Conservative VS Liberal

[BJean 16]

patty: "So, you're saying that without that cities order of buses, this particular bus making company would have gone out of business?"

We were taking about jobs. Without orders, people lose their jobs. Without orders, companies can't hire new employees or keep old ones. If you have particular statistics on this particular bus company that indicates that they have more than enough orders to keep all their employees and hire new ones, I'd be very surprised.

And you go on to say that our umployment rates are going up. But that is not what the latest studies say.

patty: "You liberals will not even admit when the government wastes a dime, cause your precious Obama might be criticized for it, and we can't have that, now can we?"

Now that's just plain silly. We criticize anybody who deserves it. You appear to have lost it a little in this post of yours.

[BJean 16]

Regarding spending during the economic crisis, George Bush constantly told people to get out and buy stuff when he was in office and the economy was faltering. People staying home after 9/11 was a big problem for our economy. Do you just have selective memory?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I've always maintained that the conservative/republican movement is mean spirited and cold hearted. We see it at this week's Obama bashfest at the CPAC. At this event:

-they have made fun of Pres. Obama's physical appearance (ears)

-smashed pinata's of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

-urged people to walk on the faces of news anchors from MSNBC on mats to "stamp out the liberal media".

What are these people? In 8th grade? Is this who we want to lead our people during this economic crisis?

Then there are the teabaggers who at a recent event in the state of Washington had this to say about their democratic senator Patty Murray:

And there were some strong words spoken at Saturday's Tea Party in Asotin [WA].

"How many of you have watched the movie Lonesome Dove?," asked one speaker from the podium. "What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd? What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd. He got hung. And that's what I want to do with Patty Murray."

So, they not only advocate the otherthrow of the government now they want to hang those who don't agree with them.

The teabaggers are just middle aged, middle class angry white racists who are just mad that an african american is president and they try to disguise this by claiming to care about healthcare, spending and the deficit.

Well maybe they fool some of the people but they don't fool me.

[pattygreen 5]

Eye on the Stimulus

Do Direct Stimulus Jobs Really Cost $533,000 Apiece?!

by Christopher Flavelle, ProPublica - October 16, 2009

On Thursday, the government released a flood of data [1] about the stimulus, showing how 9,000 federal contractors spent their stimulus dollars — including the value of the contract, each project’s status, and how much each of the contractor’s five highest-paid officers were paid.

But when it came to presenting that data, Recovery.gov [2], the government’s official site for stimulus information, highlighted one number in particular, posting it on the site’s main page [2] in large font: “JOBS CREATED/SAVED AS REPORTED BY FEDERAL CONTRACT RECIPIENTS: 30,383.” To make extra certain of getting viewers’ attention, the number itself appears in bright green.

As the economy continues to shed jobs [3], it’s easy to see why the administration is keen to highlight the number of jobs created by the stimulus. When the numbers were released, Jared Bernstein, the administration’s chief economist, said [4] the job count “exceeds our projections,” adding that it supported the conclusion “that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first seven months.”

But do the 30,000 jobs represent a good return? And since the federal contracts for which data was reported this week represent just a sliver of the overall stimulus package, what do they really say about the impact of the stimulus as a whole?

Let’s start with the 30,000 jobs themselves. The federal contracts in question represented $16 billion in stimulus spending. Assuming the number of created or saved jobs reported by each contract recipient was accurate—which, as we’ve reported before [5], is still an open question—that breaks down to $533,000 for each job. That’s more than five times the projection of the president’s own Council of Economic Advisers [6], which estimated [7] in May that every $92,136 in government spending would create one job for one year.

Five hundred thousand dollars per job might sound like a lot of money, but wait: The data released this week covers only the jobs directly created by federal stimulus money so far. It doesn’t cover indirect jobs — the people who make the materials that contractors need to complete their project, or make the sandwich when a construction worker buys lunch from the proverbial roadside diner.

So, if the $16 billion in federal stimulus contracts generated 30,383 direct jobs, how many indirect jobs were created or saved? We asked the White House, which told us they believe that for each direct job created or saved, there is one indirect job. Assuming that’s right, that $16 billion created or saved some 60,000 jobs — which still clocks in at $267,000 per person.

What about the second question — the relationship between the 30,000 direct jobs reportedly created or saved by that $16 billion, and the job impact of the stimulus as a whole? We asked the White House for the logic behind Bernstein’s statement that this week’s numbers “point to the conclusion that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first seven months.”

