Large Scale Central

A Congress to be proud of

General Discussion
#1

Finally a House of Representatives that takes fast definitive action! In fact so eager were they to serve you the people that they didn’t even waste time reading the final version of the bill they just passed. After all it was only worth less than 800 billion dollars.

Such devotion to duty should be amply rewarded at the polls next time around. It should make everyone rest easy to know that such responsible people are watching out for us and our tax dollars. Kinda makes you want to send them a little extra doesn’t it? Oh that’s right, no need to send it, they’ll be around shortly to get it from you anyway.

Lets see next if the Senate can show a sense of duty, diligence and responsibility equal to that of the House.

#2

As I understand it, the bill contains substantial tax cuts, so it’s more likely they WON’T be around to get any money from you any time soon.

#3

The tax cuts are for folks that do not pay taxes.

I am so proud of my senator, Senator Specter. I’ll be sure to remember his contribution come the 2010 election.

#4
mike omalley said:
As I understand it, the bill contains substantial tax cuts, so it's more likely they WON'T be around to get any money from you any time soon.
[i]"As I understand it"[/i] Therein lies the crux of the situation. Congress has the same grasp of what's in the bill as you do (and I as well) except that they get to vote on it.
#5
Richard Smith said:
...Such devotion to duty should be amply rewarded at the polls next time around.
I believe that's how the current congress got in. :)

I am not exactly happy about adding more money on the burning pile of debt left by the last one. Very concerning. Would love to have seen a whole lot more “stimulus” and a whole lot less pork. By the same token, if there is indeed a 15K credit for buying a new home, and if I have not lost my job before it gets here, I may have to seriously consider a move!

#6

Richard,
the house was not that quick. The original bailout was a trillion dollars. Of course, when George W. introduced all his bailouts to fund high rolling bankers, everyone thought that it was a good idea. How many high rollers flew in private jets to Washington for the congressional hearings, or rewarded themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses and their loyal employees with holidays in exotic locations, all funded by taxpayers’ money?

       How many people are now unemployed as a direct result of these selfish actions?  The bailout should have been funded by the assets of the highrollers.  The government has the right to seize assets considered to be obtained as a result of criminal proceeds and yet rewards criminal highrollers for their daring and deeds.
#7

See, the whole theory behind this salary cap is if you’re not performing well, and you’re taking taxpayer money, then that should be reflected in lower wages. Of course, under that criteria, everybody in Congress should get like, what, two bucks an hour?

Jay Leno

#8

(http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon021009.gif)

#9

I find it hypocritical that Nancy Pelosi criticized the Big Three Automotive CEO’s for flying into D.C. and the one corporation almost taking delivery on a small jet, but Pelosi herself wanted her own jet when she was elected to The Speaker of The House.

#10

http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/Mywallet

#11

Double post

#12
David Hill said:
I find it hypocritical that Nancy Pelosi criticized the Big Three Automotive CEO's for flying into D.C. and the one corporation almost taking delivery on a small jet, but Pelosi herself wanted her own jet when she was elected to The Speaker of The House.
The way I understand it is She has her own jet but won't reach west coast without a stop for fuel, furnished by taxpayers, she wanted one that would transport her ass non stop home!!!!!! The word for BS is Pelosi!!!!!
#13
Tim Brien said:
Richard, the house was not that quick. The original bailout was a trillion dollars. Of course, when George W. introduced all his bailouts to fund high rolling bankers, everyone thought that it was a good idea. How many high rollers flew in private jets to Washington for the congressional hearings, or rewarded themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses and their loyal employees with holidays in exotic locations, all funded by taxpayers' money? 
       How many people are now unemployed as a direct result of these selfish actions?  The bailout should have been funded by the assets of the highrollers.  The government has the right to seize assets considered to be obtained as a result of criminal proceeds and yet rewards criminal highrollers for their daring and deeds.</blockquote>

Tim,

I’m not excusing the “disappearing” billions given to the banks in the first 350 billion dollar go-around. I know it is convenient to spin the whole affair by shifting the subject over to what happened in the previous administration but right or wrong it doesn’t change or excuse what has just happened.

The House just passed a bill that was (supposedly) an amalgam of the original Senate and House bills without even knowing what was left in and what was left out. Also there’s no way to know if other goodies were added or not as no one but the commitee behind closed doors has had time to see the revised bill.

