represented in Washington. I'd imagine the House would have 15-20 hardcore libertarians, a few dozen green guys, some gays, some racists, and some other weird groups. Would be cool to see them try and work together on stuff.

Im really starting to lean towards a National Health Care system that provides free health care for all. I would pay some extra tax to make this happen. Im tired of the insurance and pharmaceuticals running the show to make a profit.

Same here. I actually think it would help the economy long term.

Or perhaps people could stop going to the doctor for every little thing, stop taking a pill for every little thing, and have costs go down naturally.

That is not the reason costs are high. In fact, some would argue that seeing a doctor more frequently and getting more preventative health care would help reduce the overall cost down the road.

I think it would be extremely cumbersome long term.

You help alleviate the biggest financial barrier for middle and lower class households and I think it gives them more money to spend. That means a big boost to businesses as well as parents having more time to spend with their kids (and not working 2-3 jobs).

Seems to work well in just about every other advanced country.

I have no problem with preventitive care. I have a big problem with going to the doctor because a kid has a 99 degree fever. I have a big problem with going to the doctor for a cold. I have a big problem with getting drugs for a sinus infection. It's sickening to me when I hear what people go to the doctor for and what drugs they are prescribed.

But that stuff you mentioned isn't what's driving up health care costs. While it's silly to rush to the doctor for the sniffles, it isn't hurting people and ultimately I don't think happens as much as we think. I'd say there are probably as many people out there who just ignore going to a doctor altogether because they don't have insurance. Some people also just aren't knowledgeable in medicine and would rather play it safe than sorry (which isn't a bad approach).

What's costing the health care industry is the guy who needs triple bypass at 45 and expensive heart medication and monthly checkups. The smoker who came down with lung cancer and requires chemo and other expensive treatments. If we simply knocked out a percent of the medical expenses caused by our own doing, we'd be in much better shape financially.

If we go to a single-payer system, I'd want there to be restrictions. If you can't show an effort to either reduce weight or maintain a somewhat respectable lifestyle, you don't get it. I'm not saying people have to fall into "ideal" weights, but set a pretty high limit for what is unacceptable (100 pounds overweight?).

Another major issue is the fact that we don't have a free market system with prescription drugs. It always makes me chuckle when politicians talk about free markets while they've sat around and made the complete opposite decisions in regards to prescriptions.

My company had decided last month to not go after any of the stimulus money (we were eligible for hundreds of millions in energy-related subsidies). The reason that there were too many strings attached.

Additionally, we had a "shovel-ready" transportation project ready to go in April (major redesign of a huge intersection) but that was put on hold indefinitely until it can be re-bid. Apparently the stimulus can only help those in public works that are unionized, as well as only those communities that have US or Interstate routes (from my contact in the State DoT).

So we should have national policies that discriminate and force people to maintain a lifestyle that the government dictates?

That whirring sound in Philadelphia is Benjamin Franklin doing barrel rolls in his grave.

No, just saying that if you choose to become a burden on the health system, you're on your own in regards to paying it. I simply thought that would be fairer to the healthier people who cost the system less, as well as a motivation for people to be less risky.

No such thing as "free".

A lot of the advanced countries are starting to see runaway costs with healthcare as well.

Nobody really ever talks about what the biggest cost of insurance is and why costs are running away...the better the care, the longer people live, the more care they need, and the cycle continues. Simply by betering our health care and living longer we are costing ourselves great amounts of money...much like Social Security. Living longer costs a lot of money.

Massachusetts health care reform has been a disaster as well. The public expense is about double what was expected.

The biggest cost of health care is government waste, period. Companies can see the dollar signs when the government becomes the buyer. They can increase their cost by double, they can cut corners, its a gold mine.

The biggest cost of just about anything is government waste.

The problem I have with all the talk of "reform" here in the US is that I just don't hear any real changes. Just tax this to pay for this. If your going to fix it, you gotta rock (lobbies, voters) the boat and go in with a knife.

Agreed. At the end of the day, I'm not all that excited about a government system. I'm for a super regulated version of what we have now but I know that's popular with no one.