Their response: Because the $16 billion in federal contracts represents about 5 percent of the $339 billion spent so far, they multiplied the 30,000 jobs by 20. The result is 600,000 direct jobs; and, relying again on the assumption that each direct job produces one indirect job, the White House doubled that number to 1.2 million.

Of course, that assumes that for every part of the stimulus will have roughly the same job-creating impact as federal contracts. That’s contradicted by the Council of Economic Advisers’ own report [7], which said that while every $92,136 in government spending creates one job for one year, it takes $145,351 in tax cuts to achieve the same result. As much as 28 percent of the stimulus is going to tax cuts; if the Council’s estimates are right, then the White House’s assertion — that every part of the stimulus will produce the same job impact as federal contracts — starts to look a little less certain.

The bottom line, it seems, is that knowing for certain how many jobs the stimulus is producing remains, for now,as tricky as ever.

[pattygreen 5]

I've always maintained that the conservative/republican movement is mean spirited and cold hearted. We see it at this week's Obama bashfest at the CPAC. At this event:

-they have made fun of Pres. Obama's physical appearance (ears)

-smashed pinata's of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

-urged people to walk on the faces of news anchors from MSNBC on mats to "stamp out the liberal media".

What are these people? In 8th grade? Is this who we want to lead our people during this economic crisis?

Then there are the teabaggers who at a recent event in the state of Washington had this to say about their democratic senator Patty Murray:

And there were some strong words spoken at Saturday's Tea Party in Asotin [WA].

"How many of you have watched the movie Lonesome Dove?," asked one speaker from the podium. "What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd? What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd. He got hung. And that's what I want to do with Patty Murray."

So, they not only advocate the otherthrow of the government now they want to hang those who don't agree with them.

The teabaggers are just middle aged, middle class angry white racists who are just mad that an african american is president and they try to disguise this by claiming to care about healthcare, spending and the deficit.

Well maybe they fool some of the people but they don't fool me.

You need to get over it, really. When liberals did the exact same kind of stuff in protest of those who they didn't agree with politically, I heard nothing about it. Were the liberals 'really' going to hang Bush when they put his image on a poster and hung a noose around his neck with blood dripping off of it?:sad: Come on!!!! I'm not a liberal, and I can admit that my opposition was not "really" going to hang Bush. They were simply expressing their anger over Bush's policies. Nothing more. (Oh, and they didn't hate Bush cause he was white.:w00t: How would you have liked it if we threw that at you liberals? "You guys hated Bush cause he was white!" :cool:) And the tea partiers are doing the exact same thing, and you need to be upfront and honest and admit that as well. No one is 'really' planning on hanging those who don't agree with them.

Are you black or something? Cause you certainly are coming off as an offended black person who is hanging on by a thread to your President simply because he matches your skin tone. Cause there is really no reason to admire Obama or anything he is doing to this country of ours. I, personally, could care less about his skin color and I'm sure most Americans don't care either. He was elected wasn't he? That right there shows you that noone cares about that. You need to stop your racism in reverse. You are blaming white people for their hatred of Obama's agenda and policies on the color of their skin. You are trying to say that the tea party group has a racist agenda, when in reality, it is you who seems to be racist against them. We are trying in this country to put hatred and racial issues behind us. You are not helping that American agenda. When you say that those who are against Obama are against him because he is black, it fosters racism against white people. BTW, I saw plenty of black and spanish people at the tea party gatherings. They just don't like the BIG government that Obama is pushing, and it wouldn't matter if he were purple!

Here is an example of liberal hypocrisy!

Obama Joker Poster Stirs Outrage, Bush Joker Poster Not So Much

Not surprisingly, the Obama Joker Poster reported by NewsBusters Saturday is already drawing some outrage.

According to a television station where the posters have been spotted, "Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous."

Yet, when Vanity Fair's Politics & Power blog published a somewhat similar visual representation of George W. Bush last July, nobody seemed to complain. In fact, throughout the Bush years, demeaning drawings of the President and Vice President Dick Cheney were quite commonplace.

But, according to KTLA.com, depicting Barack Obama in unflattering terms is a no no

Looks like the photo of Obama as the joker didn't clear. Oh well, it was there.

