55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:48 am
@parados,
It appears that other people take Obama to task about his bottom up statements. Of course, Parados does not think that the Huffington Post is accurate. But,it is left wing so how could it be wrong:

Here is something for Parados to chew on:

"President Obama cites his bottom up intentions and promises all the time, almost every day. Yesterday, he said, when he was admitting he screwed up, with Daschle, "Ultimately, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom up politics."

But his gazillion dollar bailout plan is not even close to bottom up. He threw a third of the money away on tax breaks, hoping to assuage the Republicans. It didn't work. But I don't call tax breaks a bottom up solution. Sure it gets some more money to people, but it really doesn't funnel or distribute money. It lets you get away with not paying money.

Bottom up approaches work because they do something different than usual, or because they support bottom up community, cooperation, sharing and community.

I had a chance, at a recent conference, to talk with a dozen of the current crop of US democratic senators. These are the good guys -- liberal, socially conscious, well intentioned -- but I don't think they get bottom up. They talk about providing funds for jobs as being bottom up. But the way those funds are being provided-- in a very top-down way, to states, to governors -- there is so much opportunity for the top to prevent the funds from trickling dowN.

We saw what happened when Hank Paulson used a totally top down approach, doling out the $350 billion in tens of billion dollar dollops. A bottom up approach would have meant creating a system that distributed the money in hundreds or thousands of dollars, to individuals.
And look at specific groups, like blacks, Latinos or young people under 25 and things are much worse. They will also be the last ones to benefit from the infrastructure spending that Obama and the members of congress like to talk about. And how much will tax breaks help the unemployed?

Obama was talking about a buy American program until the European union threatened to retaliate and, apparently, he backed off. Our world trade deals suck.

Here's a bottom up approach that will produce jobs -- offer to pay the salary and health benefits for new hires by small businesses. Better yet, start paying the health benefits of employees of small businesses that don't provide health care AND pay the salaries and provide health care, even if it's medicare, for new hires.

The bottom line of bottom up is to put the money, in smaller amounts, through individuals and small businesses, not through top-down systems -- like governors and states or megacorporations. Trust he wisdom of the crowd to invest that money in the companies that deserve to survive and let some of the big companies die if they can't figure out how to attract the crowd.

Get smart with putting restrictions on how all the money is spent. Don't allow big expenditures -- to buy more companies, making more, bigger companies that are too big to fail. Don't allow grand parties or crazy ad campaigns. Even figure out how to get money to people by putting ads on their new cars or new solar panels on their houses.

We are not going to quickly get over this global economic crisis by doing what we've done before. We are absolutely not going to recover by depending upon a few eggheads, like the economists who got us into this. We really must trust the wisdom of the crowds to find the best solutions and the only way to do that is with truly bottom up solutions that funnel most of the money to the people -- and not through tax breaks which allow the money to be spent on anything. How dare a few hundred members of congress and Summers, Geithner, et. al, think they are smart enough to solve the problem they created in the first place.

The solutions and the distribution of the money should be bottom up. Maybe, before the vote, the congress and your staff ought to have some training on just what bottom up is really all about, because it's clear so far that most just don't get it and you've forgotten it, except for the words. And President Obama, it's time for you to start walking your bottom up talk.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:12 am
The thought that keeps coming to my mind while reading all this bullshit coming from the conservatives is:

A sore loser...is still a loser!
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
I dont recall you saying that when the repubs controlled the WH and congress.
You were actually saying just the opposite, that it was the job of the minority to raise every issue and challenge they could.

Whats the difference now?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:22 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
I dont recall you saying that when the repubs controlled the WH and congress.


I'm sure there are lots of things you don't recall.


Quote:
You were actually saying just the opposite, that it was the job of the minority to raise every issue and challenge they could.


You do???

Are you sure you are not just making this up?

Are you real sure?


Quote:
Whats the difference now?


Real sure?????
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:52 am
LINK FOR THE TEXT OF THE STIMULUS PACKAGE JUST PASSED:

http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list

(Courtesy of Buttrflynet on another thread.)

She also provided this link which is a presumed summary of the dollar amounts included:

http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:57 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Excellent link to the stimulus plan; thank you. You can click on any one to get the details.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 11:02 am
I posted the same link twice in my previous post.

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE WHITE HOUSE STIMULUS PACKAGE TEXT:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/13/ARRA-for-comment/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 11:08 am
http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/CONGRESS_STIMULUS.sff_GFX422_20090203185919.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 11:49 am
Looking ahead to the 2010 federal budget, this item was in our local newspaper this morning that some R&D and nuclear weapons development will be scrapped.

