Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Hope my a**. Shrill arrogant partisan fearmongering is more like it.

Way to instill hope and confidence Mr. President.

Bankrupting the country's future to serve the fat greasy DC piggies in his party and its assorted public parasites around the country, as he desperately flails to scare the hell out of everyone if we don't all go along with him, while exploiting the downtrodden as cheap props for his agenda...

...not to mention all the whining about "what he inherited" (as if he was never a US Senator through the last 4 years, the last 2 with his party firmly in control of Congress).

'I found this deficit waitin' for meh, wrapped in a big bow.'

How appropriate Democrats who, with Bush, exploded those deficits now laugh and clap at this cowardly dodge of responsibility....as they push to explode our nation's debt nuclear-style.

Just to be a bit logical here, so because Obama "inherited" these deficits his answer (or his license) is to compound them in unparalleled dimension??

How truly pathetic, contemptible, and shameless.

53% of the vote and this swaggering jackass thinks he is some newborn emperor, fresh down from Olympus.

And we thought this is what we just got rid of...


Anonymous said...

Tyler, your outburst is not impressive!

I think Obama speaks the truth about this crisis. The causes are quite clear, yet the opposition is calling for more of the same, like do nothing, or like cut taxes - nothing more. Isn't this the same approach that caused the crisis to begin with? I think so.

As I see it, Obama is attempting to solve several problems at once with this Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an apt title for this so-called stimulus package. 40% of the package is tax cuts for more immediate stimulus. The rest is meant to stimulate jobs with infrastructure rebuilding, school renovations, streamlining medical record keeping, and building green energy sources. Perhaps I've left something out, but I like the comprehensive nature of this package.

My hope is that the contents of this package will have an immediate impact as well on increasing confidence in the markets, so that together with what Geithner is going to do with the banks, toxic assets, and troubled mortgages, we will be able to move back toward a growing economy as quickly as possible.

What is your proposal, Tyler?

Perry Hood

Tyler Nixon said...

Perry, I am not interested in debating your talking points. I disagree with this disgusting profligacy from our national leaders. NOTHING will convince me this is needed, much less wise or measured.

Deficit spending on this scale is criminal, no matter how godlike you want to view Obama.

There is a reason that last night Obama said government is all that is left to 'solve this crisis'. That is what he wants us to believe and is the most damning revelation of his DC/government centric world view yet.

Bush, McConnell, Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, Hoyer et al have worked for this reault with their disgusting unchecked spending and government growth, all the while serving their own interests first and only.

I have been calling for national investment in renewables for nearly 8 years now (yes, eight). I agree with this and this alone as a worthy national investment that touches on economics, environment, and national security all at once.

The rest is just sloppy porky payoffs to Democrat constituencies.

Answer me why the poormouthing and fearmongering, Perry.

Neither Reagan nor FDR ever sank to such lows as Obama has in just his few short weeks in power.

More is not the answer.

Anonymous said...

Tyler, what Obama said is that Government is the only entity that has the resources to tackle this problem. I think he is correct.

You know this -- Markets are underperforming because of frozen credit - little money moves except for necessities and saving (though not for those who do not even have these resources, a number increasing as we speak).

The entire global banking system is impotent, therefore we are left for government to print money with the hope that later economic growth will enable us to strengthen our currency by then restraining government spending, hopefully no more than about two years out.

As I see it, Obama's approach emphasizes the creation of jobs via a multifaceted series of spending programs. I take it that except for spending on alternative energy, you think the rest is basically pork. Call these pork if you like, I view them as needed anyway, therefore they are simultaneously addressing several serious needs due to neglect in the recent past. To me, that is both timely policy and good policy.

I understand that you and I are in disagreement, but I'm not sure I see a solution from you other than investment in alternative energy, otherwise do nothing else, correct?

What about the frozen credit markets? Let us see what Geithner says.

Perry Hood

h. said...

The resources !!??? You mean the money printing machine.

Shirley Vandever said...

Let us see what Geithner says.

He spoke. The market listened. Down 330 points as of 1:45 PM.

I'll be working 'till I'm 90 at this point. May as well, since I must help to pay off The Generational Theft Act of 2009.


Anonymous said...

h., did you read what I wrote?
"The entire global banking system is impotent, therefore we are left for government to print money with the hope that later economic growth will enable us to strengthen our currency by then restraining government spending, hopefully no more than about two years out."

Unfortunately,economists don't see any other way to unfreeze the credit and get money moving again. It's been three months since Bush/Paulson performed their surreptitious handouts to the banks, almost $300 billion, without oversight, and where are we now? So far there has been no attempt to stabilize home prices, as Congress originally intended for the TARP.

Me too, Shirley, unless Congress gets their act together. What do you suggest should be done? I note lots of critics, but a paucity of alternate solutions.

Looks like the first take on the Geithner plan is not going over too well on Wall Street.

But then I ask: Is Wall Street a valid metric for the goodness of the plan?

