Americans Turn Against "Stimulus" Plan, Recent Poll Shows

I know SimplisticReality has seen this, but this sums up the entire problem with the Bill as being voted on.

True conservatism is, hopefully, taking hold.

Libs actual belief video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU

I think that people are finally seeing what true liberalism stands for and this Bill is the contract we don't need. Pres. Obama is even getting alittle rattled on this.

When you watch it, look at the others on the panel. Their reaction says it all.

Its that OH Sh-- look.

People are really starting to hurt. The last plan failed because of the pork and this will do the same. I do not understand why congress has to try and stick agenda into an emergy funding process. Find the problem and fix it. It is really funny how they can bring in the most educated people for hearing about how to fix this and turn a blind eye. The housing market is the problem so focus! We can bail out businesses all we want but they failed once so they will fail again. If Obama will step up to the plate and demand the focus he will succeed otherwise it is back to politic.

It brings up a simple question. How many of these senators have really read all 600 plus pages? If they have truly read this and still vote for it then it is totaly politics at its worst. As I watch cnn headline today they are saying the phones are ringing off the hooks in Washington today.

It brings up a simple question. How many of these senators have really read all 600 plus pages? If they have truly read this and still vote for it then it is totaly politics at its worst.

Less than 5 minutes ago my daughter said something and you could have knocked me over with a feather...

She's conversationally fluent in spanish. She belongs to a group that among other things, raises money to do a trip to Mexico once a year. They also study Mexico History.

She was watching (and reading) some things regarding the stimulus package. She said "If our leaders think this is best for the people of our country...then the leadership of the US is more corrupt than the leadership of Mexico. We're just more in-your-face about it."

I didn't know what to say. I think she may be right.

Congress doesn't want to find the problem because they are the problem!

Pelosi has INSTRUCTED her party in how they MUST vote. Most of the dems have not even read it. I listened to an excerpt by a democratic senator the other day talk about this strongarm technique in his party. He also said that most have not read the bill.

He promised, "No Pork, and no earmarks," yet he continues to throw his support behind this larded up disaster.

He's now making excuses and saying "When was the last time you saw a bill of this magnitude with no earmarks?"

Just saw a replay of President Obama saying that, I am saddened. He was to return the government back to the people. How can you say that is returning it back to the people?

He is turning out to be no different than what he campaigned against same old BS.

I don't want excuses, I want results. The ones that he promised on the campaign trail.

No kidding. "Change" we can believe it? I'm not seeing it

Nor am I. He's now officially referred to it as a 'spending bill' as well. The Senate originally stated they would pull an all-nighter tonight...Didn't happen. Apparently Mr. Reid has finally come to his senses and has realized he doesn't have the backing he needs for this disaster of a bill.

And now <pause with @!$%#-eating grin> I have the privilege to introduce our host for Porkfest 2009, Porkulus!

applause

"Thank you Madame Speaker. Let me say first that this is a great plan for the American people and the enactment of this legislation by Congress is a great stride forward during difficult our economic times. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program will ensure that no couch potato is left behind. Our $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film will ensure that no Hollywood executive is left behind. When the people of our great nation elected me as their president, they invested in the power of pork. I stand here before you today to say to the American people that your president and Congress will not let you down."

TheCapitalist

That's so funny (and sad)

Aye. My emotions were running both ways are I composed it.

He's clearly lied to the American people, and the media is virtually silent about it.

Didn't you get the memo comrade? Bush lied. The Obamessiah will remain forever chaste.

Love the pic of Porkulus with the Hollywood movie theme BTW. So apt.

Rick

The ideologues of the Right will destroy this country just to prove a point. You should feel very proud when the unemployment rate is 25% and regular people are eating out of the wealthy's garbage cans.

Class Warfare still exists, and it is foisted upon us by Ideologue Republicans and Conservatives who have no idea what they are talking about. Look at the facts: Tax cuts do not create jobs. Too small a stimulus package will not create enough stimulus.

You who are doing fine just don't really give a damn about the poor bastard who is losing his job!

Last I saw - unemplyment was 7.6% of total population of 300 million.

We middle class suffer as the poor get government assistance and the Rich have the money. We middle class make to much money to get assistance and are not rich enough to get the economy back on tract.

So, if the middle class can't get the economy back on tract, and we are the ones that keep the economy going, whose left?

The RICH, and they are going to be taxed into oblivion and we need them to keep us employeed.

If they hold their money, they don't care. They have it. We need them to release this money, Thus, and this is not a false statement, will get our jobs and employment back to where it was.

I don't care how much you all hate the rich, but middle and poor, don't pay the bills, when it comes to working.

Remember, those over $ 200,000.00 are rich. What $200,000.00 income person gave you a job. It takes way more than that to keep a company going let alone, create jobs.

