PAC, the rest of you traitors this last presidential election

[Gidget]

It was totally funny. And clearly anyone that is going to challenge the bedroom customs of others has a zinger or two coming.

That's it. Just so we can throw zingers I say we start a thread challenging the bedroom customs of others.

[Guest]

Well, with no Republican support, Obama owns this thing.

The D majority in Congress will own it equally. It was just yesterday the president said he didn't have full ownership of it.

Considering the magnitude of the problem I think the public will give him a couple of years to turn this thing around

Do you feel the POTUS steers the US economy? Honest question. I don't think they have more than just an influence.

I haven't heard a single answer to DDD's question from any of the Republican leadership, so I doubt we will hear any better alternatives from anyone here.

More actual short-term stimulus? CBO says only $136B of the infrastructure package will be spent by end of 2010.

On the tax cut side: Drop the federal payroll taxes completely for the rest of the year. Have the gov write the check to the SS accounts. It puts money in people's pockets next payday and not just $20, but hundreds. And it will encourage hiring; lowering the cost to hire new and retain existing employees. The package should give bigger tax breaks to new medium to small size companies and reward or facilitate lending to them.

If the Republicans hope to put this all on Obama, and then blame him when things don't turn around right away, they may just find out that America's patience with this president may outlast them.

If you believe the POTUS steers the economy (which seems the case) shouldn't he be held accountable?

Where I think this package really misses is on the infrastructure side. The president was really selling it as an infrastructure package. If you're going to go full on down the fiscal policy path, I don't agree with it, but if you believe it's best, why not go all the way?

What's another $125B at this point? There is *only* $30B in highway construction in the bill. Make the bill an even trillion dollars. Drop $125B on an identifiable national infrastructure initiative, i.e. speed trains or something, and then at the end of the day at least we’d have something at which we could look or ride.

[TripletDaddy]

Well, with no Republican support, Obama owns this thing. Considering the magnitude of the problem I think the public will give him a couple of years to turn this thing around (in spite of what will be a concerted effort by the minority leadership to suggest the people are growing tired much sooner). After that, who knows?

I haven't heard a single answer to DDD's question from any of the Republican leadership, so I doubt we will hear any better alternatives from anyone here.

One thing Obama has going for him is that the people really want him to succeed. I think this means that the country will be more patient with him than they would be with all of the other presidents I have lived through. If the Republicans hope to put this all on Obama, and then blame him when things don't turn around right away, they may just find out that America's patience with this president may outlast them. If that happens then Republicans will come across as a bunch of snivelers. So its quite a gambit they are making.

I have to give the Republicans credit. They play hard ball as a minority party much better than Dems.

Obama is on his own? You are aware that a significant portion of this stimulus package is wrapped up in tax cuts that the Repubs are demanding? North of 250B?

Put partisanship aside. This is not Obama's to own, and the notion of a massive stimulus package was born on W's desk, not Obamas. This is a joint decision by both parties out of necessity and desperation.

[TripletDaddy]

Let the market fix itself.

sorry epu. you are loved, but that is a lousy answer.

next alternative solution, please.

[il Padrino Ute]

sorry epu. you are loved, but that is a lousy answer.

next alternative solution, please.

Lousy? Why?

There would be hard times at first, but in the long run it would work out for the best.

[Guest]

Obama is on his own? You are aware that a significant portion of this stimulus package is wrapped up in tax cuts that the Repubs are demanding? North of 250B?

This is true *but* Christina Romer is the director of his Council of Economic Advisors. She is a big proponent of tax cutting...

tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output ... [and] that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects

[TripletDaddy]

This is true *but* Christina Romer is the director of his Council of Economic Advisors. She is a big proponent of tax cutting...

I am not opposed to tax cuts nor am I opposed to tax increases, per se. Case by case.

I was simply pointing out that this stimulus package is not 100% D or R. It is a joint effort.

And truthfully, the total bill for the stimulus plan is much higher, given that this is really the second or third wave of stimulus in the past few years. We started injecting massive liquidity in the markets back in Ws term.

The recent uptick in home sales makes me wonder if the banks are easing up a bit and lending. Rates are nice right now, as well. I just hope that this time, the banks lend to qualified borrowers....high credit scores, stable income, etc.

[RobinFinderson]

Obama is on his own? You are aware that a significant portion of this stimulus package is wrapped up in tax cuts that the Repubs are demanding? North of 250B?

Put partisanship aside. This is not Obama's to own, and the notion of a massive stimulus package was born on W's desk, not Obamas. This is a joint decision by both parties out of necessity and desperation.

That is what I don't get: The Dems put a pile of tax cuts into the stimulus package, presumably to win some Republican support, and then they didn't pull over a single Republican vote. While I agree with you that this is actually a bi-partisan Hail Mary, it looks like the Republicans are betting on economic collapse, and distancing themselves (as much as possible) from the outcome.

[cougjunkie]

I

The recent uptick in home sales makes me wonder if the banks are easing up a bit and lending. Rates are nice right now, as well. I just hope that this time, the banks lend to qualified borrowers....high credit scores, stable income, etc.

Let me tell you that this is all they are lending too right now.

[RobinFinderson]

Do you feel the POTUS steers the US economy? Honest question. I don't think they have more than just an influence.

The POTUS has more control over the economy than anyone else. Especially when the POTUS has a friendly Congress, he and his party own the economic situation more than usual.

[Guest]

The POTUS has more control over the economy than anyone else. Especially when the POTUS has a friendly Congress, he and his party own the economic situation more than usual.

But how? He/she doesn't control any monetary policy (interest rates, etc) and in theory congress hold the purse strings.

In no order, consumers, The Fed and bond markets hold more sway over it.

[Guest]

The recent uptick in home sales makes me wonder if the banks are easing up a bit and lending. Rates are nice right now, as well. I just hope that this time, the banks lend to qualified borrowers....high credit scores, stable income, etc.

The rebound last month was from distressed-property sales in California, Nevada and Arizona.

[Tim]

Apparently he hasn't replenished the household supply of plaster of paris.

You piece of trash... you just made me laugh out loud in the middle of this meeting.

[Guest]

That is what I don't get: The Dems put a pile of tax cuts into the stimulus package, presumably to win some Republican support, and then they didn't pull over a single Republican vote. While I agree with you that this is actually a bi-partisan Hail Mary, it looks like the Republicans are betting on economic collapse, and distancing themselves (as much as possible) from the outcome.

And there is always politics...

Voting against the bill was good politics because it shows that the GOP can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise. Sure, Republicans risk coming off as stubborn in the face of Obama's ostentatious magnanimity. But at this stage, there's nothing wrong with playing hard to get. There will be time for bipartisan necking later.

Another advantage is that the vote makes Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor look good. The fact that zero out of 178 Republicans broke ranks shows a united, disciplined front. On a symbolic vote like this—one of the first of the 111th Congress—sending a signal is more important than reaching an immediate compromise.

http://www.slate.com/id/2210082/?GT1=38001

[venkman]

Lousy? Why?

There would be hard times at first, but in the long run it would work out for the best.

Amen. This Keynesian crap only drags the pain out longer than needed.

It's clear to me that Obama and Congress have no intention of governing from the center. Not that I thought they would...

As Rahm Emmanuel has advocated, they are merely exploiting a crisis; in this case using the economic crisis to pass a massive liberal spending package under the guise of economic stimulus.