How much can we trust these folks who advise us to buy, buy, buy and hold, hold, hold, while half of our 401Ks have gone down, down, down the drain?

You can bet there is plenty of money being made in this volatile market, by us?

I wonder sometimes if there are some Wall Streeters powerful enough to manipulate the market up or down a fraction of a point, more than enough to make huge sums in profit from exactly timed, split second transactions.

Right, I'm very suspicious and cynical about the Market, especially as unregulated as it has become.

But that's exactly the way the Libertarians want it, correct?

It seems that those of us in it for the long term might be long term losers this time. I wonder!

Perry Hood

Shirley Vandever said...

You're right Perry, it is easy to criticize without offering solutions. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to was through the 1600+ pages of the two bill versions. Wish I did. I actually like that kind of stuff. :))

Here are two alternatives, one from a Republican and one from a Democrat (Blue Dog that he is).



In general, from what I have read of the current bills, there is not enough targeted focus on the problem; it appears to be more of a substitute for the yearly appropriations process (billions for biomedical research?). If we can get rid of some of the idiocy and get this bill down to a reasonable size I would be more supportive of it.

I don't even open up my 401-K statement any more. It is too depressing. At least I'm at an age where I may not have to see the fallout from this mess.

Tyler Nixon said...


Funny this is one thing we damn sure haven't tried in a long long long time, if ever.

Problem Perry is that this basic notion of economic stability through fiscal responsibility and balance is heresy to the "do something" spend spend spend stampede we see underway.

You just seem hellbent on everyone accepting your first premise that government is the answer and only government spending is the solution.

I think it's the fundamental problem here. It is a wild west fiscal mentality that makes Obama only worse than Bush given the proposals at hand.

Hube said...

You just seem hellbent on everyone accepting your first premise...

That, um, is Perry in a nutshell. Not accepting his premises leads him to get upset and use terms like you're "nuts" or "insane." And then he gets even more upset when folks use the same terminologies against him.


Miko said...

I find it curious that Perry is accusing those against the "stimulus" of wanting to do more of the same, seeing as I view that bill as being as much of the same as you can stuff into one piece of legislation. We all want change, yet we disagree on what we want because we disagree on what we already have. Yet another reason that the word "change" should be removed from all political discourse.

My hope is that the contents of this package will have an immediate impact as well on increasing confidence in the markets

But now that it's done the exact opposite you'll reconsider your support of it, right?

Scott said...

What's interesting is Obama's seeming desperation to get a significant portion of Republican support for the package, even though it can pass without their votes.

This indicates that he expects it to fail to produce the promised results, or fears that it will fail, so he wants to be able to avoid blowback against his own party by claiming it was a "bipartisan effort." Just as Repubilcans could claim the Iraq War was "bipartisan" because so many Democrats were stampeded into approving it.

Shirley Vandever said...

Scott, I totally agree. If the ship is going to go down, might as well have some company.

We have yet to see the final-final-final version, but I'll betcha that the Pelosi Punks will be angling to get more of their gravyboats in there.

If that happens, I wonder if Mike Castle will have the courage to do the right thing.

the economist said...

Seriously, Obama has been in Washington this whole time... He inhereted it... wrapped up with a bow and delivered to the oval office... CRAP!

Plus, there is only two way out of this... according to Keynes... Reduce government spending, or raise taxes to start paying down debt... Not tax cuts and more government spending... For all ya'll who think you are too cool for school and listen to bullshit, WAKE UP!

the economist

Anonymous said...

The main disagreement here relates to creating jobs. That's Obama's emphasis, and why I support pretty much of his package. Would you critics agree that job creation is a critical need for the economic free-fall too slow and for a recovery to begin within a couple of years?

The other part of it is to stabilize the financial markets. Infusing capital accompanied by governmental oversight seems the right thing to me, in addition to some of the restructuring that Steve has discussed.

I don't see how these goals can be achieved by "END DEFICIT SPENDING PROFLIGACY AND RADICALLY REDUCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES." (Tyler's prescription).

Shirley, your "American Solutions" reference has some good stuff, like reducing the payroll tax and cutting taxes for the middle, but except for the last item on infrastructure, there is not much on job creation there.

Minnick the Bluedog Dem is in the right direction but is way too small. My impression is that most economist believe we need to print and pump much more to reverse the free-fall. Moreover, tax cuts alone don't help those who are unemployed, those who don't make enough to pay taxes, nor help the struggling states.

I know the Obama plan is risky. His plan has enough different elements, thus increasing the probability of success in both the short and long run. Let us not be so foolish as to expect to immediately return to prosperity. I would hope that we use ample and timely metrics, so that if a change becomes obvious we can make mid-course corrections.

Perry Hood

tom said...

"My impression is that most economist believe we need to print and pump much more to reverse the free-fall"

Your impression is incorrect. Here are some economists who disagree enough to take out full page ads in major newspapers to let you know they disagree. You might even recognize a few names.