Look at the facts:

Yes. Let's do just that:

Tax cuts do not create jobs.

How do you figure? If people have more disposable income, they buy more goods. If more goods are bought, that creates more jobs in the retail, supply chain, transportation and manufacturing sectors. If companies have a better profit margin, they hire more people.

Show me ONE ITEM in this bill that creates jobs in the private sector. The bill creates very few jobs and they are all in the public sector.

Too small a stimulus package will not create enough stimulus.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'stimulus'. It is not synonymous with 'spending'. A stimulus package that includes tax cuts is indeed a stimulus.

Wierd that you're all for the bottom rung of wage earners having to pay 15% in income taxes rather than 5%. Is there a reason you don't want them to keep 10% of their hard earned income to pay the bills and put food on the table?

PatN;

Nicely said # 1.18

PatN,

That is what I would expect you to say, and it is just not true. The stimulus bill, while not perfect, attacks the problem in two ways: there are short-term stimulus goals, i.e. getting people back to work quickly rebuilding infrastructure, and there are long-term stimulus goals, ie fixing the power grid to be able to handle alternative energy. Long term stimulus calls for jobs which will not go away once the short-term stimulus tap is cclosed. That means education, so you provide money for education.

Giving Rich people tax cuts doesn't create jobs. Why would it; they're already rich and they have no reason to go out and buy anything as they can still afford everything they could before.

The disposable income canard is even worse. Consumer Confidence is at it's lowest level ever with unemployment rising nearly exponentially. The Gov't gives me a tax cut, I'm either banking it or paying down debt. Good for me; doesn't do @!$%# for the economy or create any form of stimulus.

I think you need to read a bit of economics: Japan had a huge stimulus package for its problems in the '90's, yet doled it out in small increments, causing their economi problems to last a decade.

As for the rest of your position, I find nothing of economic merit in it at all. Historically, tax cuts do not work as stimulus. Argue ideology all you want; I'll stick with reality.

The Gov't gives me a tax cut, I'm...paying down debt.

Now there's a novel idea, being financially responsible instead of a stimulus plan that just creates more debt, the exact problem that got us into this mess in the first place. If you have debt, pay it off, don't take on more. If you pay off your debts maybe the banks won't have to go to uncle Sam for another bailout. Win win.

Why is it so hard for people to be fiscally responsible?

getting people back to work quickly rebuilding infrastructure, and there are long-term stimulus goals

So two to three years is short term. Obviously you don't understand the Government bidding process and these jobs will short lived once started unless you work directly for the State.

It's a bandage on a broken leg.

Giving Rich people tax cuts doesn't create jobs.

What about small businesses that employ most of the work force?

Japan had a huge stimulus package for its problems in the '90's, yet doled it out in small increments, causing their economi problems to last a decade.

So puting another 937 billion on top of what we have is good sound economic policy? Come GO you can't possibly believe this?

I will not argue infrastructure with you, but the rest of the pork in this monster is unnecessary. It is a liberal feel good, pay back for electing Obama, spending, suck the government tit dry, PORKZILLA.

GeorgeOrwell

The ideologues of the Right will destroy this country just to prove a point.

Oh come now. The electorate spoke in November. Bush is history. The Republican Party is a minority in Congress. The new problem is Democrats who are kicking off Porkfest 2009 in a grand style.

Too small a stimulus package will not create enough stimulus.

I've seen no no evidence that a "stimulus package" will have its intended effect. Indeed as I argued in #3.5 it's more likely to make things worse in the long run. Many economists agree and felt so strongly about it that they took out a newspaper ad to raise their voices to the president.

You who are doing fine just don't really give a damn about the poor bastard who is losing his job!

I lost my job. Nothing in Crap Sandwich V2.0 for me. Seems it's the Dems who don't give a damn.

Not to worry though. They'll help us get digital television converter boxes for our television sets.

GeorgeOrwell;

What part of the stimulus package is going to get the small business man going?

Big business is not the end all and financing government, again, never has stimulated growth. Roads and Bridges are owned by State and Local government, so baring that, what does the rest of the bill have that will stimulate those that actually spend the money?

The banks were supposed to have been bailedout with the first bailout package, so do they need more money? My clients now complain that the banks won't release money, so they can build. This so called stimulus funds social packages, owned by government, ONLY!!

Governement already has employee's they pay to do their job, so no new jobs will be created. Only existing government jobs will be shored up.

Wow! Okay, I'm outnumbered and outgunned in fingers here, but let's cut to the chase, shall we.

As I've stated, I do not consider the stimulus plan to be perfect. But that doesn't mean it won't go through revision.

Yes, the government bidding process is long and so on and so forth, but there are shovel-ready projects waiting for money now which can go to work certainly within a year. That's certainly better than supposedly letting our economic meltdown run it's course. And, yes, those would be part of the shortterm projects. And if the second part of the stimulus kicks in, the long term projects would take up the slack when the shortterm ones come to a conclusion. There may be lag time.