SI

The counterargument is that they're not being forced to get insurance from the government. But if they do want it, they have to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I don't think Franklin's flipping nearly as much as people think. Then again, people seem to think "freedom" means freedom to do whatever the hell they want without having to pay the actual costs.

SI

Freedom quite simply means lack of involvement from the government and being allowed to do what you choose so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of another person.

The problem is both sides anymore are just trying to force their views onto everyone else in the disguise of freedom (Republican) or in the disguise of helping others (Democrat).

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they were still here but they saw the writing on the wall and left years ago. The dream of what they had envisioned and what should be the only true form of government has been completely destroyed. Freedom as outlined in the Constitution is forever gone and will never come back unless another revolution takes place.

Freedom is the people being able to decide what they want from their government. If that means roads to drive on or a local police department, so be it.

Yeah, they'd be pissed that a black is President and not serving him tea and plowing his fields. What a leader thought hundreds of years ago should not dictate what the people want today.

As long as those decisions are decided at the state or local level, that's fine. It's not okay when they are dictated by the federal government. Small national government works...big national government doesn't. It's that simple so yes...we should absolutely listen to leaders of hundreds of years ago and we choose not to (hopefully for better reasons than you outlined) which is why we are on the brink of financial collapse.

It's a serious mistake to believe there was one unified opinion among the founders.

Agreed but the biggest of the big government proponents would be conservative by today's standards.

Perhaps, but I think all would be unpleasantly shocked at what today's government has become...and what a majority of the citizens seem to expect from said government.

It's hard to judge their preferences when they had no experience with governments of the twentieth century. Some of them would have been happy with an American monarchy, largely because that was the most prevalent form of executive authority, but it's highly unlikely those same people would push for a monarchy if they lived during the last one hundred years.

There's a lot we can learn from the founders, but pulling them out of their time and applying their ideas to today is inherently flawed.

I don't support any sort of program that's mandated at all. But I do think that with all of the various health care programs we have (Medicare, Medicare, VA Health Care, Armed Forces care etc.) that having a federal system isn't far from what we're doing already, we just need a way to incorporate it so it covers more people.

I used to work a quasi-state agency and as a result, had really good health care that I didn't pay a lot for. In a state like Wyoming, 8 of the top 25 largest employers in the state were part of the state health insurance plan, it told me that we had a quasi-public program already and it was just a matter of separating the poor schlubs who didn't have the fortune of taxpayer subsidized health care versus those of us who did.

I hate taxes, I hate government mandates and government waste. But the health care conundrum really smacks of American insolence rather than some desire by those on my side of the aisle to create real solutions. There are lots of different ways to develop creative solutions to the problem that would really rest with the market, but the common response is "people should go to the doctor less," and that's just a really absurd answer to the problem, it solves nothing and all it does it set us back.

So I blame conservatives as much as I blame nanny state democrats for wanting to force a single-payer mandate on us and I imagine what we'll end up with won't be anything other than some sort of mish-mash quasi-private system that's worse what we have now.

Awesome.

Wait? Who freed the slaves? IPhone? What's that?

;)

Which is yet further evidence of their genius. They presented a method for the Constitution to be changed. They outlined a procedure from start to finish to make the many and sometimes massive changes that might be needed as the years passed by. Yet again...we completely and totally ignore it. It's just sad.

There's an argument that "healthy" people end up costing more because they live much longer. If true, should the government promote, say, smoking or sedentary lifestyles? Would that be more fair?

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves about a lot of things. We have banks too big to fail. There are companies big enough to control large parts of the government that are supposed to regulate them. There are interest groups who control all policy making for the industries that hire them. And we have a large, bloated central government. Again, I don't see anyone calling for the breakup of the others mentioned. But stripping down the government so that it can be even more controlled by the previous entities is always en vogue.

SI

I must say, I've been pleasantly surprised at the volume of detractors in the media over the fanciful jobs 'saved' claims from this administration surrounding the stimulus package. It's been an absolute disaster thus far and Obama has been called to task by most media outlets at this point.

