Didn't I hear this several months ago after the first financial crisis broke?
"President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill."
I see. So if we don't give permission for the Democrats to tax us into bankruptcy, then we're all screwed. Awesome logic. Somehow, I don't think backing ACORN financially is going to cause the country's collapse, but I could be wrong.
"Senate moderates gathered behind closed doors in an effort to find at least $50 billion in spending reductions that might make the $900 billion-plus package more palatable to centrists. Democratic leaders hoped to pass the legislation by Friday at the latest.
Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing."
Once again, I fail to understand how bumping an $820 billion package up to over $900 billion, then taking $50 billion off is saving money. Even with the cut, it's still at least $30 billion more than the House bill. Am I the only person who smells a sackload of shit with all this political maneuvering? As for lawmakers doing nothing, last time I checked, the bill passed the House. If the Senate pushes it through with slight changes, it's still passing through. That means that the bill will pass. How does that necessitate failure on the part of the Messiah?
Once again, I must reiterate that the Democrats are much more unsure of this monstrosity than they're letting on. They can pass it through without any Republican support if they really want to. The only thing they need the Republicans for is to help cushion the political fallout if (and in my opinion, it's a matter of when) this package fails. In my mind, that's a fantastic reason for the Republicans not to get on board. Of course, you'll have some dingleberry RINOs back it and everyone will pretend that the package was awesomely "bi-partisan" (I can't even begin to tell people how I detest this word).
"In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.
'This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse,' Obama wrote in the newspaper piece."
THERE'S NO TIME TO WASTE! WE HAVE NO TIME FOR DELAY! Actually, I have to say that trying to panic the populace into backing this shit worked pretty well for Paulson & Co. a few months back. It may very well work again (something about P.T. Barnum's quote on there being a sucker born every minute), especially since it's the Messiah who's backing it, not that big ole' meany Bush Jr. I can guarantee you that if this package is passed, then you will have a lingering recession. Massive government spending on stupid shit generally does that. Let's face it, this country, in general, got itself into this position by spending way, way, way more than it had (this goes for both government and people). So how exactly is spending a huge crapola of money on useless projects that have nothing to do with economic stimulating going to help?
"He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient. His latest plea came on the same day the economy dealt with another dose of bad news: A big jump in jobless claims and another round of weak retail sales."
God forbid that we have tax cuts or anything. That would involve believing that people know how to spend their money better than a bloated and out of control government. As heartless as this sounds, recessions and boom times come and go: Just look at American history (though I forgot that they don't really teach that in schools anymore) and look at the periods of prosperity or financial drought. We even had a real doozy in the 1930's known as the Great Depression.
" For their part, Senate Republicans signaled they would persist in their efforts to reduce spending in the measure, to add tax cuts and reduce the cost of mortgages for millions of homeowners.
Officials figures were unavailable, but it appeared that the measure carried a price tag of more than $920 billion, making it bigger than the financial industry bailout that passed last year and as large as any measure in memory."
And by all means, the Republicans should endeavor to push the tax cuts and reduce this bill. Of course, they should have been doing this all along, not just when they are out of power. And finally...
"Despite bipartisan concerns about the cost, Republicans failed in a series of attempts on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size."
I think this sentence speaks volumes. First of all, according to the Mr. Espo of the AP, there are "bi-partisan concerns." However, "Republicans failed in a series of attempts (note that this reads plural) on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size." Well, there doesn't seem to be as much unity spirit as the politicians like to claim when Republicans are rebuffed at every attempt to give their input. Which pretty much means that the bi-partisan concerns weren't really such a big deal. This one sentence summed up the idea of bi-partisanship for the Democrats. They are willing to listen to the Republicans, but only if the latter thinks Democratically. Being conservative doesn't count for bi-partisanship. So if those pesky Republicans just put away their Rush Limbaugh hats and start thinking like Democrats, why, there would be no problems at all! Why even bother having political parties? Hell, why stop there...why even bother having a representative government, since the Democrats have everything figured out? It's gonna be a long four years...