What do you guys thnk about this?

Quote:
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Labs' Nuclear Work in Danger
By John Fleck
Copyright © 2009 Albuquerque Journal
Journal Staff Writer

The Obama administration wants to kill major nuclear weapons design and manufacturing programs left by its Republican predecessors and ratchet down the amount of non-weapons science done at Los Alamos and other nuclear weapons labs, according to a document obtained by the Journal.

The memo calls for canceling the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a proposal to design a new U.S. nuclear weapon.

Other proposed changes:
• Cancel plans to expand Los Alamos National Laboratory's capability to make plutonium warhead parts.
• Cancel spending to upgrade the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, a major non-weapons science project that federal officials have argued is critical to supporting non-weapons science at Los Alamos.
• Cut in half money allotted to Los Alamos and the other nuclear weapons labs, including Sandia National Laboratories, for "laboratory-directed research and development" " money the labs use to pursue promising research of their own choosing.
• Consider delaying new supercomputer purchases.

Details of the memo were first reported by the Washington, D.C., trade publications Inside the Pentagon and Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor.

Money saved by the cuts would be shifted to U.S. efforts to halt the international spread of nuclear weapons, according to the document.

Overall, the proposal calls for a 1.5 percent increase in 2010 funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the U.S. nuclear weapons program. More than 20,000 people in New Mexico, primarily at Sandia and Los Alamos national labs, work for NNSA.

Officials at the agency and the labs declined to comment Friday, citing the internal nature of the current deliberations.

The document, part of the administration's internal deliberations over the 2010 budget, is the clearest indication made public to date of the course the new Obama team plans to set on U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, spoke out last fall in favor of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. During the campaign, Barack Obama had raised objections to the project, but in a way that left the door open to some modest research efforts.

The memo suggests an effort under way now to close that door, going out of its way to ensure that both direct funding for the RRW program, as well as indirect funding in other research programs that would support RRW work, is zeroed out in the soon-to-be delivered Fiscal Year 2010 budget now being prepared.

"The RRW program, both explicitly and implicitly, is canceled," the memo says.

The memo appears to freeze Los Alamos National Laboratory's plutonium manufacturing capability at a maximum of 20 nuclear weapon cores, known as "pits," per year. Recent policy discussions have considered expanding beyond that level.

The memo is silent on one of the most expensive nuclear weapons projects at Los Alamos, the multibillion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex. The big new plutonium laboratory would replace a building that is half a century old and that has been branded a hazard by federal nuclear safety auditors.

A Congressional funding committee in 2007 concluded that, if RRW was not going to be built, there was no need for the new nuclear lab. Lab and NNSA officials disagree, saying other important work, including nuclear safety and non-proliferation work, will also be done in the new laboratory, and the unsafe old building must be replaced.
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/1401630state02-14-09.htm
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 11:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, I personally worked with nuclear weapons when I served in the US Air Force back in the late fifties. We had enough nukes to blow this world over many times. It's time we humans stop creating weapons that can destroy this world; that's what is called "over-kill." I have no problems with weapon systems that minimizes killing and destruction.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Somebody did the math and figured if somebody had taken one of those speed reading courses and read at maximum speed, it would take 12 continuous hours with no breaks to read the entire thing.

That somebody doesn't know much about speed reading or the number of words per page in legislation.

The average number of lines per page is 24. The average number of words per line is about 6. The speediest speed readers in competition can do 1000 to 2000 words per minute. At 150 words per page times 1075 pages divided by 1000 words per minute I come out to less than 3 hours to read the entire legislation for a decent speed reader.

Considering the amount of a bill that can be scanned and not read such as definitions and table of contents I would guess a decent speed reader could read the bill in 2 hours or less.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:40 pm
@parados,
Maybe so. Not being a speed reader, I wouldn't know, but I do read fairly quickly--more so than most people I know--and it's taking a long time to slog through it in the incremental time I have to devote to it. It is not easy reading nor is it always clear what is being said and there is almost no basis given to justify the numbers they're throwing out there.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Which numbers are you talking about?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:43 pm
@parados,
The numbers attached to the broad categories they presume to fund. Find them in the links previously posted.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:45 pm
@JTT,
President Obama and the Congressional majority are approving what they call a "stimulus bill" that distributes government revenue to private individuals and organizations. No where in the Constitution is the President or Congress of the USA granted the power to do this. President Obama and the Congressional majority are violating their oaths to support the Constitution of the USA by adoption of their "stimulus bill." By failing to support the Constitution of the USA, the President and the Congressional majority are committing treason. They are "adhering to the USA's enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Among these enemies are those who seek to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a socialist republic.

