Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:09 PM
Wed Nov 11
59 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
You're all class, Gawker. Keep up those standards.
08/17/09
Maude Lebowski: My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
The Dude: Oh yeah?
Maude Lebowski: Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
08/18/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
I assume Obama will also serve the entire 4 years of his term. What a loser.
08/17/09
08/17/09
somehow... somehow this GIF I just stumbled on seems appropriate.
08/17/09
08/16/09
08/16/09
08/17/09
08/16/09
08/16/09
08/16/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/16/09
08/16/09
08/16/09
I think the fetishism surrounding Obama during the election was far more fanatical.
08/16/09
So fanaticism on both sides, but let's just say that the purpose, or the quality of it differs.
08/16/09
08/16/09
And it's nice of you to judge "perceived effect" after so brief a time. I know a number of historians and political policy experts who would love to have your far-ranging and cosmically-powered view of all time.
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
I'm glad that no Democrat had their names attached to the Iraq War or I would be able to claim that it was the last true bi-partisan bill passed in this country. Unless of course you include the 2004 Democratic Party presidential ticket, the current Vice President and the current Secretary of State.
Thank you for noting my omnipotence.
08/17/09
08/17/09
Now, of course I'm not an economist like yourself.
Shall we call you a wahmbulance?
08/17/09
08/17/09
You can't just say that Obama ran up huge debts without any success and then five minutes later defend Bush as the motive force behind the benevolent TARP program... Because that would mean that BUSH ran up huge debts with no success. That's just voodoo debating. Why would you even think that would get past me?
And as for the Democratic party members who voted in that famously manipulated bill, well... they're culpable, but the prime movers behind that bill, the ones who orchestrated evidence, who manipulated the political process to invade a random foreign county guilty of being an ideological target, were undisputably the Conservative elements of the American political world.
08/17/09
08/17/09
TARP in many ways was ill conceived, but somehow in the end still managed to work. There was a legitimate immediacy with TARP in that the credit markets were essentially freezing up. Once that happens, everyone including businesses have to pay cash on hand for everything. That means that the money supply drastically contracts. It's like having someone take away all of your credit cards. You are now a lot more limited in what you are able to purchase. Even with this urgency, the first version did not make it through the House as members of both parties rejected it (although it was mostly Republicans who blocked it). Despite this being referred to as a bailout, many of the institutions that received funds were forced to take them. Many of those forced loans have been paid back with interest. Interest, is a net positive for the American people, although the entire program is still a negative.
The "stimulus" package of February was sold to the American people as urgent, because the economy was bleeding jobs. Okay, for the moment, I'll accept that. Then the people were told that the Republicans had not offered an alternate solution, which is an out and out lie. McCain et all had a package on the table that was about half the size, but McCain lost in February as he lost in November. On the Thursday night before President's Day weekend, Congress received a thousand page bill. The vote was scheduled for Friday (the next day). There was three Republican votes for the package in both houses. Incidentally one of those Senators switched the letter after his name shortly after. The President inexplicably then waits 96 hours to sign this urgent bill into law that Congress was not allowed sufficient time to read. All of that would have been forgivable to a degree, but then after five months, less than 20% of the money had actually been spent, while real people continued to lose real jobs.
Other than size and the fact that the government couldn't afford either, TARP and stimulus had nothing in common.
As to that idiot's argument about the stock market, there is at least some support for the idea that the stock market rally is being fueled by the speculation that government healthcare will fail. I really don't know how many points that's worth, but I do know that the stock market doesn't react well to the government running up debt and then not spending money.
"All right there bucky, calm down a little." - Thank You.
08/17/09
THAT'S RACIST!
08/17/09
I would bother with a legit rebuttle, but clearly everyone else has taken care of that.
08/17/09
Thank you.
08/17/09
08/17/09
I see what you did up there. You first charged "RACIST!" in all caps as an attention grabber. Then - and this is the real genius - you waited five minutes to let it sink in before you explained yourself. Which is good, since none of us got that you were playing the race card on behalf of the President's ethnicity.