I agree with giving small businesses a tax cut, and there is a tax cut in the plan for small businesses. Now, you may quibble about the size of that cut, but you can't say it's not in the plan.

No, I don't like the fact that the budget will be in major deficit. But I like even less the consequence of doing nothing, which will be at least 25% unemployment and the destruction of the middle class. Let's be clear, the wealthy, while they may end up slightly less wealthy, will be fine no matter what happens. We're talking here about the poor, the working class, and the middle class. If we allow this downturn to run its course, killing off in some cases major industries that have as their customers small businesses, we will be a far worse off country.

I don't expect the below link to change your mind, but it is food for thought from someone who makes their living thinking about our economy:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/your-5-point-economic-rescue-guide.aspx

As for econimists who argue against the stimulus and taking out an ad: there are plenty of naysayers even when the walls are tumbling down. I am not surprised.

rickace: Sorry to hear about your job loss. The amount in the bill for converter boxes is miniscule compared to the amounts spent by the previous adminsitration on so-called nation building and infrastructure projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. I only bring this up because some of the very Senators now claiming the stimulus package is too expensive had no problem voting for more money being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq to do the very same things. So it's all right to spend billions in Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuild those countries; it's just not all righ to do it in our own backyard.

Greg,

Your statements about your clients may well be true. Your statements about the Stimulus package are not. You seem to be conflating the stimulus package with the TARP bailout. They are two separate programs.

GoergeOrwell;

I am separating the two. The first was brought to the public as a bailout for the banks, AIG, Wall street etc... Which was supposed to get us back on track and these institutions back on track. ThisSo Called Stimulus supports more government projects than stimulating small business. The first one didn't work (thus the client complaint) and the second does nothing but support the idea of un-employment, shoring up government projects etc.... The only thing in this package that stimulates, and I really mean minimal stimulant, is the minimum tax cut. Everything else is government work.

I posted the actual stimulus package, in laymans terms, so I will find it again and post it.

PatN show me a tax cut for the middle class, working poor that ever amounted to a "hill of beans". Come on show me. A $100 gone with one trip to the grocery store to feed a 16 year old boy.

Tax cuts don't work, never have, never will, by themselves.

PatN show me a tax cut for the middle class, working poor that ever amounted to a "hill of beans". Come on show me. A $100 gone with one trip to the grocery store to feed a 16 year old boy.

OK. Our test subject will be an entry level employee...a receptionist maybe....mother of one child, making $30,000 a year. With the alternative plan that the GOP is proposing, the immediate amount...put in her pocket is $3,000. (15% income tax vs 5% income tax) They are also proposing an increase in the EITC. Another $2,500 in her pocket. She has now been given a $5,500 raise so far this year.

Does she own a house that she unfortunately bought at $80,000, but now it's only worth $60,000? She will be able to refinance her home at a much lower interest rate and based on it's current worth...cutting her house payment by about 25%...probably by somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 a month, or $2,400 annually.

So now...we're at $3,000 + $2,500 + $2,400 = $7,900. And this is immediate savings. It also doesn't include child care credits, etc.

Now...YOU show ME where the dem stimulus package will provide our $30,000 receptionist with an immediate relief of $7,900.

GeorgeOrwell, you wrote:

I think you need to read a bit of economics

Before putting someone down, maybe it is you that needs to brush up on your economics AND history.... Japan did have a stimulus package that was given in pieces over time, but that is not the whole story. They did not reform their banking system and write down assets they needed to do until very late and that caused them to tank the economy, please either educate yourself on the whole story or tell the truth in the beginning but to compare the United States economy to Japans at that point in history is not a real good point.

I think the real point on this is that Obama LIED to us about change. This "stimulus" bill is nothing but a spending bill that is full of PORK by its very meaning. What happened to the no line items that he promised us, even I thought this guy was for real but I have come to the realization that he is not doing what is right for the country but playing politics as usual, it is really sad.

Pat you are dreaming if you think those figures are going to come true. Welcome to la la land. A permanent fixture of the republican party

Pat you are a dreamer if you think those figures are real. Welcome to republican la la land. A permanent fixture for the republican party.

#1.29

I think the real point on this is that Obama LIED to us about change. This "stimulus" bill is nothing but a spending bill that is full of PORK by its very meaning. What happened to the no line items that he promised us, even I thought this guy was for real but I have come to the realization that he is not doing what is right for the country but playing politics as usual, it is really sad.

You can do better steve that's right out of the republican talking points for this week. It took Bush and company to wreck the nation 8 years and Obama has been there less than a month, as Bill would say Oh Pleassssssssssssssssss.