It's amazing to see one of his key economic maneuvers (the stimulus bill) falling apart so quickly. By hitting the panic button and saying he will speed up the spending, it only further illustrates the lack of understanding his advisors have regarding the root of the problems in this economy. Speeding up his spending isn't going to help anything other than put a temporary PR band-aid on the situation for a few weeks.

It also appears that the credibility loss concerning the job claims may also hurt the chances of this administration to alter the health care industry. Given what he's proposing IMO will make things worse rather than better overall, I certainly see the lack of action as a good thing.

So, what are the root problems in this economy?

1. Banks losing all sense of reality when it comes to making sure someone can actually pay for a house they buy. The stupidity of what these people did and nobody calling them on it is just a horrible mistake by everyone involved. Banks for giving loans to people who were way too big of a risk, people taking the loans believing they could pay it because "the bank says I can", and the government for dropping some restrictions on banks.

2. People charging ungodly amounts of stuff, living a lifestyle that is beyond their means, and then watching it all crash down quickly.

3. The natural progression of things after a major boom is a downturn. They happen all the time and quite frankly, need to happen in order to move forward. The problem with this one was because of 1 and 2, when people started losing their jobs, companies started faltering, etc. it made 1 and 2 major problems instead of minor problems.


What's more alarming is the government chose not to allow the downfal to run its course. They did nothing but put it on the back burner to return in a couple of years except this time with even more vengence. America has decided there can never be any kind of downturn...ever...we must always go forward and it's just not the case.

I will forever credit FDR for doing what he did during the Depression. The vast majority of it is all stuff that I fight against constantly but it was the only way to get the country out. The war then helped matters even further. The problem I have with all of it is they left all of it once it wasn't needed anymore. Instead, now we have people who expect the government to help them. The government decides they want to be re-elected so they do stuff like what they've done, and we just put the problem into the future.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

Given the total percentage of jobs lost over the past year it's hard for me to buy into the idea that their has been no downturn.

What exactly should have been done?

Nothing. Should have fixed what caused the problem so it didn't happen again and then sucked it up, lived with our mistakes, learn from them, and let things run their course so we can move forward later.

Did someone say there was no downturn? My reading of rowech's post is that the government shouldn't have tossed the stimulus or TARP money out there and let everything run its natural course, which I totally agree with. The Obama administration isn't helping anything at this point. They're only putting off the inevitable, with the real possibility that the backside could be even worse than if we would have just taken our medicine in the first place, which is something I was stating even when Bush was in office.

So when you repeatedly said you were in favor of a stimulus package, you were lying?

One idea I think would have been to have a careful, thoughtout plan that would address more needs of the workplace. As it is, we have a sloppy, ill-considered rushed bill that benefits only a relatively select few, given the political restrictions and conditions. It would have made no difference if such a political bill been passed 6 months later - the results would have been the same. As I mentioned at the beginning, there are only a handful of companies that could handle massive transportation and public works projects and most are already busy with projects that have been in the pipeline for years (and already were targeted for DoT monies). I read yesterday about the huge tunnel/corridor project beginning in NJ/NYC. That has been on the books for a long time and it would have been started about now with or without the stimulus. Just like our local intersection project, it's just a matter of how much we want to permit the feds to control the fundings (and the conditions attached). Generally speaking, this $787b stimulus is no different than many other massive federal expenditures (including the War on X): the results would be about the same with or without it.

I also see the same thing happening with the health care. He wants to rush (cram) that one through too. All the extra expenditures will get us to about the same place as now, while benefiting a select few that would know how to play the system (particularly lawyers).

I don't think you have to do that, to be honest.

The money you save by creating a system that encourages people to be preventative by making it cost nothing to see the doctor and get other medical care will more than cover the people who can't help themselves, especially when compared to the current system, which effectively has disincentives for engaging in preventative care, resulting in a greater number of urgent (and more expensive) cases.

You're conflating two separate things. There's living longer, on one hand, and then there's living healthier, on the other hand. The latter can certainly lead to the former, but just because you're living longer doesn't mean you're living healthier.