[pattygreen 5]

Here it is.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You need to get over it, really. When liberals did the exact same kind of stuff in protest of those who they didn't agree with politically, I heard nothing about it. Were the liberals 'really' going to hang Bush when they put his image on a poster and hung a noose around his neck with blood dripping off of it?:sad: Come on!!!! I'm not a liberal, and I can admit that my opposition was not "really" going to hang Bush.This wasn't about bush or Obama, this was about a U.S. Senator. They were simply expressing their anger over Bush's policies. Nothing more. (Oh, and they didn't hate Bush cause he was white.:w00t: How would you have liked it if we threw that at you liberals? "You guys hated Bush cause he was white!"That wouldn't have made any sense. Those bush protestors were white. But with a black president and the all white tea party protestors it is very racist. :cool:) And the tea partiers are doing the exact same thing, and you need to be upfront and honest and admit that as well. No one is 'really' planning on hanging those who don't agree with them.

Are you black or something?What possible difference could that make to anything? Certainly not to what I have posted. Cause you certainly are coming off as an offended black person who is hanging on by a thread to your President simply because he matches your skin tone. Cause there is really no reason to admire Obama or anything he is doing to this country of ours.He is cleaning up bush's messes and saved our economy from a second depression. He is addressing long ignored problems despite the fact that they are difficult. He doesn't shy away from difficult problems or controversy. I, personally, could care less about his skin color and I'm sure most Americans don't care either. He was elected wasn't he? That right there shows you that noone cares about that.The people who are doing the protesting DIDN'T vote for him. Don't you get that? You need to stop your racism in reverse. You are blaming white people for their hatred of Obama's agenda and policies on the color of their skin. You are trying to say that the tea party group has a racist agenda, when in reality, it is you who seems to be racist against them.Well, let's see - there are no people of color to speak of in their group so I stand behind my consistent view that they don't accept a black man as president. Everything else is just distractions from that. We are trying in this country to put hatred and racial issues behind us. You are not helping that American agenda. It's the teabaggers who are fanning the flames of racism. When you say that those who are against Obama are against him because he is black, it fosters racism against white people.Oh, yeah, I know how racism against white people is such a HUGE problem. BTW, I saw plenty of black and spanish people at the tea party gatherings.Really? You must be the only one.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

• From Pattygreen: Cause there is really no reason to admire Obama or anything he is doing to this country of ours. Saved our economy from collapse, among other things. See below.
  From dailykos.
  
  

  
  
  

• A partial list of Pres. Obama's accomplisments:
  
  

  
  
  

• A week before he was sworn in, Obama jammed part two of the bank bailout down the throat of his own party — a $350 billion accomplishment.
  
  
  Two days after he was sworn in, Obama banned the use of "harsh interrogation" and ordered the closing of Guantánamo.
  
  
  A day later, Obama reversed George W. Bush's funding cutoff to overseas family planning organizations — saving millions of lives with the stroke of a pen.
  
  
  Three days after that, Obama gave a green light to the California car-emissions standards that Bush had been blocking for six years — an important step on the road to cleaner air and a cooler planet.
  
  
  Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion accomplishment.
  
  
  Ten days after that, Obama formally announced America's withdrawal from Iraq.
  
  
  A week later — we're in early March now — Obama erased Bush's decision to restrict federal funding for stem-cell research.
  
  
  In April and June, Obama forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy.
  
  
  In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech — an accomplishment that the Bush administration failed to achieve despite a series of desperate PR moves (anyone remember Charlotte Beers?) and a "public diplomacy" budget of $1 billion a year.
  
  
  Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry — leading, for example, to the billion-dollar profit that Ford announced on Monday.
  
  
  I haven't even mentioned Sonia Sotomayor, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos, Obama's push for charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, or the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems to have — with Bush's help, it must be said —
  stopped the financial
  collapse
  , revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter.
  
  

  
  
  

[Cleo's Mom 257]

One year in, the evidence is clear – and growing by the day – that the Recovery Act is working to cushion the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and lay a new foundation for economic growth.

• According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs through the end of 2009
  
• As a result, job losses are a fraction of what they were a year ago, before the Recovery Act began
  

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

• Cut taxes for 95 percent of working families through the Making Work Pay tax credit
  
• Cut taxes for small businesses
  
• Provided loans to over 42,000 small businesses
  
• Funded over 12,500 transportation construction projects nationwide, ranging from highway construction to airport improvement projects
  
• Made multi-billion dollar investments in innovation, science and technology that are laying the foundation for our 21st century economy
  
• Provided critical relief for state governments facing record budget shortfalls, including help to prevent cuts to Medicaid and creating or saving over 300,000 education jobs
  

Economists on the left and the right have stated that the Recovery Act has helped avert an even worse economic disaster

What did Pres. Obama accomplish? Fewer job loses, positive GNP growth, saving the economy from a second depression. I can understand that those too stupid to understand a bar graph might not get that things are improving under Pres. Obama's economic policies.

