That is the problem with politics. You obviously agree that stimulus was necessary. The problem with this package is that it was rushed. And the fact that it was rushed gave everyone an excuse to throw his/her pet project in.

But then again, there really wasnt an alternative. You can't blame Obama for all the pork thats in that package and you certainly can't blame it purely on democrats.

In my opinion, there simply was no choice.

which is why i think there should be a line item veto. too much pork gets attached to necessary spending bills. and too true, it was rushed.

didn't they curse that suggestion when reagan talked about trickle down economics?? :D

that guy brady sounds like quite a guy. :rolleyes:

While I understand political realities play a role this is like trading Allen Iverson for the other teams number #1 picks for the next 30 years. Maybe you needed a little scoring now but this isnt going to end pretty.

This is a new defense...

It is actually called throw enough **** against the wall and hope some sticks...

How about you do your own homework?

You posted an opinion. I asked for you to say why. You can't deliver. You said:

Sorry. That's not readily apparent from the list you posted. Pick out which line items you are talking about.

Stop avoiding the issue

Do my homework? Just click on the link. Is that too much to ask?

No, the point is that when you state something as fact, but are then asked to provide proof, simply restating your opinion as a fact, then saying the person asking you to put up just can't see it, isn't any support or proof at all.

You know, in the "adult" world ;)

20 billion in sales in the food/grocery industry doesn't count as "economic growth"?

Think of those "jobs saved" that don't exist ... checkout people, aisle stockers, delivery truck drivers, warehouse workers, more truck drivers, produce farm workers.

I just dont know how to respond.

Sigh ... I miss Illinois. You always knew where your Governor would be after his term was over :rolleyes:

What is proof to you?

Because all you see is someone getting food stamps.

I quite understand the process. But you arent creating anything sustaining. It is a temporary fix. When the 19 billion runs out you are back in the same place you were before and will need more "stimulus". You aren't stimulating anything, you are subsidizing it.

Pick out more of what you think are, "huge portions of money that went to non stimulus areas, huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

You see food stamps and see "entitlement". I see a whole chain of people that didn't lose jobs. Economic growth in the sense of expansion? Nope. But certainly, in a terrible economy, a contracting economy, there are economic benefits to keeping people working, and spending (paying rent, mortgage, buying food, etc); and also to not having those among us, in the highest unemployment, starve.

Yes, it's a subsidy, but one that keeps the economic engines humming. It means independent producers don't go out of business (forever) - in KY my local Kroger does buy local produce, too - and all the associated people keep spending their paychecks, buying gas and food, etc.

It buys time, yes - for the economy to get back to some stability (even mentally for people so they will spend) and thus, when the $19 million runs out - the grounds for growth and future expansion remain rather than disappear.

You know there have been multiple extensions of unemployment benefits over the past year - people are getting unemployment - and food stamp benefits - far longer than ever before in our history. In previous times they would have been out of luck on the entitlements, and still unemployed. Would you have them not receive this assistance? And there are more people receiving it nowadays, too.

Food stamps arent part of a social program and arent a temporary fix?

Fine - you see food stamps as, "huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

I see them as, indeed, economic stimulus. Food stamps for the number of people on them now will not have to be sustained and are not intended as a permanent expansion of the program (given as the economy recovers); and I gave my argument for the many long-term benefits of what you dismiss as a "temporary fix".

What?

This has nothing to do with the discussion

19 billion worth of food stamps is exactly what i said it is. An expansion of a social program and a temporary fix. Your little synopsis of the food chain is cute but food stamps are not going to grow anything. Your assumption that the expansion of the food stamp program will ever recede is simply political niavety.

it's funny in a way, the stimulus was supposed to create jobs to get people off the dole, but they also had to fund extra unemployment as well as more food stamps....


stimulus necessary? most likely. pols know the bill has to pass, so they threw in everything including the kitchen sink? absolutely. and now, a jobs bill, since the stimulus hasn't created enough jobs, and didn't attack the right areas. maybe this one will help. if not, how much more of our money are they going to throw around trying to find the right formula?

