I suppose I'm a quitter and not a good Dem

[Beavker]

But I'm just getting tired of this whole thing regarding the stimulus, Bipartisanship, Wall Street, Main Street, Media Bias (on either side). Do it or don't. It's really the people of this country that need to get it done. Some say the polls are now against the stimulus plan. If so, don't do it. We will all just lie in the bed we made. There's some dignity in that. Otherwise, tell your GOP senator to shut up and support something. Try your best to cut some pork, Obama is actually listening. But pass it. Otherwise I feel I just can't listen to anything anymore. It's the same shit over and over again, nothing has changed, no one has changed their minds on one side or the other. A malaise has set in regarding this exercise in futility. Some would say it's great, it's our Democracy at work. But the key word is work. There is nothing working. The people voted, the people need to get what they want, right or wrong, good or bad. End of discussion.

[Political Heretic]

1. Don't listen to the hype - read the bill. There's a reason no Repubs are voting for it.

...its the most liberal thing I've seen come through congress in my lifetime.

A detailed comparison of final House and Senate committee provisions is available here: http://chn.org/pdf/2009/RecoveryBillschart.pdf.

But you have to skip the media talking points and go look at it yourself.

[Winterblues]

10. You say that as if it is a bad thing

IMO We need a hell of lot more Liberal Bills to come through Congress. It was because of Liberal Bills that America moved forward and promoted integration, civil rights, education, social security, GI Bill, OSHA, Child Labor Laws, The right to Unionize, Minimum wage, Safe Food and Water, the list is almost endless.

[Political Heretic]

11. What? No! Just the opposite

I say it as if its a bad thing?

Um... no I think that was some projection there, bud :)

I'm a social worker - I think it is a fantastic thing :party:

[eleny]

2. Buck up!

[Why Syzygy]

3. I believe we need a Wellstone Party.

Which would operate outside of the DLC. If a Sir Wellstone or Dean had this majority, we would have legislation.

But, I'm at the same point. Just don't give any more money to the fat cats! Just let us all slide into the abyss. And may the better prepared survive.

[Cleita]

19. Best idea I've seen yet. I hope some people who can actually organize

something like this will do it and I will be happy to join and contribute what I can.

[burythehatchet]

45. IMagine a party where the DFL party replaced the DLC scum.

[Beavker]

4. We're Hi Tech Now

So why can't we the people Vote on more issues. Why pay someone that much money to go be our voice, when we can, via new technology do it ourselves? I can understand when we had no way of communicating other than Pony Express, but if I can vote on several issues at the Federal and Local levels (Ballot Measures, etc) why can't I go to a fixed polling location, given a wide 2 week window to vote, and go in and tell everyone I want the bill passed. There are organizations on either side that give the Pros and Cons, let me decide and vote. I know there will need to be physical people to do things, but why do we need to leave every decision to these guys? I'd just like to have more opportunities to voice my opinion (other than a blog, or writing my congressman who can actually go against his constituency's will).

[Romulox]

5. I think that the problem is that there is not trust between government and the American people.

Last time they came to use with an "emergency", we sent $700 Billion down a rat hole that ended up paying for superbowl parties for BOA execs and funding the acquisition of foreign firms for Citi.

But "this time" it will be different? :wtf:

[Jane Austin]

6. This bill isn't to bail out banks.

It's to get money to people through jobs.

Big difference.

[Romulox]

7. Actually, they're working on another bank bailout as we speak.

And the largest portion of "stimulus" is made up of tax cuts, if my sources are correct.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Your sources are incorrect. Who are these sources?

[Romulox]

9. According to your chart, 35% of the "stimulus" is tax cuts. The single largest outlay, by far. nt

[Political Heretic]

13. lol - nice rationalization.

This bill is more spending than tax cuts. Period.

It's a good thing that we're not putting 35% of an 900 billion dollar bill into ONE spending area, genius. The critique that its the "largest single" outlay is transparently stupid.

Nearly 2/3 of the bill is on spending, and that spending is of and extremely strong progressive stripe. Opinion? Nope - read for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4986363&mesg_id=4986363

[Romulox]

14. "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."

"Rationalization" doesn't have anything to do with this. The largest single portion of the stimulus bill is tax cuts.