GeorgeOrwell

rickace: Sorry to hear about your job loss. The amount in the bill for converter boxes is miniscule compared to the amounts spent by the previous adminsitration on so-called nation building and infrastructure projects in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The previous administration is in the history books. I brought up the converter boxes to ridicule what the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress are up to. They clearly don't give a @!$%# about you and me.

Again, see #3.5. When the federal government tampers with the economy, things turn to @!$%#. The people are waking up to this.

Clipped to 'Power to The People' and 'Secession' groups.

rickace,

The previous administration started the converter box program, so it's a holdover. It's a project that republicans want as much as democrats.

When the Federal Govt tampers with the ecponomy, it depends on whethe they believe it will work or not. Republicans have made it a mantra that Government doesn't work, and so when they are in charge, it fulfills their already preconceived view.

steve,

It's a long bill, and like everyone else you seem to be focusing on parts of it that you don't like and ignoring the rest. Of course there will be some pork; Congress has to be shown to be bringing home some of the bacon. However, please note that the bill has already been cut nearly 100 billion dollars. That doesn't mean all the pork is gone, but your complaint is just Republican obstructionist talking points.

TARP, as if you don't know, was a program put forth by the Bush Administration and sold as the saviour of the banking industry by Henry Paulsen and Ben Bernanke, both Bush appointees with strong ties to the banking industry. Talk about pork. But, of course, these things did not happen because the Bush Administration never really happened, did it?

Concerning the banks, we should follow the example of Sweden, but we won't because people such as yourself would then really cry socialism.

GeorgeOrwell

The previous administration started the converter box program, so it's a holdover. It's a project that republicans want as much as democrats.

What does it matter who started it or who supported it? It's in the package. The nation is going to hell in a handbasket. People are losing jobs. There's more hunger. And the feds think what these people really need is a TV picture? That's mind-numbingly stupid, not to mention irresponsible.

When the Federal Govt tampers with the ecponomy, it depends on whethe they believe it will work or not.

Really now? They believed Fannie and Freddie were good ideas. Remember all the grief they caused? Greenspan's Fed believed flooding the economy with credit was a good idea. That didn't work out as planned either, as he admitted.

But, of course, these things did not happen because the Bush Administration never really happened, did it?

Oh please. Everyone knows about the Bush administration because the damned left never shuts up about it. Haven't you read the memo? Everything is Bush's fault. Seems he wasn't the only one though, as the Congress (Democratic majority) rallied to the cause as well and enacted that harebrained piece of @!$%# quite quickly. Apparently what ever smoke Ben Bernanke was blowing up their tailpipes was effective. The Dems are just as complicit in TARP as the Republicans. And Bernanke's still at the Fed.

BTW I was opposed to TARP from the very first time I'd learned of it. Pork from Republicans sucks. So does pork from Democrats. I was also all over Hank Paulson in October for arrogantly jamming his program down the throats of major banks by wrapping it in the flag.

Why don't we give everybody free 50' Plasma TV's too?

Dang Cap it's to big for the rec room, can I have a smaller one?

Cap they are getting barred from the stimulus bill, the President didn't say how he would go about barring them. Don't cha know. Dag nab it.

George, you amazingly, said:

However, please note that the bill has already been cut nearly 100 billion dollars.

Do you have any idea how asinine this statement is? Can you really be serious? Do you know how much 100 billion is? You are what is wrong with America.

Commenting on the Bush Administration. Bush did not carry the true ideals of the conservative, meaning he did cut taxes but also spent like a liberal. I don't think you take the past 8 years of GWB and call the conservative ideas a failure. Even you could maybe see that if you are a logical person, which I doubt at this point in reading your posts.

Comrade TheCapitalist,

"Stimulus" comes from the verb "stimulare," which is Latin for "transfer massive sums of money from what remains of the dynamic sector of the economy to the special interests of the Democrat Party."

You have learned the lessons of your Obamanomics class well. The People's Commissar is favorably impressed and she has asked me to notify you that she has authorized additional rations of WealthSpread and vodka to you and your family for one month.

rickace, that's a bull@!$%# statement. We're not any more communists than you're a fascist. Why resort to name-calling, unless it's because you just can't defend your position.

You seem to be terribly offended by the converter box issue. Yet why aren't Republicans, other than to provide fodder for attacks? There is a compromise bill, so supposedly they could have asked to have it removed. And let's face it, 200 million isn't all that much in comparison to some of the other crap. So why didn't they? Because they want it as well. Because ole Mitch McConnell doesn't want his constituency to get their news and infor from anywhere else other than tv so they remain the same stupid sheeple he's come to lie and abuse all these years.

As for mistakes in Governement - Of course they are made. But Greenspan's policies were hands-off and let the market do what it wanted. He admitted that deregulation was incorrect.

Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing crisis, no matter how many times you and other conservatives claim it did. You are so over-simplifying, it's ridiculous!

steve,

There's nothing asinine in pointing out that the bill is smaller. I'm sure you were quite willing for the previous administration to spend billions of dollars for so-called infrastructure projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, but when a bill is drafted to do that at home, why, it's a boondoggle.

The asininity is that you believe everything will just be hunky-dory if we let more Americans become unemployed, if we let the recession become a full-blown depression. That's asinine. What's wrong with America is people like you who do not wish to engage in legitimate debate and simply resort to dismissing anything anyone else has to say which does not agree with you.

You resorted directly to the argument I knew you would. Of course, Bush isn't a "real" conservative. At least not now, since everything has gone to hell in a handbasket. Perhaps you would like to point one out for me, as all of the members of congress who are Republicans are still in congress from the previous administration, and none of them thought it might be appropriate to point out that Bush is not a real conservative at the time. In fact, they piled on more pork in the past 12 years than any other time in history.

But, hey, why worry about facts.

Cap,

You keep parroting the same thing over and over again. There are no independent thoughts in your head. So what's the point?

edit messed up, please ignore

GeorgeOrwell

rickace, that's a bull@!$%# statement.

It was a joke from me to TheCapitalist.

You seem to be terribly offended by the converter box issue.

I'm not offended. I raise it to illustrate the folly of the president and the legislators who are crafting this new disaster.

Yet why aren't Republicans, other than to provide fodder for attacks

You'll have to take it up with them or someone else on the Vine who's familiar with their strategies. I'm not a political analyst.

But Greenspan's policies were hands-off and let the market do what it wanted. He admitted that deregulation was incorrect.

Get your facts straight. Greenspan's policy with regard to fractional reserve banking was anything but hands-off. There's a strong argument to be made that it was responsible for creating the unprecedently massive credit bubble that's now deflating with a roar.

Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing crisis, no matter how many times you and other conservatives claim it did. You are so over-simplifying, it's ridiculous!

I never argued that they did. You're distorting my meaning from #1.36 and then arguing with your distortion.

The asininity is that you believe everything will just be hunky-dory if we let more Americans become unemployed, if we let the recession become a full-blown depression.

Ah George, are you okay?

Please stop with the crazy assumptions... When did I ever call a stimulus a bad idea? The issue that this is not a stimulus plan that will create real change and hope. Again, back to the economic books might be the best for you to think about.

I do think we need a stimulus, but we need true stimulus, not doing something just to spend money. Otherwise, we are going to end up in a few years, with all the printed money spent, in a worse position, people with no jobs again, high inflation, or stagflation.

Another crazy assumption of yours is that I supported GWB, I did not. If you want to have true, honest debate, you have got to quit telling me what I believe and calling people names. I was saying this at the time he was President, I did not support his fiscal policy. A lot of things need to be fixed in America, but we don't need to spend money on 90% of what is stuffed in this bill. We need to get people working again that will be LONG term. That means creating jobs for people that they can retire from, not have part time.

They piled on more pork in the past 12 years than any other time in history.

One more thing, this is the second time you have referred to the past 12 years. GWB was the President for the past 8 years, so I assume you disagree with the Clinton Administration too? Which is it?

steve

Who controlled the congress during the Clinton administration?

Jay, the congress has not been controlled by the republicans for the past 12 years, so either way, unless you're playing the flip flop, it does not add up.

Some how steve your figures and my figures don't add up. Explain yours? Mine seem pretty true to form.

Since 1981 the republicans have controled one or both house 17 years. Hummmmm, some flip flop.

TC,

You continue to lie to make your position. If, as we all agree, presidents create the budget, it was Clitnon who balanced the budget and not Republicans.

It was, in fact, republicans, under a republican administration, who ran up the deficit to its present levels. Or do you wish to deny the accuracy of that statement? I'm sure you will, as you seem to believe that if you lie you will somehow persuade us.

Jay, first of all, we were talking about what GeorgeOrwell said about the last 12 years so I don't understand the how 1981 to now, a 28 year period has any relevance, HUH?? And then to throw in 17 years out there, are you liberals all sick in the head. Now I understand where you all get your numbers to add up, just throw them out there to try to confuse others of us who are sane. I really don't understand how you got in the middle of this question I was referring to GeorgeOrwell unless you and he/she are the same person, which I doubt.

George, can you answer a question, or are you too busy calling people liars to answer? Or are you avoiding it, which is it?

It was, in fact, republicans, under a republican administration, who ran up the deficit to its present levels.

So George, have the republicans been in power for the past 12 years?

Steve,

Republicans have been in power in all three branches of Government for the past 8 years, and have had control of Congress and the Judiciary for at least the past 12 years, or do you deny that Congress was controlled by Republicans from at least the second Clinton term?