It buys time, yes - for the economy to get back to some stability (even mentally for people so they will spend) and thus, when the $19 million runs out - the grounds for growth and future expansion remain rather than disappear.

When food producers, and truckers, and food stores, don't have to go out of business because nobody has money to purchase food, but can be supported and remain in business (because all the newly unemployed in their area have food stamps due to the temporary expansion of that program due to the stimulus) the grounds for growth and future economic expansion - those businesses - remain rather than disappear.

That the stimulus had to include extra funding for both people out of work longer than normal, and an increased number of people out of work - yes, I think it has to do with the characterization of that funding.

And your repeated inability to view the stimulus in anything other than your preconceived and ill-supported silly views is cute, too - in a sad sort of way. 19 billion in food stamps is exactly what I said it was. Your assumption that the food stamp program at it's current rate will never decrease is financial naivete.

Doubt there will be any jobs help from this Senate.

Too embarrassed to post a link?

And you simply choose to ignore the history of social programs in this country. The president or congress that doesnt renew or expand the funding will be labeled racist or elitest or worse(naturally there is no chance that the dems would do this because they count on the votes of the disenfranchised). You can deny all you want but the fact remains that funding of social programs under the guise of stimulus is disingenous. You refuse to differentiate between growing a sustainable economy or subsidizing one.

The economy was like a patient slipping into a coma. There were three ways to approach it. One was to do nothing and hope that it would wake up and not die. The second was to put it on life support but do nothing else but keep them alive. The third would be to act boldly and try to 'stimulate' them by using measures that may rouse the patient from the coma.

You choose option 2 yet for some reason you think you have chosen numer 3.

For some reason this seems like the story of Riots life in the DT Pol section.

That's a personal opinion.

Not all of us need to be told what to think by WSJ Op Ed guys ;)

No. Not ignoring that at all. What in the world would make you think I am?

Seriously - you really need to stop telling me what I think. Rather arrogant of you. And you really suck at it.

That was your personal opinion? LOL. Like I said too embarrassed to post a link.

You don't believe that I doubt there will be much help from this Senate on jobs?

Have you not been watching the voting by the GOP for the past year? And yesterday? And the way the Democrats fold when someone looks at them crosseyed?

And you want a link to how I formed that opinion?

:zz:

ROFLMAO.

I said the reasoning why it wont happen. Because the Republican that doesnt continue the funding at a level close to the current level will be attacked by the left as anti-everything. As I said there has never been a social program like food stamps rolled back by a Dem. Wont happen. Has it ever?

You need to get over what ever personal issue that you have which makes you get defensive about, well, everything.

You are looking in the mirror, pal. Good luck with that.

Let me get this straight this was your personal opinion not lifted from another source? Why was it boxed in a different color?

Your ineptitude doesnt bother me in the least. If you choose to call me names or insinuate that anyone who isnt on your side of an issue is an idiot or dense or is a Fox news or WSJ sheep, well that seems to be more of a reflection of the source.

Whenever you are flumoxed about an issue and can't google your way off the topic you interpret every post as a personal attack.

:zz: My personal opinion is obviously what I wrote.

Let me get this straight - you want a source for the public government activity that was reported in the press and news yesterday, a public Senate vote on a bill, including quotes from the floor?

You don't know how to use the interwebs and google to find the daily news?

Do you think it's not true, that the GOP and some Dems voted against funding a summer jobs bill? :zz:

And you are unable to verify that? :zz:

You do realize that what I quoted was talking about Sen. Patty Murrays Youth Jobs Act, and not the "senate jobs bill" that is also in the news?

Here's a few for you that published that blurb:

http://politifi.com/news/Michigans-S...on-265419.html

http://upge.wn.com/?template=cheetah...language_id=-1

http://community.livejournal.com/ont...l/5587204.html

http://ninesheets.com/2010/03/09/sen...with-children/

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/

I hope your life in your imaginarium is better than your reality.

It is common courtesy that when you post someone elses work you post a link to the source. You repeatedly said that post 105, that was your personal opinion when it was an unlinked copy of something found elsewhere.

Thanks for the kind words