I guess we all learned a valuable lesson here about double standards. Well done.
08/17/09
You should go down to your local city hall and find out, roughly, how long it takes to get funding for a federally funded public works program from application, to ground breaking.
Obviously this is one example. Maybe you're upset that the income tax cuts (which we will not see until the 2010 tax season) are not here yet? OR maybe you're upset with the rebates for home buyers and the first tax rebates for new car buyers before the cash for clunkers programs?
Did you forgot about that unemployment benefits have been extended because the job market is still pretty rocky and states were running out of money for it?
Infrastructure? Why didn't he just wave his magic wand and make it simply make it go good right nowwwww!!!!!11
Seriously, people act like there is no available information, or that it's somehow so complicated that people can't understand it.
On one hand you want to yell about massive spending, but then you want to complain that it's not being spend quickly, or that it's not working fast enough, or, in the case of cash for clunkers, it worked TOO quickly.
The conservative talking points are all over the place; like someone at the dentist asking for antibiotics to clear up an abscess, and then saying the antibiotics wont work anyway and then saying they aren't working quickly enough and then finally getting mad that the dentist wants to remove the tooth clean up the affected area and give them an implant that will be as strong if not stronger than the original tooth and will lead to overall healthier mouth. And even after the implant is in place, you'll still need routine check ups and some oral therapy.
Reagan's destructive economic policies were as effective as dumping sugar into a cavity and making a wish on a nickle and then demonizing minorities for asking if they could have that nickle he was going to throw into the well.
If you're really having a hard time with things, go to www.recovery.gov and read. If you think it's all some massive Kenyan Fraud, look at who and where the money is said to be going and CALL them and ask.
08/17/09
I like that.
I'm trying to manage phone calls with making myself laugh at my own stupid comments. I actually intended to combine them, I'm honestly not certain how I got three out of what should have been two.
More specifically, the first two were directed at the same comment, the third was directed at a different comment of yours. I had nothing to do with where they showed up.
08/17/09
08/17/09
I actually work for local government, so I do have a fair idea of how long that it takes to apply and receive federal money: six months to a year. This is exactly why grant money should not be mixed in with something that claims to be a stimulus package. Incidentally, I called down to the Finance Department to get that time estimate. The nice lady with whom I spoke told me that they are still waiting for money from an application that they filed in 2008.
McCain et al had a plan that was about half of the size of the "stimulus" package that we had that called for a massive tax rebate. This is stupid too, but it was less expensive and would have actually been stimulative.
This is not a Kenyan fraud. It's a Keynesian fraud. This bill was not designed to stimulate crap. It was designed to assist the government in running a larger portion of the economy. For the record, Nigeria is where most of the frauds originate, but I'm glad you used Kenyan because it set up the whole Keynesian thing, so THANKS FOR THAT!
08/17/09
08/17/09
I'm always happy to assist someone in making a pun (the worst comedic device next to props), especially about economics. Like my grandfather always said "there just aren't enough bad jokes about economics," today I think he shed a little tear of joy from heaven; so thank you.
08/17/09
So since March, the S&P has moved in positive territory by ~48%. Is this an act of confidence supplied by the president, or normal market processes? I mean, according to your analysis, stimulus (which was pushed through in less than 3 business days, mind you) was a necessary evil to create growth and stabilize the markets over the long run. It's impossible to infuse this much debt, er, cash into the system in such a short period of time. So why positive territory? Was the stimulus/TARP/TALF (total failure)/PPIP (total failure, again) necessary evils?
And what shall we say when there's a total financial panic/collapse in September/October?
-Curious
08/17/09
This is a program based on the same ideas as the New Deal -- government spending to stabilize, reform and recover a failing economy. An economy that would not be nearly as unstable if we simply maintained the same regulatory oversight, anti-trust enforcement, trade regulations, etc.. that people like Theodore Roosevelt enforced.
