Obama announces Iraq troop withdrawl

the_grip on 1/3/2009 at 05:57

Quote Posted by fett

I keep hearing this, along with 'it's all pork for Pelosi and Reid's districts' but seriously, where are you guys getting this info? I've been checking recovery.gov for more specific details about the stimulus spending and it doesn't say shit. Is there another source where we can see exactly what this 'pork' and 'fluff' is that everyone's bitching about? I know there's got to be some in there, but one man's pork is another man's Fillet Mignon, y'know? I'd just like to see it for myself instead of getting all these stupid fucking soundbytes that tell me nothing.

EDIT: Okay, now I'm starting to get really pissed. In the FAQ at recovery.gov I found the following:

Q: I heard I'd be able to track recovery funds. Why can't I do that?
A: You aren't able to track funds yet because we have not yet started receiving information from Federal agencies on how they are going to allocate the money. It takes a little bit of time for them to make sure your money is going to be spent wisely. Right now, the site features an overview of the law and an explanation of what it is intended to accomplish. You will have access to data as soon as we begin receiving it from agencies.

So let me ask again for emphasis: Exactly what 'fluff' are we talking about here, and where are you getting the information from? If you quote a Republican or Fox New, I will cock rape you to death in your left ear hole.

fett, here you go:

(http://www.readthestimulus.org/)

It is actually twice as long as I thought.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I am not Republican nor a Fox News viewer. The news I get comes from Bloomberg and CNBC (although I watch CNBC just to laugh at the drama) and, primarily, the Internet.

The biggest gripe I have with this stimulus is it is the same thing the Bush administration promised not to do and ended up doing. It is the same stuff that Japan has been trying since 1990 as its economy has continued to deteriorate. The philosophy behind it all is to save institutions in lieu of the system instead of saving the system itself. Spending money on programs where they are unsustainable on their own is rarely a good thing, and random public spending is generally not the best approach to confronting economic crises.

I think we do need to increase taxes and take the pain pill. I am okay with that. I do not think that should be a permanent fix, and I do not think it should be used to facilitate new spending. It needs to be done to get us back to fiscal responsibility.

I am probably what you would describe as a moderate to liberal libertarian. I used to be a "Christian moderate Republican" about ten years ago but have moved out of that completely. I am neither Christian nor Republican any longer, and I have no affinity for talk shows on the radio be it Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Diane Rehm, or Terry Gross. They all have an agenda to me and represent populist media that gives you the curveball story.

That said, not to be the guy that runs in with negatives and no positives, I do appreciate guys like Mish:

(http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/dear-mr-president-with-all-due-respect.html)

(http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-spending-over-time.html)

And Denninger:

(http://market-ticker.denninger.net/)

I have no idea what the political affiliations of these folks are.

I do like Ron Paul to a large degree simply because he had advocated responsibility across the board. I do not agree with him on many of his issues (i.e. the gold standard) and he is too right-wingy for me, but I appreciate where he is coming from.

Anyways, back to the point at hand, Obama so far appears to be all rhetoric. I'm not seeing anything new or innovative, just more of the same while he complains about the mess he has inherited. What I want is a president that will stand up and do the right thing by all - and that right thing is likely to get everyone who participates voted out of office. We need to cut out all the bullshit and get things back on track instead of raising taxes, raising spending, and acting like this is something new.

the_grip on 1/3/2009 at 05:59

Quote Posted by fett

Holy shit you guys, the man's had ONE MONTH to deal with an economy in the toilet and a war. Chill the fuck out. :rolleyes:

Hey, he could turn it around and be rockstar boy wonder. So far, however, he is showing more words than innovation and change. Since Washington is about as trustworthy as <fillinthenegativeblank>, I will remain skeptical. I was hopeful at first, but that hope is fading quickly.

At first I thought Obama meant what he said, then for a while I thought Obama did really want what he said but probably couldn't get it because of Congress being a shithole, and now I think he is just another product of the same shithole. I hope he proves me wrong.

the_grip on 1/3/2009 at 06:10

Quote Posted by the_grip

http://www.readthestimulus.org/

Okay I just saw some of the sponsors for that site. I found that by Google, not by some connection. Yikes!!

fett on 1/3/2009 at 14:21

Awesome grip - thanks for the link. Now if we can just get Starrfall or RBJ to interpret the damn thing for us. :erg:

Which actually brings me back to my original question: Have the people bitching about 'fluff' and 'pork' actually read this? I assume they have and will post here to point me directly to that which they refer. Let me restate that I don't doubt it's there, but surely they wouldn't indiscriminately bitch about such things without knowing exactly what they're talking about, right? RIGHT?