[Political Heretic]

16. Which means nothing, which is why its misleading and disingenuous

Because you would never have a large single spending priority. The appropriate comparison is TOTAL SPENDING TO TAX CUTS. Spending 2/3 of the bill. Tax cuts 1/3 - MOST OF WHICH GO TO MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES. Some of which aren't even "tax cuts" in the traditional sense, but are highly appropriate, very progressive tax credits or incentives that directly benefit working class people.

Get a clue.

[Romulox]

21. Yes, it means "something". It means that the single largest component is tax cuts.

You may not like that fact, but it seems incontrovertible.

Is it that you simply don't want people to know? :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

24. The fact is utterly unimportant. Trying to pretend like it is is misleading.

It's misleading to frame the issue the way you frame it, putting up a large package of things which have been characterized as "tax cuts" against any one single point of spending.

Everyone can see how that's disingenuous.

Comparing a package of things characterized as "tax cuts" against a package of things characterized as "spending" is an apples to apples comparison - the only kind of comparison that has any sort of rational merit.

Unfortunately, when you do that, the facts don't particularly fit your broader narrative.

[Romulox]

26. LOL. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" nt

[Political Heretic]

32. Excellent response to facts.

Spending outnumbers "tax cuts" 2 to 1, and what's labeled under "tax cuts" includes a lot of things going to low income and working class families.

"tax cuts" isn't a "single largest expenditure" because "tax cuts" ISN'T A SINGLE EXPENDITURE.

WHICH IS WHY YOU CANT FIND WHAT YOUR LOOKING FOR WHEN YOU TRY TO READ THE PDF DOCUMENT OF WHATS IN THE BILL!"

God our educational system sucks...

[Romulox]

40. Your argument amounts to sophistry.

"'tax cuts' isn't a "single largest expenditure" because "tax cuts" ISN'T A SINGLE EXPENDITURE.

[Political Heretic]

50. My argument amounts to me being right and you being wrong.

All this further posting is about you not being willing to just walk it off and move on.

[Romulox]

52. LOL. So facts are immaterial because your EGO is involved?

[Political Heretic]

54. Not at all. So far all facts have been on my side.

"Tax cuts" are not the "single largest expenditure" because there is no single "tax cut."

However all provisions that have been lumped together and loosely characterized as "tax cuts" make up 1/3 of the bill, not the largest expenditure. All provisions that have been lumped together and loosely characterized as "spending" make up 2/3 of the bill, the largest expenditure.

Those are the facts. The sooner you get that and walk away, the less embarrassing it will be for you.

[Romulox]

57. OK, that's not even logically correct, even if we accept your spin.

"'Tax cuts' are not the 'single largest expenditure' because there is no single 'tax cut.'"

Of course there are single tax cuts. Your spin is to object to adding them up and reporting that number.

:silly:

[Political Heretic]

60. Of course there are single tax cuts - none of them are 35% of the bill.

Which was your statement. Single largest expenditure.

[Romulox]

63. AHA! But you said that there were "no single tax cut!!!!" You can't read!

/Political Heretic/Me: smart You: dumb! /Political Heretic/

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

67. There is not "one" single provision for a tax cut. My god, did you complete grade school?

There are of course individual provisions for tax cuts.

However, there is not ONE single provision for tax cuts in this bill - i.e. there is not one and only one "Tax cut" provision totally 35% of the bill expsense. Instead, there are multiple "single" provisions, each targeting something different, each with different effects, that have been classified "mostly by the media" as falling into the category of "tax cuts."

See the difference, or is it still too complicated for you?

[Romulox]

71. I get a kick out of people using sophistry/semantics who aren't precise in their own language.

[Political Heretic]

74. I get a kick out of people who are perpetually wrong and still can't quit.

[Romulox]

72. dupe. nt

[Political Heretic]

12. Your souces are wrong.

Read the bill for yourself.

Right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4986363&mesg_id=4986363

[Romulox]

15. Are you also disputing the chart offered by FrenchieCat?

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

17. Just go read.

[Romulox]

20. Your link doesn't even MENTION the tax cuts. I guess we can just pretend they aren't in there...

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

25. It does mention the "tax cuts."

But apparently you cant figure out what they are.

I don't know what you expected to see, but the groups of items characterized as "tax cuts" are right in front of your face.

[Romulox]

27. Help feeble little me out with a quote, would you?

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

29. No - I prefer others see the fact that you don't even know how to understand provisions of a bill.

I'll give you a hint though.

The first one is on page 1. Right in front of your face.