I wouldn't even classify the stimulus plan as evil but simply necessary. I don't think the government's investment in it's country is evil.
Some here can bloviate about conspiracies and evil motives behind every single thing the government does, but it's going to sound like rambling insanity to me.
I believe, as corny as this is, that "for the people" is just as important as "by the people."
I believe the government should spend money on infrastructure, health care, defense, education, etc... etc... etc...
I do not believe in the objectivist utopian paradise described by Ayn Randtards where no man is greedy, manipulative, or exploitative and only wants to do what is best. Sorry... That was more of a rant than a statement directed at you.
As for the financial collapse you are predicting? I'm covered. I've already joined a racist militia, amassed a cache of guns and canned foods and plan to use dead people's gold fillings as currency.
Actually, let me address that. This is not the 20s and we are not (weren't) headed for another Great Depression. There are some similarities and it's not a situation we can simply ignore but, that's about as close as it gets. I would suggest reading some of Price Fishback's work.
08/17/09
08/17/09
The devaluation of assets does not mean a market is broken. It means a market isn't what you wish it to be...or rather, how it should be performing (in your own "utopian paradise"). That's a bit lame, no? Things go up, things go down. That's a functioning market (whether you like it or not).
"I do not believe in the objectivist utopian paradise described by Ayn Randtards where no man is greedy, manipulative, or exploitative and only wants to do what is best."
I'm not on Rand 'roids, but the above statement makes me suspect you never read any Rand, or that you simply couldn't comprehend her points. Her main objective was stressing the importance of individualism (something...outside of "creative awareness"...which is increasingly becoming shunned in our society). Welcome to the world of collectivism and unitary governance. I doff my hat to you, comrade.
There's nothing more American than debt. Fuck yeah, America.
08/17/09
I was not a member of doom and gloom the sky is falling etc, I would have supported increased spending on public works and broad reaching tax reductions to roughly 98% of working households without the specter of depression. I would, and I would think small government types (similar to yourself?) would revel in idea of less spending by individuals and more by the government. I'm having a hard time nailing down exactly where you're coming from.
Just like your obvious and simplistic description of economic ups and downs, you're presenting a simplistic view of government spending/debt, but to keep it simple, it goes up and down.
Right now our national debt as a percentage of GDP is about 85%, compare that to over 120% from the end of FDR's term to Truman. From the second half of the 40s through about 1980, we paid down our debt hitting a low point at the end of the Carter admin and then we hit a bit of a recession, Regan ran up the debt actually turned somethings around, but them just kept going was the economy picked up. Eventually running up greater debt than every past administration combined.
Your "collectivism" quip doesn't bother me. We are, contrary to shouty protesters, a long way from communism or socialism. Though, you can't be THAT against it, I'm sure you have auto insurance, comrade. Damn collectivists!
The idea of a common wealth, the greater good and a responsibility to community was something that the was written about to no end by everyone from Franklin, to Jefferson, to Madison, to Thomas Paine to John Adams.
Thomas Paine was especially big on this idea and wrote, in his damn pamphlets at length about progressive taxation, public educations, social programs like welfare, the estate tax, international organizations. This was arguably one of the most important characters in the formation of our country (ya know: The Father of the American Revolution and all)
But back to the actual topic at hand. That Sarah Palin is a crazy idiot, only second to her supporters and people that shout "socialist" at pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
08/17/09
"But back to the actual topic at hand. That Sarah Palin is a crazy idiot, only second to her supporters and people that shout "socialist" at pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache."
Agreed that Sarah Palin is a crazy idiot, as well as her supporters. The SS photo art is juvenile, silly, and used as pure propaganda.
"Your paraphrasing is unfair to my overall statement. You should add the word "yet" to the end of 'stimulus has not found its way into the marketplace,' Furthermore; roughly 37% of it is in the form of tax cuts/deductions, etc... Some of which are available now, some are not."