Another thing: I didn't expect Obama to change the entire face and function of government within the month. What I do expect is what (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story) this guy is talking about with the budget. Transparency, an end to being patronized, and owning up to mistakes (ala the Tom Daschale mess).

To be fair, I don't think because the (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/01/reeling_conservatives_assess_damage/) Republicans were complete douches that Obama is conversely and automatically the Messiah. I know there's a happy middle somewhere that we haven't found yet. But I'm still convinced we've taken a huge step in the right direction. Hell, just the closing of Gitmo and ending of torture tactics is huge considering what the U.S. has become in the last 8 years. That doesn't let Obama off the hook on the economy, but it says a great deal about his intentions and determination to change things that are clearly wrong.

Starrfall on 1/3/2009 at 17:03

Motherfucker I barely get my ass to class you think I have the time or inclination to look through and interpret a site that's got CONSERVATIVE SHILL splashed all over it and whose top poster is called "christiansoldier"?

Especially when I'm too busy lolling at people declaring Obama to be a failure after like 5 weeks in office (which have already been marked by many improvements) when it took motherfuckers like 6 years to realize what a fuck-up Bush was. Not to mention the giant fucktons of bullshit spending and pork that came out of his reign.

I just realized I used "motherfucker" in both of those paragraphs you'll have to forgive me I've been watching On a Boat a lot.

motherfucker

Thief13x on 1/3/2009 at 17:15

Hi to you too Starrfall:eww:

fett on 1/3/2009 at 17:27

Quote Posted by Starrfall

I was going to mention the christiansoldier thing too, but at least the bill appears in full on the site. I was more concerned that it isn't readily available and dumbed down enough for the layman to understand on recovery.org. They've got cute little colored circles with percentages in them (*too* dumbed down), but there should be a breakdown somewhere that someone like me can dig through without all all the thee's and thou's.

Regardless, I'm still waiting for the people crying "FLUFF!!" to show it to me - burden of proof and all that.

Motherfucker indeed.

Starrfall on 1/3/2009 at 17:28

aw he missed me :)

FETT YOU BASTARD

edit: my (purely conjectural) guess for the reason why there isn't a breakdown for you is because the thing is so long that if anyone is working on a breakdown it's probably going to be some first year legislative assistant or legal intern who no one likes or who hasn't been working very long, and said first year legislative assistant probably isn't the brightest tool in the bunch or doesn't know what they're doing (otherwise they wouldn't be getting the shitty busywork job of summarizing the costs to begin with) so they're probably also really slow

the_grip on 1/3/2009 at 18:54

fett,

Here is a dude trying to filter it out. DISCLAIMER: I again just found this by Google... I bear no connection to these sites and particularly to nobody with the word "Christ" or "Christian" in their name or political views:

(http://newsburglar.com/2009/02/18/obamas-2009-stimulus-bill-enacted/)

(http://newsburglar.com/2009/01/30/obama-stimulus-package/)

I will restate myself just to be clear here:

A bunch of this stuff (building roads and bridges, all the energy stuff, and all this crap in general) is NOT STIMULUS. It is not going to be spent until a good deal out into the future. It is just spending for spending's sake without dealing with the problem at hand. This really is social policy and has nothing to do with economic stimulus.

To boot, it mirrors the prior attempts of Japan (as I mentioned above) in some ways to just spend money thinking that it helps. It doesn't. "Stimulus" needs to be concise and precisely directed to actually provide assistance.

I will give Obama credit that this is at least not the random sums of money given to investment banks with zero oversight or the like (although really that is still going on). We are ahead of where we were - but that is like saying great now we are just knee deep in shit instead of neck deep. Obama is just doing what every president in their first term does - busying himself and trying to look ultra-proactive.

The "fluff" I am referring to is simply the fact that there is all this extra bullshit that won't even go into effect until 2010 and beyond. I'm all for directing resources towards renewable energy, fighting healthcare costs, etc., but what he is doing is not stimulus and it is not timely. This is just a big spending bill of social agenda rolled up with $13 in tax breaks a paycheck for the average Joe/Jane. Whoopty shit. I agree with the premise behind much of it but it is like arguing about the cable and cell phone plans while the house is burning down. That's the problem.

At any rate, I've said my piece here... hopefully you get what I'm driving at.

the_grip on 1/3/2009 at 19:04

One other little note - what I really follow is the stock market (as I trade stocks, options, and futures regularly), and what this "stimulus" plan has done so far is drive the stock market to new lows (the S&P is at a 13-year low) and caused healthcare stocks to sell off. That said, I am a 100% believe in technical analysis, so much of this is just trading maneuvers. However, the larger forces in the stock market (i.e. longer term) are due to more fundamental forces.

The "stimulus" has made for great trading but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.