Modern medicine can keep people alive for longer, including those who, due to a lack of good preventative care earlier in life, develop problems later on. However, that's a different scenario from those who, due to good preventative care, living longer and healthier. I would guess that, on the whole, these people don't tax the health care system as much. And what we're aiming for, here, is a system that produces these kind of people (healthy, and healthy enough for long enough to be a productive member of society much later into their lives).


The Massachusetts plan was a clusterfuck from Day One and was solely a plan designed to wallpaper over the cracks in the best usage of that phrase. It bears no resemblance to a workable single-payer system.


I don't buy it, unless you're talking about government-administered plans specifically. There's plenty of waste in the private sector of health care as well, you know. Plus, there are costs associated with malpractices defenses, insurance, ensuring profits for insurance and pharma companies, etc....


If you replace "government" with "U.S. government", I'd agree with you, because let's not forget that pharmas, for instance, have screamed long and loudly about other governments (specifically European ones) holding them over a barrel and extracting lower costs out of them.

And again, yes, there's waste in government, but there's also plenty of waste in large corporations, to the extent that they often resemble each other. It's a red herring of an argument.


Now there I agree with you. I don't think health care really gets solved piecemeal. You either go whole hog or you do nothing.


At least one Nobel Laureate in economics (hint: he writes for the New York Times) disagrees with you.

And, I'm surprised that amongst all that doom and gloom you don't note: 10 Banks Allowed to Repay Billions in Bailout Funds - NYTimes.com

I hammered the Bush administration repeatedly on this board for even considering a stimulus package and have been against all stimulus bills. You must have me confused with another poster not named MBBF. I'm as conservative as they come in that regard. I was totally against TARP as well.

It's nice to have a Nobel Peace prize, but Al Gore has one as well. I suppose he's infallable too.

I'm not sure that the payback of TARP funds is any sort of a thing for the adminstration to hang their hat on. The only reason most of those banks are doing it so quickly is concerns that the Obama administration may try to take over a portion of their bank or try to manage some of their operations due to fine print in the agreement, otherwise known currently as the 'poison pill'. It's good to have the money back, but it's not a sign that there's been any positive changes in the economy. They're just escaping the overlord possibilities. I don't blame them at all for wanting out.

Without going through your whole posting history:

There's a HUGE difference between saying you want a stimulus bill that works and saying you're against the stimulus bills that have been proposed. Obviously, you were able to mince words due to my general statement that stated that I was against all stimulus bills. I didn't specifically state that I meant all that had been proposed thus far. Knowing that I was dealing with you, that was a HUGE oversight. :) The stimulus bills on BOTH sides of the aisle have been woefully inadequate, hence my opposition to all of them.

In general I think people are for things that work.

The difference of opinion is whether something will work or not.

I can almost guarantee you that I can't think of a scenario where I'd be happy with a stimulus bill created by the government as it currently functions. There's just so much excessive crap in the bill that isn't directly pointed towards a stimulus. It's ridiculous.

But saying I'm for a stimulus that works is far different from saying I've always been opposed to any stimulus. I think MBBF likes to have things both ways. A few months ago he wasn't being unreasonable, he just wanted a bill that "worked". Now he wants everyone to know that he was prescient and was always against any stimulus money being spent.

Your debate skills are fantastic, but that's simply not based on reality. You're twisting what I said. As I mentioned, one small omission and you jump all over it, but it doesn't change the fact that I've been against all proposed stimulus. Your argument is misleading at best.

This is 100% true, and it extends all the way down the banks. I have a friend who was offered an i-banking job at BofA early this year, to start this September, and has passed on it and returned his $30k signing bonus because he has no desire to work for a bank operating under the TARP restrictions. There's a lot of talent on the market now, and the BofA's and Citi's of the world can't bring any in to keep up with the rest.

I agree you were opposed to the stimulus bill, but you made clear that you were open to the idea of stimulus. Now you want to be seen as always opposed to the very idea of stimulus spending.

And I'm stating that's not the case. My opposition is more to the forms of stimulus created by the dysfunctional system of earmarks and add-ons than the actual idea of stimulus spending.