Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I always know I must be doing something right when the little children start throwing tantrums.
I know I'm doing something right when you repeat the same nonsence over and over, and think it makes a difference.
I really don't care if I win you over or not. If you think it's nonsense, then post something substantive in rebuttal. You don't want a debate, because that might require that you actually do some homework.
I think that you're still not seeing that pork barrel spending, no matter how worthy a project, does not stimulate the economy overall. If they had used that stimulus money in ways to reduce regulation, certain kinds of tax burdens, etc. instead of parceling it out here and there for one time projects or to delay the inevitable, we would be out of the recession and recovering nicely by now.
Quote: Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think your ideology is blinding you. Reducing regulations got us into the economic and ecological mess we are experiencing today. The one and only solution your side of the aisle can suggest is to cut taxes. Bush cut taxes, and the tax cuts are still in effect. How in the hell do you 'think' allowing the tax cut to continue will lead us to a nice recovery?
Did you listen to Boehner on Meet the Press Sunday? Read what you posted, it is 'Boehnerish'.
Fox always does get wrapped up in her ideology, just as a few others who can articulate well their principles. I can't really say that I could argue with any of her ideological points, IF they were reality based, but that's the problem. What if and what is are worlds apart these days. We can't just sit back and theorize that everything would be just swell if employers weren't afraid of being over-taxed and over-regulated and therefore started hiring; if those employees finally learned their lessons and started saving for future rainy days instead of wildly spending; if all people living in poverty would just realize how wonderful the world is if they'd just work harder; and so on, in order to form a perfect society. It's fiction, not fact.
I know I'm doing something right when you repeat the same nonsence over and over, and think it makes a difference.
I really don't care if I win you over or not. If you think it's nonsense, then post something substantive in rebuttal. You don't want a debate, because that might require that you actually do some homework.
Really? Would it make you feel better if I said you should login to Maggieisamoron.org where you could find all the examples of your ridiculously absurd talking points?
"BOOOOOOSH!!!"
"DELAAAAAAY!!!"
Jaysus...you're pathetic.
But amusing in a slightly-more-bright-than Truthmatters sorta way
I think that you're still not seeing that pork barrel spending, no matter how worthy a project, does not stimulate the economy overall. If they had used that stimulus money in ways to reduce regulation, certain kinds of tax burdens, etc. instead of parceling it out here and there for one time projects or to delay the inevitable, we would be out of the recession and recovering nicely by now.
Quote: Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think your ideology is blinding you. Reducing regulations got us into the economic and ecological mess we are experiencing today. The one and only solution your side of the aisle can suggest is to cut taxes. Bush cut taxes, and the tax cuts are still in effect. How in the hell do you 'think' allowing the tax cut to continue will lead us to a nice recovery?
Did you listen to Boehner on Meet the Press Sunday? Read what you posted, it is 'Boehnerish'.
Fox always does get wrapped up in her ideology, just as a few others who can articulate well their principles. I can't really say that I could argue with any of her ideological points, IF they were reality based, but that's the problem. What if and what is are worlds apart these days. We can't just sit back and theorize that everything would be just swell if employers weren't afraid of being over-taxed and over-regulated and therefore started hiring; if those employees finally learned their lessons and started saving for future rainy days instead of wildly spending; if all people living in poverty would just realize how wonderful the world is if they'd just work harder; and so on, in order to form a perfect society. It's fiction, not fact.
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
I really don't care if I win you over or not. If you think it's nonsense, then post something substantive in rebuttal. You don't want a debate, because that might require that you actually do some homework.
Really? Would it make you feel better if I said you should login to Maggieisamoron.org where you could find all the examples of your ridiculously absurd talking points?
"BOOOOOOSH!!!"
"DELAAAAAAY!!!"
Jaysus...you're pathetic.
But amusing in a slightly-more-bright-than Truthmatters sorta way
I'm pathetic?
Fox always does get wrapped up in her ideology, just as a few others who can articulate well their principles. I can't really say that I could argue with any of her ideological points, IF they were reality based, but that's the problem. What if and what is are worlds apart these days. We can't just sit back and theorize that everything would be just swell if employers weren't afraid of being over-taxed and over-regulated and therefore started hiring; if those employees finally learned their lessons and started saving for future rainy days instead of wildly spending; if all people living in poverty would just realize how wonderful the world is if they'd just work harder; and so on, in order to form a perfect society. It's fiction, not fact.