Not that I would expect anything else, mind you as you seem to be obsessed with this 12 year statement.

George ... Get your facts correct and/or quit misleading the readers in the forum.

Over the last eight years, the House has been lead by the democratic party four years. They lead the Senate for two. Both were lead by the democrats during the final two years of Bush's term.

Is your misleading post an effort to substantiate that all the economic problems should rest on Bush's shoulders. It's tough to blame all the woes of the country on Bush when the democrats controlled Congress during the two final years. That's also when the administration and republican members of Congress saw the coming of the housing crises tried to impose changes to correct it, but the democrats wouldn't hear it. Thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for that mistake.

Correction ... During the Bush Presidency ... The House was lead by the democratic party two years. They lead the Senate for four. The did lead both during the final two years of Bush's Presidency.

Dave,

Political makeup of the US Congress since 1995 to 2006:

104th
1995-1997
48 D
52 R
0 204 D
230 R
1 O

105th
1997-1999
45 D
55 R
0 207 D
226 R
2 O

106th
1999-2001
45 D
55 R
0 211 D
223 R
1 O

107th
2001-2003
50 D
50 R
0

212 D
221 R
2 O

108th
2003-2005
48 D
51 R
1 O

204 D
229 R
1 O

109th
2005-2006
44 D
55 R
1 O

202 D
231 R

http://www.davidfine.org/Congress_makeup.html

You were saying?

George,

In 1.52, you say these exact words:

"Republicans have been in power in all three branches of Government for the past 8 years..."

Your data above ends in 2006. 3 years ago. Are you not aware that it is 2009? Or is this a lame attempt at justification by someone who lacks the testicular fortitude to admit he's wrong?

Pat,

Your argument is so lame it does not deserve a response.

George and Pat ... Here are the numbers for the 110 congress and some corrections to the numbers George presented for the 107th congress.

110^th Congress … Bush’s last two years

House

A range of 231-236 Democrats

A range of 198-202 Republicans

Membership fluctuated with seven deaths and eight resignations. Clearly the House had a Democrat majority.

Senate

A range of 50-51 caucusing democrats

A range of 48-49 caucusing republicans

Membership changed with one death and two resignations. A democrat majority in the Senate.

A clarification for your numbers for the 107^th Congress.

The beginning mix was the 50-50 split as indicated in your post. However, that mix only lasted for 5 months. On June 6, 2001 James Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and caucused with Democrats changing the mix to 51-49 for the Democrats. The mix changed again on October 26, 2002 when Paul Wellstone (D) died. On November 6, 2002, shortly before the end of the session, Governor Ventura appointed Dean Barkley (I) who did not caucus with either party making the mix 50-49-1, still in favor of the democrats. On November 25, 2002, Jim Talent (R) took Jean Carnahan's (D) seat which changed the mix again, but there was no reorganization as Senate was out of session.

Other than the first five months of the 107^th Congress, the Senate was lead by the Democrats.

Dave,

They say you should learn something new every day. Admittedly, I've been pretty lazy today, so I thank you for providing me with the education posted above. I completely forgot about Wellstone death.

You are a great resource for information and I appreciate you taking the time to post it. Hopefully George will see the error of his ways.

Jeffords was an Independent. That does not make him a Dem.

As for the Congress, it was controlled by Republicans, as Congress is made up of more than just the Senate. But you know that, don't you.

The last two years of the Bush Administration are not in the numbers I quoted, so that is a strawman argument by you made to hide the fact that Republicans did actually run Congress for at least 12 years.

You need to be accurate in what you are discussing. Otherwise, someone might just think you're doing your best to hide the truth.

Pat ... Thank you for your observation. Misinformation is very abundant in these forums. It's very disappointing when people don't do their homework or purposely mislead, so I don't mind setting the record straight. It's tough to argue facts. A few people doing some checking quickly discredit the spreaders of false information.

As for the 107th Congress, it was really the switching of parties by Jeffords early in the 107th Congress that changed the control. Wellstone's death came pretty late in the session. Though I disagreed with his politics, his death was unfortunate. One thing you can say about him is that he had energy for his cause. Of course we had a character for governor at the time too, so we had plenty of interesting politics in MN during the Welstone and Ventura years. And we're getting another taste of it again this year. Comedian for Senate anyone?

I think George's tone is pretty evident through this forum and in others. Unfortunately it's a tone that lacks respect for the facts or desire for intellectual dialog.

George ... Tell you what ... When you can post the numbers for the 110th Congress, both House and Senate, then we'll talk. The numbers I posted are correct and are not a "strawman". All you have to do is look at them. The Democrats controlled both the House and Senate as shown by the numbers and, therefore, Congress as a whole.