Quote:
Article I. Section 8. 1st paragraph: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=8
Main Entry: 1gen·er·al
...
Function: adjective
...
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section
...
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved :
<we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution>
b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 01:58 pm
@Foxfyre,
You won't find the dollar amount in the bill because the bill doesn't designate how much money is going to each program but rather lays out the programs.

For instance the EIC. The dollar cost for that on the website is based on the number of people presumed eligible multiplied by the amount per person of the increase in the credit. It could be more or less in reality. Fewer people could apply for it than are eligible or the downturn in the economy could make more people eligible. The final cost is unknown.

Another example is the tax credit for electric cars. The estimate for the number of people taking this credit is based on an assumed number.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:38 pm
@parados,
What you say are all true; however, the government must try to motivate consumers in the right direction for the energy and savings of our environment that will be required in the future. It's not a bad time to start now, but with the current economic situation, car sales will continue to drop no matter what kind of incentive manufactures and the government tries to induce consumers to buy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:47 pm
@parados,
Parados wrote:
You won't find the dollar amount in the bill because the bill doesn't designate how much money is going to each program but rather lays out the programs.

Quote:

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/datasets/obamas-stimulus-plan-the-breakdown/versions/1.txt
BARACK OBAMA'S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
Category Project Amount ($)
Energy Electricity Grid 11000000000
Energy Renewable Energy Loans for Projects 8000000000
Energy Renovate and repair federal buildings 6700000000
Energy Grants for state and local governments 6900000000
Energy Energy retrofits for low-income housing 2500000000
Energy Energy efficiency and renewable energy research 2000000000
Energy Loans for vehicle battery manufacturers 2000000000
Energy Energy efficiency grants and loans for schools, governments and utilities 1500000000
Energy Weatherizing homes 6200000000
Energy Rebates for smart appliances 300000000
Energy Replacing federal vehicles with alternative fuel cars 600000000
Energy Grant program for electric vehicle technology 200000000
Energy Projects for cleaning fossil energy 2400000000
Energy Department of Defense research 350000000
Energy Assistance to state and local governments for alternative fuel busses 400000000
Energy Projects for energy efficient manufacturing processes 400000000
Energy Grants and loans to states and cities for diesel emissions reduction 300000000
Science and Technology Wireless and broadband grants 6000000000
Science and Technology National Science Foundation 3000000000
Science and Technology National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research 2000000000
Science and Technology University Research Facilities 1500000000
Science and Technology Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 462000000
Science and Technology Department of Energy 1900000000
Science and Technology NASA 600000000
Science and Technology Biomedical Advanced Research and Development, Pandemic Flu and Cyber security 900000000
Science and Technology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites and Sensors 600000000
Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 300000000
Science and Technology Agricultural Research Service 209000000
Science and Technology U.S. Geological Survey 200000000
Business Small Business Credit 430000000
Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service 100000000
Business Industrial Technology Services 100000000
Business Economic Development Assistance 250000000
Science and Technology DTV Conversion 650000000
Infrastructure Highway infrastructure 30000000000
Infrastructure New transit construction 1000000000
Infrastructure Transit upgrades and repair 2000000000
Infrastructure Transit assistance to expand facilities 6000000000
Infrastructure Amtrak and Intercity rail grants 1100000000
Infrastructure Airport improvement grants 3000000000
Infrastructure Aviation explosive detection systems 500000000
Infrastructure Coast Guard bridges 150000000
Infrastructure Improving Social Security Administration 400000000
Infrastructure IT improvements for Farm Service Agency 245000000
Infrastructure State Department Technology 276000000
Infrastructure Repairs for Department of Agriculture 44000000
Infrastructure Department of Defense medical facilities 3750000000
Infrastructure Military facility repairs 2100000000
Infrastructure Troop housing 1200000000
Infrastructure Department of Defense child development centers 360000000
Infrastructure Guard and Reserve facilities 400000000
Infrastructure Veterans medical facilities 950000000
Infrastructure Veterans cemetaries 50000000
Infrastructure Border ports of entry 1150000000
Environment Job Corps facilities 300000000
Environment Public land and park construction 3100000000
Environment National treasures 400000000
Environment Corps of engineers water restoration 4500000000
Environment Bureau of reclamation 500000000
Environment Watershed infrastructure 400000000
Environment Repairs to flood control systems 224000000
Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund 6000000000
Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 2000000000
Environment Rural water and waste disposal loans 1500000000
Environment Hazardous waste cleanup 800000000
Environment Leaking underground storage tanks cleanup 200000000
Environment Nuclear waste cleanup 500000000
Environment Cleanup and close military bases 300000000
Environment NOAA habitat restoration 400000000
Environment Grants to cleanup brownfields 100000000
Environment State and private wildfire precention 550000000
Environment Federal Forest wildfire prevention 300000000
Infrastructure Bureau of Indian Affairs 500000000
Education School construction 20000000000
Education Education technology 1000000000
Education Pell grants 15600000000
Education College Work-Study 490000000
Education Student Aid Administration 50000000
Education IDEA special education 13000000000
Education Grants to help disadvantaged kids 13000000000
Education Statewide data systems 250000000
Education Education for homeless children and youth 66000000
Education Improving teacher quality 300000000
Education Childcare for low-income families 2000000000
Education Head Start 2100000000
Education IDEA Infants and families 600000000
Healthcare Health information technology 20000000000
Healthcare Prevention and wellness fund 3000000000
Healthcare Healthcare effectiveness research 1100000000
Healthcare Community health centers 1500000000
Healthcare Training for primary care providers 600000000
Healthcare Indian health service facilities 550000000
Jobs Training and employment services 4000000000
Jobs Vocational rehabilitation state grants 500000000
Jobs Employment services grants 500000000
Jobs Community service employment for seniors 120000000
Jobs Increasing and expanding unemployment insurance 36000000000
Jobs COBRA for the unemployed 30300000000
Housing Funding for public housing 5000000000
Housing HOME Investments with local communities 1500000000
Housing Native American housing grants 500000000
Housing Funds for communities to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed homes 4200000000
Housing Homeless assistance grants 1500000000
Housing Rural housing insurance fund 500000000
Housing Fund for rural, high-need sustainable building practices 10000000
Housing Lead paint removal from homes 100000000
Housing Rural community facilities 200000000
Social programs Nutrition assistance to modest-income families 20000000000
Social programs Senior nutrition programs 200000000
Social programs Afterschool meals 726000000
Social programs Improving systems related to WIC 100000000
Social programs Payments to disabled and elderly 4200000000
Social programs Community services grants 1000000000
Social programs Community development grants 1000000000
Social programs Emergency food and shelter 200000000
Social programs Low-Income home energy assistance 1000000000
Social programs Child support enforcement 1000000000
Social programs Social security backlog 500000000
Social programs Centers for independent living 200000000
Social programs AmeriCorps 200000000
Social programs Grants to faith- and community-based organizations 100000000
Social programs Department of Labor Worker Protection 80000000
Public Services Medicaid Aid to states 87000000000
Public Services State Education 120000000000
Public Services Temporary Assistance for needy families 2500000000
Public Services State and local law enforcement support 4000000000
Public Services Periodic census and programs 1000000000

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:50 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, No need to repeat what's already been posted many times (by links).

You do know what a "budget" is, don't you?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:53 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

You won't find the dollar amount in the bill because the bill doesn't designate how much money is going to each program but rather lays out the programs.

For instance the EIC. The dollar cost for that on the website is based on the number of people presumed eligible multiplied by the amount per person of the increase in the credit. It could be more or less in reality. Fewer people could apply for it than are eligible or the downturn in the economy could make more people eligible. The final cost is unknown.

Another example is the tax credit for electric cars. The estimate for the number of people taking this credit is based on an assumed number.


Yup. And without specifics within such broad categories they can direct the money to pretty much whatever or whomever they choose, don't you think? How many organizations or people opposed to or that don't fit within President Obama's or the Democratic Congress's agenda do you think will be deemed eligible to get any of that money? And what guarantees do we have a that a huge chunk of it won't be earmarked for those they need to pay back, pay off, keep happy so those in power will be assured they'll be kept in power? For example, if anybody thinks ACORN won't receive the lion's share or maybe all of the money allocated for community development grants, I have a lot of good bridges to sell--all at bargain prices too. You can bet the lobbyists are lining up in Washington and they are salivating.

If the situation was reversed, and George W. Bush or a John McCain and a Republican controlled Congress was in charge of allocating the money, how comfortable would you be with the lack of specifics?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/15/2025 at 04:22:07