How can we possibly cut tax when Washington has no fiscal discipline or monetary goal to curb our deficit? Why would you quit your job (income supply) and up your spending (debt)? That doesn't make economic sense. I'm not asking for raised tax...nor am I asking for a cut in tax. Government should be cutting programs, limiting exemptions, and killing any overzealous government programs that will raise our deficit.
"I would, and I would think small government types (similar to yourself?) would revel in idea of less spending by individuals and more by the government. I'm having a hard time nailing down exactly where you're coming from."
I'm totally lost. Small government types want more government spending?
"Right now our national debt as a percentage of GDP is about 85%, compare that to over 120% from the end of FDR's term to Truman."
Phenomenal comparison. Surely everyone can agree that our spending should model that which occurred during/after a depression (+30% unemployment) and second world war. In fact (as some give credit to emerging from the depression), let's start another world war, which will increase public production, kill economic demand (soldiers die, less mouths to feed (ah, too German)), and create another renaissance of flag-waving, debt-paying patriots! Outstanding. And while we're at it, why don't we create another program similar to Social Security that our federal government can loot over the next 60 years, until the coffer has been wiped clean, leaving nothing buy I.O.U.s. Outstanding analysis.
"Your "collectivism" quip doesn't bother me. We are, contrary to shouty protesters, a long way from communism or socialism. Though, you can't be THAT against it, I'm sure you have auto insurance, comrade. Damn collectivists!"
I don't, in fact, have auto-insurance, living in the city and all. However (and I've never been a driver, so what do I know), the idea behind forcing all to pick up auto insurance is to protect ourselves in the event of a collision with another driver...causing said driver to die or get seriously injured. I'm sure you'll agree that most health-issues are either directly related to your personal wellness, as well as your genealogy. Small differences, but why quibble with the subtle.
"Thomas Paine was especially big on this idea and wrote, in his damn pamphlets at length about progressive taxation, public educations, social programs like welfare, the estate tax, international organizations. This was arguably one of the most important characters in the formation of our country (ya know: The Father of the American Revolution and all)[.]"
These are philosophical ideals that do sound quite heavenly. Fortunately, this is the land of the free, and people are able to place their funds into a collective basket on their own accord. For example, if you'd like public health care, surely you're able to gather a medium-sized group of individuals that share your ideals. Some people choose "not-for-profits" to put these ideas into use. Some even generate revenue! Only in America, I tell you! Surely you don't need the wealthy citizens, whom wish not to participate in such a practice, to generate this funding. Remember, governance is run solely on our tax dollars. What would happen if you simply dumped the taxes you would've payed into a semi-public fund you and your friends could pull from? Or better fucking yet (and this is TRULY EXTREME), why don't you campaign in your state to set aside a "state-funded" coffer for this exact issue? Massachusetts seems like they've gone down this road. After all, the federal government was designed to protect states' rights to do exactly this...not provide the funding. Truly radical, but surely you were provided this knowledge in Social Studies around 7th grade.
I think we can all agree that taxes for infrastructure and other goods/services are necessary. However, our federal government should not be dictating these practices to the collective states. Besides weather, what would be the fun in moving somewhere else within the states? Dearest comrade, shall we have an 8% sales tax in every city throughout this great land, just as it is in NYC? Surely, this would put a damper on Sir Paine's belief in political and individual sovereignty. Or is that Locke.
Fuck. I've been so misguided about this American thing my whole life.
(BTW, please excuse any types/fucked up sentences. At work, feeling lazy.)
08/17/09
Look what we've done? This thread is longer than the fucking bill that we are discussing. I blame myself. Gawker had to come up wth some new system to accommodate this monster. We are now "an older thread."
08/17/09
He slurs, "Fuckin' free-for-all on the weekends, I'm tellin' ya" to the barista (see: barmaid, in Brooklyn).
08/16/09