Here's a link for the 110th Congress, both House and Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

Jeffords switching parties did change the control. Even leaving him out of the democratic caucus, changes the numbers to 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. Tom Daschle (D) was the Majority Leader from June 6, 2001 through the end of the 107th Congress, 19 of 24 months.

Here's a couple links for you ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

As for your comment ...

As for the Congress, it was controlled by Republicans, as Congress is made up of more than just the Senate. But you know that, don't you.

The 107th Congress had a House that had a Republican majority and a Senate with a Democratic majority. Assuming you were awake in civics class, you understand that they are independent bodies and that legislation has to be passed by both the House and Senate before it can go to the Presidents desk. Thus, your comment that the 107th Congress was controlled by Republicans is false.

Are you having as much fun arguing with incorrect information as I am with facts? :-)

however Dave the 104th, 105th, 106th, 108th and the 109th were republican controlled. The 107th was split with a republican President. How about that.

Jay ... Didn't say they weren't. Only saying that the Republicans have not totally controlled Congress for 12 years as George wants everyone to believe.

I'd have to do some more checking on the 104th through 106th and 108th. Generally, I think the numbers that George posted are correct with exception of the changes that occurred in the 107th.

I've already made the point several times that the 107th Congress was split. Thank you for confirming that. Regardless of who is President, a split Congress tends to be a stale session.

It's hard to dispute that the 110th had a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate. George just hasn't accepted that yet. And, for some reason, doesn't want to look at those numbers.

Please find anywhere where I said they didn't.

My point was, and still is, that Congress was controlled for a considerable amount of the last decade and a half by Republicans who pushed through policies which were and are bad for the majority in this country. Those policies just don't disappear overnight.

Your and Dave's point have been to try to find ways to hide the fact that Congress has indeed been controlled by Republicans for a considerable portion of the past decade and a half. Instead, Dave says that I'm trying to hide, and Pat makes ridiculous arguments, and you won't admit to the Republicans having done anything in the last decade and a half.

The ignorance which you choose to bring to this debate is astonishing. The sheer blindered view of reality is frightening.

Why can't you or Dave or Pat just admit that Republicans have been in control of Congress for at least 12 years? It's as if the twelve years Republicans controlled Congress just up and vanished, even though you want to take credit for balancing the budget during the twelve years there supposedly was no Republican control of Congress.

It passed.

Get over it.

GeorgeOrwell

Your post of 1.52

Republicans have been in power in all three branches of Government for the past 8 years, and have had control of Congress and the Judiciary for at least the past 12 years, or do you deny that Congress was controlled by Republicans from at least the second Clinton term?

Seems pretty clear.

You chose your words carefully in 1.60. Possibly you had already recognized your mistake.

The last two years of the Bush Administration are not in the numbers I quoted, so that is a strawman argument by you made to hide the fact that Republicans did actually run Congress for at least 12 years.

And you were almost correct with the 104th Congress through 109th Congress. The only error was the change in power a few months into the first session of the 107th making it a split Congress rather than the Republicans controlling both House and Senate.

In reality ... The Republicans controlled both the Senate and House 10 of the last 14 years, the 104th, 105th, 106th, 108th and 109th. The House and Senate were split 2 of the last 14 years, 107th Congress. The House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats the last 2 years, 110th Congress.

It's fairly clear that your mistake was not noting the 110th Congress or the split nature of the 107th. We all make mistakes. Some of us are willing to admit them.

GeorgeOrwell

Not sure any of us are arguing that the Republicans have controlled a majority of the last 14 years. The Democrats controlled both the House and Senate the 8 years prior to that. Clinton had to deal with us most of his tenure ... Most notably when the budget got balanced and surpluses appeared.

Our, or at least my, only point is that the control isn't as blatant as you would like the readers of this forum to believe. If you would have started your "control" discussion in this thread with the same, carefully chosen, words such 'considerable amount of the last decade and a half' and 'considerable portion of the past decade and a half' as used in 1.66, there probably wouldn't have been much for us to disagree with regarding control of Congress.

Why can't you or Dave or Pat just admit that Republicans have been in control of Congress for at least 12 years?

Because they haven't in recent history. Speaking for myself, I think we prefer to acknowledge and respect the facts rather than fiction.

Cap

GeorgeOrwell, Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since 2006.

Are you really trying to tell people that the Dems actually controlled the Congress since '06.

I know you are smarter than that. They had the majority, they didn't control the Congress. The obstructionists did including Bush.

Dave, Can you explain why you choose only to focus on the Senate when speaking of the 107th Congress and only the House when speaking of the 110 Congress?

Why can't you admit that you are being extremely selective in how you present your numbers.

I will give you that the Democrats have controlled the House since 2006, but not the Senate. Which just leads me to believe you just won't admit to anything that doesn't fit your blindered worldview.