It even says "one year suspension of federal income tax"


The grouping of things that are being characterized simply as "tax cuts" in the media come out of multiple programs all of which are shown here.

[Romulox]

31. LOL. Can you say, "COP OUT"? I knew you could.

So silly.

[Political Heretic]

34. First tax cut is listed on PAGE 1 - it even says so....

If you can't figure out how to read the text, I don't feel obligated to help you.

[Romulox]

38. You are lame. You could quote the text, if you weren't trying to divert. nt

[Political Heretic]

42. I am lame because you a) can't read b) have no idea what the tax cuts even are c) have no clue

what your talking about.

I'm under no obligation or duty to help YOU out of your ignorance. If you can't figure out how to read a bill, and understand how people refer to "tax cuts" by program derivatives, exemptions, certain freezes, or incentives then that's your problem not mine.

[Romulox]

44. No, you are lame because you are attempting to insult away inconvenient facts.

It's not going to work.

[Political Heretic]

49. What inconvenient facts?

"Tax cuts" are, by definition, not the "single largest expenditure" because they are not single. There is no single "Tax cut" provision in the bill.

If you add up all the different items that have been loosely categorized as "tax cuts," you get 1/3 of the bill. If you add up all the different itmes that have been loosly categorized as "spending" you get 2/3 of the bill. That's a pretty good ratio.

[Romulox]

33. You are pointing at the 1 year suspension of Federal Income tax on the first ***$2400*** of UI?

OK. I support that one.

I nonetheless have no clue how any of this contradicts the fact that the single largest component of the alleged "stimulus" is tax cuts (and that this forgiveness of tax debt on the first $2400 of UI is a miniscule portion of this...)

[Political Heretic]

36. Because there is no single "tax cut"

So by your definition, the single large component of the stimulus is SPENDING.

Also, maybe you should get more familiar with what the "tax cuts" actually are. Since you "support that one." What other ones might you support if you actually fucking read anything before spouting off?

Curious.... hmmmmmmm....

[Romulox]

43. So count roads spending as thousands of separate expenditures too

After all, there is no single road the money is being spent on! :eyes:

[Political Heretic]

47. Or, how about we just look at SPENDING and "Tax Cuts"

2/3 Spending
1/3 Tax Cuts

Tax cuts which, you might even agree with - you did the first one you read. Perhaps you should read some more.

I did before I started spouting my mouth off. You should try it.

[Romulox]

55. Nope. That's YOUR framing. What I said was factually correct, you just want to spin.

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

59. It's not facutally correct at all.

It would only be factually correct if there was one item that spend 35% of the total bill on one tax cut program.

Then you could say, OMG the single largest expenditure is a tax cut!

However, that's factually incorrect. There are hundreds of little things, including things like the suspension of income tax on unemployment benfits that have been lumped together under the grouping of "a collection of tax cuts." -- that collection of different programs and breaks, adds up to 1/3 of the bill.

However, Spending vastly outpaces that --- two to one.

[Romulox]

61. Of course it is. You just object to my characterization. You don't dispute the facts at all.

[Political Heretic]

68. There's nothing to dispute. The facts have always been on my side.

1/3 bill - things grouped into the category of "Tax cuts"
2/3 bill - things grouped into the cateogry of spending

Tax cuts are not the "single biggest expenditure" in the bill - spending is.

"tax cuts" is a category label, describing multiple provisions.

Just like "spending" is a category label, describing multiple provisions.

The sum total of everything under the category of "Tax cuts" is 1/3 of the bill - not the biggest
The sum total of everything under the category of "spending" is 2/3 of the bill - the biggest.

[Romulox]

28. LOL. I see what you're trying to do. It doesn't mention the tax cuts, but it does mention

"tax credits".

You don't want to talk about the cuts, so you are pointing out the credits, as if they offset one another.

Isn't it easier to be honest and let the forum decide how to interpret the data? :hi:

[Political Heretic]

30. It mentions tax cuts too genius. But thank you for proving my suspscious about you true with every

post made.

[Romulox]

35. In your words, it's "misleading and disingenuous" to represent that minor tax cut as emblematic

of the other tax cuts that bog down this bill.

[Political Heretic]

39. I didn't. I just told you were there the first cut was. You can read the rest yourself.

And you should... since "you agree with that one" perhaps you'll discover that other things being characterized as "tax cuts" also make a lot of sense for real families... which is why no House Republican voted for the bill.

