Stimulus Bill Passes
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,588
From: san francisco, ca
Car Info: 06 wrx wagon
So, the American public is skeptical of all three ideas (only tax cuts, more government subsidizing/loans, and an absolute free market). There are very intelligent people for each view that can be very convincing, but neither one of these will be openly accepted without a high amount of criticism from other points of view.
One of the few things that are apparent is that during each major recession, in America there has been increased government spending to mitigate the damage and we've recovered after each event. Looking at it this way may explain why it's happening yet again. Right or wrong, the idea is that it's what's consistently been done before and the economy survived, so doing it yet again may be the safe way.
One of the few things that are apparent is that during each major recession, in America there has been increased government spending to mitigate the damage and we've recovered after each event. Looking at it this way may explain why it's happening yet again. Right or wrong, the idea is that it's what's consistently been done before and the economy survived, so doing it yet again may be the safe way.
if you're not longwinded in teh politics forum where can you be?!?!?!
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
i think you hit the nail on the head with the three ideas. neither of the two party's methods "work" on their own and there's no such thing as true free trade. with that said, the American public, i feel, is skeptical for good reason. i think it's this "each event" and the perpetual "government spending boost" that bothers me (and others?). it might not be specifically quantifiable or may be a butterfly flaps its wings sort of thing, but aren't we exacerbating a future problem and making the cycle continue? perhaps i should accept that this is just the way things work... but i don't want to.
if you're not longwinded in teh politics forum where can you be?!?!?!
if you're not longwinded in teh politics forum where can you be?!?!?!
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,588
From: san francisco, ca
Car Info: 06 wrx wagon
You shouldn't accept things the way they are and always question them. That's the only way to make this country better. That's also the only way to break this cycle. Unfortunately capitalism and the world market is doomed to it's cycles of upturns and downturns. But people should always strive to make the upturns more sustainable and the downturns more avoidable. For that to happen, the private industry needs to read the writing on the wall and react to it before it's too late. The private market needs to continually think long term and stop trying to make the quick dollar and ignoring the concequences.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
it is funny that they printed and scanned it though rather than converting.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Talk about a misleading "article"; it is incredibly common--almost industry standard--to release documents as PDF. Every company I have ever worked at for the past 8-10 years releases documents as PDF, and many (if not most) government reports are released as PDF files and have been for several years.
The reason is because most documents these days are written in Microsoft Word, which does not convert well to publishing on web pages unless you print to a PDF. If you convert to HTML, you lose all sorts of formatting, which is a bad thing when you're talking about the strictly enforced formatting guidelines that official government documents have to meet.
Don't believe your conservative hype machine, it's feeding you bull****. And yes, the liberals have a bull**** machine too, you just happen to put all your eggs into one basket.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
They didn't print and scan, they converted straight to PDF. When you install Adobe Acrobat Professional (or any number of freeware tools that do the same thing), you get the option to print/save to a PDF file.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Yeah. The article Paul linked to is a load of hooey. PDFs have been searchable for well over a decade.
They didn't print and scan, they converted straight to PDF. When you install Adobe Acrobat Professional (or any number of freeware tools that do the same thing), you get the option to print/save to a PDF file.
They didn't print and scan, they converted straight to PDF. When you install Adobe Acrobat Professional (or any number of freeware tools that do the same thing), you get the option to print/save to a PDF file.
division a was print-scan, division b was converted.
link to division a: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/...Bill_Div_A.pdf
still searchable though.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
S.F. to get $19.8 million aid to homeless
02-19) 18:11 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco has received $19.8 million in federal grants to help the homeless and stands to gain a lot more federal funds in the coming months...
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Thursday announced $1.6 billion in nationwide grants for homeless services, including housing, job training, health care, mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment.
Other Bay Area cities received funds, too, including $20.2 million for Oakland, $8.8 million for Richmond, and $5.2 million for cities in San Mateo County.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Thursday announced $1.6 billion in nationwide grants for homeless services, including housing, job training, health care, mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment.