But none of that matters to those birthers, John Birch society members, the secessionists , racists and the other extremists who make up the tea party movement.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The hypocrisy that republicans actually care about the average middle class person:

Jim Bunning, a Republican

from Kentucky,

is single-handedly blocking Senate action

needed to prevent an estimated 1.2 million American workers from prematurely losing their unemployment benefits next month.

As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension Thursday night, Bunning refused to go along.

And when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports,

Bunning replied: "Tough shit."

Bunning says he doesn't oppose extending benefits -- he just doesn't want the money that's required added to the deficit. He proposes paying for the 30-day extension with stimulus funds. The Senate's GOP leadership did not support him in his objections.

And at one point during the debate, which dragged on till nearly midnight, Bunning complained of missing a basketball game.

"I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00,"

(Oh, boo hoo):cursing:

he said,

"and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year.

So, he cares more about a basketball game than he does about unemployed people who are soon to lose their benefits.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

The Republicans in our congress who are behaving in such a dispicable manner are an embarrassment to all Americans.

[pattygreen 5]

The Republicans in our congress who are behaving in such a dispicable manner are an embarrassment to all Americans.

No, they're only an embarrassment to Dems, cause they can't seem to get what they want. I emphasize they, cause they don't represent what America wants. Boo hoo for them.:cursing:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

No, they're only an embarrassment to Dems, cause they can't seem to get what they want. I emphasize they, cause they don't represent what America wants. Boo hoo for them.:crying:

I'm positive that the unemployed want their benefits and COBRA extended, and I think most Americans support this, too. If you can find anything to dispute this, then post it. :cursing:

[BJean 16]

patty why do you keep saying that Democrats don't want what most Americans want? The majority party in Congress were duly elected by Americans. The president was elected by Americans. They are what the voters want - not more of the same garbage that the Republicans dished out during the Bush years.

You don't really want what the Republicans represent. Unless you are a very wealthy person. And you sure don't sound like a wealthy person.

Like many people, you're just completely swayed by their P.R. campaign that does nothing for the majority of Americans. They represent the very, very wealthy in this country. They represent the corporations. The corporations who make sure that our congressional representatives become wealthy either by accepting money from their corporate lobbyists or by other means. Whatever it takes to buy their votes.

Most of us are no longer being duped. We learned a huge lesson during the Bush years - lessons that we learned from previous Republican administrations but had mostly forgotten during the Clinton years.

America can't stand more Republican domination and this president and congress better figure out a way to get America back on its' feet and grow this country in the right direction, or we stand to lose everything that we hold dear as Americans.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

patty why do you keep saying that Democrats don't want what most Americans want? The majority party in Congress were duly elected by Americans. The president was elected by Americans. They are what the voters want - not more of the same garbage that the Republicans dished out during the Bush years.

You don't really want what the Republicans represent. Unless you are a very wealthy person. And you sure don't sound like a wealthy person.

Like many people, you're just completely swayed by their P.R. campaign that does nothing for the majority of Americans. They represent the very, very wealthy in this country. They represent the corporations. The corporations who make sure that our congressional representatives become wealthy either by accepting money from their corporate lobbyists or by other means. Whatever it takes to buy their votes.

Most of us are no longer being duped. We learned a huge lesson during the Bush years - lessons that we learned from previous Republican administrations but had mostly forgotten during the Clinton years.

America can't stand more Republican domination and this president and congress better figure out a way to get America back on its' feet and grow this country in the right direction, or we stand to lose everything that we hold dear as Americans.

This is so true, BJean. And anytime the republicans speak of fiscal responsibility it means they are trying to save money on the backs of the least among us. I have posted about this elsewhere - it's called "Starve the Beast.". Republicans never advocate that we cut defense spending or corporate welfare. Oh, no. Let's just not extend unemployment benefits. Or let's not provide health insurance to the uninsured. And the list goes on.

But many of those who are directly affected by the cold-hearted, mean-spirited economic agenda of republicans vote for them. Why? Because they are pro-gun, anti-gay and anti-abortion. Try feeding your family with that.