[Romulox]

41. Give it up. 1/3 of the bill is tax cuts. Justify that if you believe in it, but quit obfuscating.

[Political Heretic]

46. Ah thank you for repeating my statement instead of yours.

1/3 of the bill is what is being loosely lumped into the category of "Tax Cuts."

2/3 of the bill is what is being loosely categorized as "spending."

That's what I've been saying. Thanks for agreeing with me.

And of course, the first "Tax cut" you read was one that you "supported." Perhaps you should familiarize your self with the other things being categorized as "tax cuts" before going off on them with no information.... you might learn something.

Saying 1/3 of the bill is "tax cuts" and 2/3 is "spending" is pretty different from saying "tax cuts" is the single largest expenditure. Because its not single. No "tax cut" is the single largest. By that logic, the "single largest" expenditure in the bill is SPENDING.

[Romulox]

53. Me: "largest portion of "stimulus" is made up of tax cuts". You: Your facts are wrong.

Do you mean that you don't even know what you've been arguing about?

:silly:

[Political Heretic]

56. You: Wrong. Me: Correct.

Largest potion of stimulus is made up of spending. Not tax cuts.

[Romulox]

58. Ha! You: bad. Me: GOOD! (Look ma! I'm a "debater"!) nt

[Political Heretic]

64. Except that I keep giving you the facts and you continue to have nothing substantive to offer

Tax cuts aren't the single largest expenditure - by your definition, Spending is the single largest expenditure.

If you want to break out individual provisions that would be classified as tax breaks, then we can see if what the biggest one is. None of them on their own are 35% of the bill.

[Romulox]

66. You're arguing semantics. I'm arguing math. nt

[Political Heretic]

69. Your arguing neither.

Neither math nor semantics are on your side.

[Romulox]

70. Tax cuts are the single largest component of the stimulus plan. The end. nt

[Political Heretic]

73. False. Spending is the single largest component of the stimulus plan.

Tax cuts come to 1/3 of the bill. Spending is the single largest component of the stimulus plan.

[Jane Austin]

23. I think your sources are not correct.

But then I don't have any special sources.

[Romulox]

37. Read the links provided in this thread. My sources are correct. nt

[Jane Austin]

62. Ha Ha! ...................n/t

[Beavker]

51. Good Example

Of just how hard it is to get everyone on the same page. Two DU'ers can argue points all day and they, I presume, are basically on the same team. Imagine 100's of politicians, some of which are mortal enemies trying to decide on what this is and is not. It's numbing and paralyzing.

[Romulox]

65. Difference between he and I: I don't TRUST the Democractic Leadership

after being burned on the TARP.

[Beavker]

18. Minus any pork

To borrow a Wall Street term here, it seems that the Bill, whether in the right proportions or not, is very "diversified". I'd hate to spend all of it on ONE thing. No investment adviser would say to do so. Similarly, the complaint is that there is not enough of it going to work "Right Now!", but I'd say you have to do some things that will pan out later. The "speculation" from our esteemed investors should create some possible upward movement based on what "will" happen. To steal more Wall Street terms. So if you think that a particular sector or company will benefit even a year from now, that is when people start buying there stock. Thus the market still goes up. Some of this is to just make sure that people don't starve or resort to cannibalism until these increases occur, and quite frankly is NOT stimulus. But keeping a kid fed until things improve is a good idea in my book. But then again I'm preaching to the choir here. The Repukes seem to not care so much. Their kids are on Trust Funds anyway.

[LynneSin]

22. Obama fixed that plan to have items he could 'concede' to the republicans

There is no way that republicans would vote for anything presented by Obama 'as-is'. The republicans have to save face and prove they still have some fight and knowing how important this Stimulus Bill is - Obama probably padded the bill so the republicans could show their bite and we still get the important parts of the bill.

We're close to getting this bill passed. Things that were removed can always be brought up in Congress again!

[Beavker]

48. If that were true

that would be one sly move. Not a bad idea. Throw shit in there you know they would hate, diverting some attention from things you know they would not be happy with due to their agenda. Make them think they are affecting the bill when they really are just taking the bait. Problem is that they still seem to vote down the bill even with their additions and subtractions. I guess some sources say they may have some more votes...?

[LynneSin]

75. Well don't worry what the house does since there is nothing house repubs can do

It's the matter of making a few republicans and moderate leaning democrats happy - Obama is pretty close to that happening.