George ... It's been fun, but at some point using reason with a hardheaded mule becomes a wasteful effort.

And since I'm not the type to get out the 2x4 to knock some sense into you, I'll part by referring you to post number 1.58 where I clearly provided numbers for both the House and Senate for the 110th Congress, Bush's final two years. Both were controlled by the Democrats. If you have difficulty reading those, then check the links provided in post 1.62.

As for the 107th ... I didn't discuss the 107th House because I agreed with you that it was controlled by the Republicans. The reason for clarification on the Senate is that you were wrong with your post. The Senate, for 19 of the 24 months of the session, was controlled by the Democrats. Thus, the Congress, was split ... Republican House and Democratic Senate.

You may want to review the Senate leadership link in 1.62 that clearly identifies who was the majority. Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader 107th Congress, and Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader 110thCongress. Both are card carrying Democrats last time I checked.

Finally ... I have gathered that you either enjoy baiting Republicans with false information or you are simply ignorant. In either case, I've been amused. Hopefully you can find a way to engage in respectful and meaningful dialog in the future or gain the knowledge to do so.

Dave,

Nothing I said was false. It just does not meet with your view of the world. We agree on the numbers, just not on what they mean. And as I have stated numerous times, I am discussing control. You are discussing numerical superiority.

I could discuss how a split Congress is controlled by the party which is most obstructionist, but I would probably lose you in any more complex discussion, so enjoy your sequestered little world.

TheCapitalist

I just looked at the "US" on the front page; I was hoping to find your article there. I didn't get a tingle in my leg or anything, but I seriously thought it might be there.

You just posted 7 headlines out of hundreds. I'm not going to get into a war of cherry picking data.

REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Democratic Lawmakers 2 To 1 In Stimulus Debate On Cable News (Updated)

Is this surprising? These cable TV cos are run by CORPORATIONS.

TheCapitalist

This is what the mainstream media does, Brian. I noticed one of the top overall headlined stories is about how easy it is to get "tripped up" by the tax code, obviously trying to put lipstick on the Geithner pig.

I would love to see a cartoon of Geithner disguised as a pig with lipstick!

TheCapitalist

I noticed one of the top overall headlined stories is about how easy it is to get "tripped up" by the tax code, obviously trying to put lipstick on the Geithner pig.

The man has demonstrated that he's incapable of doing his own income taxes correctly and not bright enough to enlist the aid of a professional to do the job. One can only wonder what damage his ineptitude will cause from his Cabinet post.

If this was pre-Katrina you would probably be listing levee repair in New Orleans as a boondoggle.

When spending on infrastructure is justified due to the infrastructure decaying, fine. That is an ongoing maintenance expense to keep people safe. And I have no objections to such spending, when it is labelled as such.

But that type of spending is not stimulative to the economy. It is neither time limited nor focused on creating jobs. Anything in the stimulus bill should be there because it was specifically designed to stimulate the economy. Otherwise, even if it's a good idea on its own merits, it belongs in another bill where it can be judged against other similar programs.

That converter box junk is still there....Geez!

Great we can tell our grandkids they get to pay the bill for converter boxes, STD's, and Education to tell people that drinking too much is bad for them. Along with getting people to stop smoking.

How exactly does a converter box expand the GDP? Anyone anyone.....

How exactly does a converter box expand the GDP? Anyone anyone.....

Hmmmm...errr...uh...I GOT IT!! If people get the converter box, then they'll have a clearer picture to watch and the commercials will incite them to rush into an uncontrollable spending spree on Cheerios and Metamucil, thus increasing consumer confidence and restoring the economy to its previous glory. Yeah! That's the ticket!

Oh my Pat, I almost choked on a slice of pizza on that one!

Friend request on its way!

Thanks that was one heck of a bully chuckle!

Friend request appreciated and accepted. Glad to have caused a smile somewhere in the world tonight! =)

Socal -

No couch potato left behind.

Pat -

Speaking of consumer spending, have you tried Obama's WealthSpread yet? This new tasty treat is so hot my supermarket can't keep it in stock. Sales of WealthSpread alone could lift the economy out of the doldrums!

One nation, one thought, one People's Cube, one Obamessiah. The Porkfest of 2009 cometh. Let us rejoice!

This message was approved by the People's Commissar, who welcomes questions from the proletariat and answers them on her website, best viewed with the People's Browser Nyetscape.

Speaking of consumer spending, have you tried Obama's WealthSpread yet?

I instantly thought of this real product made by Armour when the bill came out.

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/06/29/instant-heart-attack/

Pat N

Pork brains. Too funny. Are they taken from real politicians?

Thanks for the link. My mouth is watering already. I'll try some with the WealthSpread and let you know how it tastes.

Rick

All I can say at this point is I hope people to continue to tie up the lines in Washington