Other Bay Area cities received funds, too, including $20.2 million for Oakland, $8.8 million for Richmond, and $5.2 million for cities in San Mateo County.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
"Stanford Financial Group has given $2.4 million to federal candidates, parties and committees since 2000, with 65% of that going to Democrats. Stanford and his wife, Susan, have given $931,100 out of their own pockets, with 78% going to Democrats," the report concluded. See full details on Stanford's spending on lobbying
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,650
From: Mountains
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
http://www.9news.com/news/article.as...0349&catid=339
List of transportation projects that are to be funded by the stimulus in CO.
List of transportation projects that are to be funded by the stimulus in CO.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
most transportation projects are federally funded. even state / county / city level projects get a lot of grant money from the Federal Transportation Agency.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
GOP governors take the (stimulus) money and run
Well, I guess they can't deny all of this wasteful spending right? I mean, they wouldn't want to be all bark and no bite. Money talks and bull**** walks.
Well, I guess they can't deny all of this wasteful spending right? I mean, they wouldn't want to be all bark and no bite. Money talks and bull**** walks.
Voting against the economic stimulus package? That's so last week. For some Republicans, there's a hot new way to show just how fervently they opposed the $787 billion bill President Obama signed into law Tuesday: pretend they're not going to take the money.
Or, at least, make a lot of noise about maybe not wanting it. A handful of GOP governors are making headlines for saying they'd rather not or maybe shouldn't take the billions of dollars the stimulus package would rain down on their states. It's the logical extension of the Republican strategy on the bill, after all; only three Republicans in the Senate, and none in the House, voted for the legislation, after the party decided en masse that the plan would put the nation on the road to socialism. If the spending won't fix the national economy, the theory goes, it won't fix the local economy, either.
But despite the protests, the governors will almost certainly wind up taking the money anyway, just as states do with federal aid all the time. Some of the states whose governors have been the loudest voices against the stimulus cash already benefit heavily from federal spending or from lucrative private use of federal land for oil. So perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that Texas Gov. Rick Perry decided Thursday to accept the $17 billion his state has coming to it, after days of hemming and hawing about the handout. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page in November titled "Don't Bail Out My State," did the same. They're in good company; Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty criticized the plan loudly while Congress debated it, then said he owed it to his constituents to take it. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley stepped up his criticism of the bill after announcing he would take the $2 billion his state gets from it. Republicans in the House even boasted about the bacon the bill would bring home, after engineering a unanimous vote against it. When just about every state is in a financial crunch, thanks to the collapsing economy, it's hard to hold the line and actually turn down the cash. "It's ****ing stupid," said one Republican consultant in Washington. "If the money's there, they'd be nuts to not take it ... If it's a question of, 'Hey, the money's going to be spent, so we might as well spend it in our state,' that's just nuts to turn it down."
Or, at least, make a lot of noise about maybe not wanting it. A handful of GOP governors are making headlines for saying they'd rather not or maybe shouldn't take the billions of dollars the stimulus package would rain down on their states. It's the logical extension of the Republican strategy on the bill, after all; only three Republicans in the Senate, and none in the House, voted for the legislation, after the party decided en masse that the plan would put the nation on the road to socialism. If the spending won't fix the national economy, the theory goes, it won't fix the local economy, either.
But despite the protests, the governors will almost certainly wind up taking the money anyway, just as states do with federal aid all the time. Some of the states whose governors have been the loudest voices against the stimulus cash already benefit heavily from federal spending or from lucrative private use of federal land for oil. So perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that Texas Gov. Rick Perry decided Thursday to accept the $17 billion his state has coming to it, after days of hemming and hawing about the handout. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page in November titled "Don't Bail Out My State," did the same. They're in good company; Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty criticized the plan loudly while Congress debated it, then said he owed it to his constituents to take it. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley stepped up his criticism of the bill after announcing he would take the $2 billion his state gets from it. Republicans in the House even boasted about the bacon the bill would bring home, after engineering a unanimous vote against it. When just about every state is in a financial crunch, thanks to the collapsing economy, it's hard to hold the line and actually turn down the cash. "It's ****ing stupid," said one Republican consultant in Washington. "If the money's there, they'd be nuts to not take it ... If it's a question of, 'Hey, the money's going to be spent, so we might as well spend it in our state,' that's just nuts to turn it down."