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Fox always does get wrapped up in her ideology, just as a few others who can articulate well their principles. I can't really say that I could argue with any of her ideological points, IF they were reality based, but that's the problem. What if and what is are worlds apart these days. We can't just sit back and theorize that everything would be just swell if employers weren't afraid of being over-taxed and over-regulated and therefore started hiring; if those employees finally learned their lessons and started saving for future rainy days instead of wildly spending; if all people living in poverty would just realize how wonderful the world is if they'd just work harder; and so on, in order to form a perfect society. It's fiction, not fact.
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
And meanwhile the beat goes on despite how many times Maggie can cite Recovery.gov
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn wants to shed light on the wasteful spending in the federal stimulus and his list includes projects in his home state of Oklahoma.
One of the 100 examples Coburn has compiled is $1.5 million in “free” stimulus money for a new wastewater treatment plant resulting in higher utility costs for residents of Perkins, Okla. Another is $1.15 million for installation of a new guardrail for the non-existent Optima Lake in Oklahoma. There is no lake - it’s a dry hole. . . .
. . . .Dr. Coburn said Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, estimates that at least $55 billion of stimulus funds may be lost to waste, fraud and abuse. However, the final number will likely be much higher. If stimulus funds do not promote economic growth, history may indicate that the vast majority of stimulate dollars would have been better off staying in taxpayers’ pockets, Coburn said.
Besides the two Oklahoma projects, Coburn emphasized the following eight projects:
• $1 billion for FutureGen in Mattoon, Illinois is the “biggest earmark of all time” for a power plant that may never work.
• $15 million for “shovel-ready” repairs to little-used bridges in rural Wisconsin are given priority over widely used bridges that are structurally deficient.
• $800,000 for little-used John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport to repave a back-up runway; the “airport for nobody” has already received tens of millions in taxpayer dollars.
• $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passage” in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway.
• A Nevada non-profit gets a $2 million weatherization contract after recently being fired for same type of work.
• Nearly $10 million to renovate an abandoned train station that hasn’t been used in 30 years.
• Ten thousand dead people will get stimulus checks, but the Social Security Administration blames a tough deadline.
• Town of Union, New York, encouraged to spend a $578,000 grant it did not request for a homelessness problem it claims it does not have. . . .
Wasteful spending highlights the list of U.S. stimulus projects | Tulsa Beacon
We deserve better.
Once again, why won't Coburn (and you) go on the attack against those GOVERNORS if you believe those projects are a waste? Nah, that would be too transparent and might damage some Republican governor's credibility. Better to just lay it out there and blame Obama for picking boondoggle projects. Who will be the wiser? You read it on the Internet, so it must be true.
I'm reminded of the block grants to states doled out by Homeland Security to upgrade their security and first reponse systems. Countless millions were spent on such things as new bowling shirts for the East Podunk Fire Department team, a second brand new fire truck for a town of only 500 people. But you had to dig in the back pages of news PRINT to find that stuff, so it was not well known. But accepted and paid for by taxpayers, nonetheless, no questions asked.
Really? Would it make you feel better if I said you should login to Maggieisamoron.org where you could find all the examples of your ridiculously absurd talking points?
"BOOOOOOSH!!!"
"DELAAAAAAY!!!"
Jaysus...you're pathetic.
But amusing in a slightly-more-bright-than Truthmatters sorta way
I'm pathetic?
Yes
That didn't help.
I really don't care if I win you over or not..
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Gee, that will really help employment. So, you have no answers, but feel informed enough to strike down all other suggestions. Business takes risks when the potential reward is larger and more likely to be the outcome. I am personally glad my employer is not going to risk my job and that of 22 other peolpe in some wild plan to make 2 or 3 new jobs.
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
Enlighten us as to the true cause then. We are trying to keep 23 people employed as the goal. Hiring really isn't on the radar.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
True cause of what? Not hiring? I can't guess what your reason is, but the conventional wisdom is that businesses are choosing to sit on any excess profit hoping Republicans will win in November and force a showdown, which will let them off the hook for any added expenses they might need to incur by doing their part in helping the economy recover. In my opinion, that's still greed. And that mindset hasn't changed one iota. Businesses have always taken risks; if they weren't in a position to pay for higher taxes, fees, employee costs, etc., then they shouldn't be employers in the first place.
Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.
Not that she won't try...
And meanwhile the beat goes on despite how many times Maggie can cite Recovery.gov
We deserve better.
Once again, why won't Coburn (and you) go on the attack against those GOVERNORS if you believe those projects are a waste? Nah, that would be too transparent and might damage some Republican governor's credibility. Better to just lay it out there and blame Obama for picking boondoggle projects. Who will be the wiser? You read it on the Internet, so it must be true.
I'm reminded of the block grants to states doled out by Homeland Security to upgrade their security and first reponse systems. Countless millions were spent on such things as new bowling shirts for the East Podunk Fire Department team, a second brand new fire truck for a town of only 500 people. But you had to dig in the back pages of news PRINT to find that stuff, so it was not well known. But accepted and paid for by taxpayers, nonetheless, no questions asked.
So your own argument underscores the incompetence of government to provide the fixes for an ailing economy. Don't you see that?
The states could not misspend money if it was spelled out specifically how the money will be spent, and any monies unused for that specific purpose would be returned the national treasury within X number of days, weeks, or months. Every grant I have ever applied for had strict rules on what I could use it for and there was an in depth audit to verify compliance.
So don't tell me that the federal government is doing its job by handing the states hundreds of billions of taxpayer money and then washing their hands of the whole thing. Everybody likes to think they get brownie points playing Santa Claus.
But when Santa uses my money to play the role, I want to know I'm getting my money's worth.
You say I am unrealistic. Well I've been there. I've issued grants. I've received grants. And my vocation is running a small business that works closely with small businesses that provide thousands of jobs for people if they are able to do so. I'm sure that completely skews my perception, but in the final analysis, I think I am damn realistic about how it works and how to get a dollar's value out of a dollar spent.
Once again, why won't Coburn (and you) go on the attack against those GOVERNORS if you believe those projects are a waste? Nah, that would be too transparent and might damage some Republican governor's credibility. Better to just lay it out there and blame Obama for picking boondoggle projects. Who will be the wiser? You read it on the Internet, so it must be true.
I'm reminded of the block grants to states doled out by Homeland Security to upgrade their security and first reponse systems. Countless millions were spent on such things as new bowling shirts for the East Podunk Fire Department team, a second brand new fire truck for a town of only 500 people. But you had to dig in the back pages of news PRINT to find that stuff, so it was not well known. But accepted and paid for by taxpayers, nonetheless, no questions asked.
So your own argument underscores the incompetence of government to provide the fixes for an ailing economy. Don't you see that?
The states could not misspend money if it was spelled out specifically how the money will be spent, and any monies unused for that specific purpose would be returned the national treasury within X number of days, weeks, or months. Every grant I have ever applied for had strict rules on what I could use it for and there was an in depth audit to verify compliance.
So don't tell me that the federal government is doing its job by handing the states hundreds of billions of taxpayer money and then washing their hands of the whole thing. Everybody likes to think they get brownie points playing Santa Claus.
But when Santa uses my money to play the role, I want to know I'm getting my money's worth.
You say I am unrealistic. Well I've been there. I've issued grants. I've received grants. And my vocation is running a small business that works closely with small businesses that provide thousands of jobs for people if they are able to do so. I'm sure that completely skews my perception, but in the final analysis, I think I am damn realistic about how it works and how to get a dollar's value out of a dollar spent.
There you go talking in scary generalities again. They hardly "washed their hands of the whole thing" once money was given to the states. But the GAO has so far issued two reports on the stimulus spending, and was critical of Recovery.gov for not being as transparent as it should have been in detailing how they wanted the money spent, but was equally if not more critical of the manner by which the states have spent that money.
The GAO reports are linked here:
Overview | Following the Money | GAO.gov
I suppose what I find hypocritical is that a common lament from the right is that states should be more responsible for running operations than the federal government, so when the federal government DOES turn operations over to the states to run something major, you complain. What exactly do you want the states' roles to be? My state did it right; why can't the other 56? (That was a joke.)