I don’t think you would sign a contract or commitment involving your money without taking the time to thoroughly check out every item in the contract. Neither would I and neither would those members of Congress if it involved their own money I’m sure.

Our House of Representatives is supposed to represent the interests of its constituents. To vote in a bill without knowing what is in it is a violation of the trust placed in the members and is certainly irresponsible as well as totally outrageous whether you ultimately agree with the bill’s contents or not.

#14

In my opinion the bill does not go nearly far enough or go to the right places. If I were Obama I’d spend massively–massively–on infrastructure and energy. Creates jobs, builds a network for the future. If you’re worried about debt, look at this:

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/usgs_line.php.png)

Notice the incredible debt after WWII. WWII cost over 5 trillion in today’s dollars. But federal spending on research, infrastructure and material in WWII ended the depression and paved he way for the post war boom. I’d like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but it’s a fact that in hard times people spend less, which is exactly what they should NOT do, because it makes the problem worse. So govt. needs to spend to stimulate economic enterprise. Keep the tax cuts, but spend even more. Nobody complains today about the payoff cost of WWII–it paid or itself in economic growth

#15

Richard,
from memory only three Republicans voted for the bill. Our recovery bill is only 42 billion, but the opposition Liberal (conservative) party opposed it to a man, along party lines. It was only passed, yesterday, due the government doing a deal with the greenies and the independents, requiring more spending on infrastructure ‘green’ projects, to enable the bill to pass. Our government, along with others, are trying to ingest money into the economy to kickstart it into life.

       I believe that you have a Democrat majority house and to reduce the bill from one trillion to 800 million,  then someone must have opposed the initial Obama bill.  I believe that many feel that Obama is the last chance and have a sense of trust in him and his decisions.  The Hoover Dam was built as a result of government spending in the great depression,  although with labour laws the way they are now,  I feel such massive projects would not be built today.  This is too big a problem to be run on political party lines and partisanship.
#16

Tim,

The three Republicans are Senators and weren’t involved yet in voting on this latest version of the bill.

#17

I see the Hoovericans are restless.

-Brian

#18

There’s a fairly broad consensus on policy that some of Roosevelt’s actions made a positive difference but that they didn’t get us out of the Depression. Amity Shlaes in her path-breaking “The Forgotten Man” makes a strong case that some of Roosevelt’s moves blocked recovery, and even his admirers admit that his policies led to a sharp recession in 1937-38. After eight years of the New Deal, with it’s alphabet soup of job programs, unemployment remained at 15 percent in 1940 – double the figure for today. What really got us out of the Depression was World War II. The total number of employed persons and military personnel increased from 44 million in 1938 to 65 million in 1944.

So it would be unwise to copy the New Deal as a recipe for economic recovery. And the policies that produced the wartime boom are not replicable today. We are not going to have rationing, wage and price controls, government spending nearly half the gross domestic product, 91 percent tax rates and a 12-million-man military (the equivalent today would be 27 million)

The stock market didn’t reach pre-1929 levels until 1954.

From what I can tell from news reports about the contents of this final bill, it is clear that what really got stimulated over the past several weeks were the bowels of the Democratic Party. Seems like every cockamamie socialist program that didn’t see the light of day during the past eight years has suddenly been disgorged into this massive trillion-dollar legislative receptacle. I suggest that we call this monumental monstrosity the Ex-Lax Act of 2009.

So, is there a silver lining in this piece of congressional crapola? Yes there is. American voters will now get a whiff of big government socialism and I believe that those who actually pay taxes, and invest their savings, may once again appreciate the attributes inherent in the system envisioned by our founding fathers—limited government, private property, personal freedom and open markets.

#19

As I posted earlier, the way WWII got us out of the depression was “MASSIVE” government spending. See the chart

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/usgs_line.php.png)

The entire enterprise of WWII was government funded, and it cost the taxpayers more than 5 trillion in today’s dollars. If WWII ended the depression, then how did it do so? with massive govt. spending. The Schlaes book is hardly the last word on the subject–there are ay many historians and economists who would conclude the opposite, the FDR was far too conservative in social spending. For example, Paul Krugman, the most recent wnner of the Nobel prize in economics

#20

All we’re missing now is the equivalent of WWII…