I watched C-SPAN last night, the Republicans took turns with nasty personal attacks on Daschle. Class struggle or bull****?

If the latest polling is to be believed, it may come back to haunt him. In reality, doesn't matter either way - the only way the Federal Gov't can positively effect the economy is by removing impediments to the free flow of goods and capital (lower taxes, tarrifs, repeal legislation, control tort litigation, etc.) Government 'stimulus' spending is economic bull**** dressed up as political crack.

To quote the Post article:

"By nearly 2 to 1, the public says the country should go in the direction Bush wants to lead it rather than follow the path set by congressional Democrats; the majority of independents and even one in five Democrats favor Bush's leadership, ending an even split that existed before Sept. 11."

Considering that the Repubs had more than 50 votes for their bill in the Senate, painting Dashle as an obstructionist will be pretty easy - and may be pretty damaging to him and the Dems.<ul><li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8998-2001Dec20.html">Washington Post article</a></li></ul>

The truth is, the bulk of the Republican plan is aimed at giving large corporations like Ford, GM, IBM, and GE major tax incentives. Some, like IBM, are specifically named in the bill and won't pay any taxes at all. The question is, incentive to do what? All of these companies, even though they are laying people off and crying the blues about the economy, are sitting on huge piles of cash, billions of it.

So what's going on? Well, for starters, consumer and corporate spending has slowed considerably while they both take a "wait and see" attitude. My question is, how is giving all this money to the big corporations going to help? Will they go out and hire people they don't need? No. Will it get people in the stores? No. Will it somehow spawn investment by smaller companies? No. Will it somehow spawn growth? No. How can you grow if people aren't buying. So wtf is it for? Good question.

All the Republican yahoos on TV spouting a bunch of BS about the Dems trying to rig the recession and so forth are doing just that - spouting a bunch of BS. It's a good cover, make that a very good cover, for their "distribution of wealth to the wealthy" program.

If it sounds like I'm a Liberal or a Dem forget it. I'm not. But I do have enough sense to spot a wolf in sheeps clothing when I see it.

To be fair, I think the Democrats plan goes a little overboard in the other direction. BUT, I have no doubt that come the end of January a compromise will have been reached and we'll be on to a new topic.

Even in the worst case scenario that he is pursuing his own agenda, someone has to stop this CDA(Corporate Donations Administration). The fact that they have used terrorists and wars to BS the American people will hurt them more than this will hurt Daschle. That is the whole point of having elections with at least 2 political parties. Nobody should be able to run the country without influence from the other party, and all of a sudden it is politically incorrect to stand up and voice your opinion. Absolute BS!
There used to be a respectable amount of conservatives on this forum,(just do a search for Gore, LOL) that would chime in once in a while, but even they have been hiding in the "bushes" LOL

I have to agree that short-term tax breaks won't change anything - direct cash subsidies to corporations or citizens would accomplish the same goal, but much more efficiently. Lowering tax and regulatory burdens for the long term is the only way Congress can positively effect the economy.

But make sure you don't believe for a second that Dashle's 'stand' is based on any principle besides a lust for political power. His ideas for 'stimulating' the economy not only do no better, they are likely to do harm by establishing even more endless expensive non-discretionary entitlements.

Congress is for sale, why not the Presidency?

Maybe some day, the American people may wake up and decide to take back their country.

talk about a downward spiral. this country is ****ed.

Luckily in this case Daschle and Co.'s obstructionist tactics may be for the better. The economy is already showing signs of recovery. We have a tax cut that will inject $70 billion into the economy next year which will help, as well as the delayed effect of several interest rate cuts. Passing a $60 billion stimulus bill is probably a waste at this point and would encourage deficit.

I'm glad the bill failed. We probably don't need it.

Daschle is different then Newt because he is unkown by most people who don't follow politics. I think this aspect makes him more dangerous simply because he does not inflame the average Joe. His influence is tremendous since he basically decides what bills/judicial appointments from the President will come up for a vote in the Senate. Yet most Americans simply don't realize that he can and *is* stalling almost anything the president and the House attempt to pass into law. Just as an example, both Bush Sr. and Clinton had 80% of their judicial posts filled by this time in their term. Bush Jr. has 20% of his posts filled thanks to Daschle.

Newt was also incredibly influential, but his brash style was eventually a big factor in his undoing. Daschle seems to be able to fly under the radar screens of most Americans, which is definately to his benefit.

Daschle seems concerned about providing unemployment benefits and health care for displaced workers. But since the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator, a fiscal stimulus may be a waste, as you said.

I'd want the benefits for myself and family not for my previous employer.

why is he doing it when the prez has such strong approval numbers?

Daschle is proving that going up against unprecedented approval numbers doesn't really matter when your adversary is a gentlemen. Now if Bush got on TV and explained to people the economics and strategy behind the Democrats actions people might get a little upset at Daschle and he would suffer.

But Bush isn't hard on anyone, he just pleads with them to pass the bill. Bush and the Republicans need to better articulate and motive a non-caring public if they want to get the job done. The tax cut was a home run, but most other issues will be boring and confusing the public. In these cases you *have* to use the bully pulpit to explain to people what is at stake and who is standing in the way.

Once he 100% blamed this recession on Bush, I just laughed. Like it hasn't been coming for 1.5 years now.

But then again, pretty much any politician will lie through his/her teeth, just to get re-elected. It's sad, but the only people who really WANT to deal with that crap are deceiptful crooks.

-B

How many companies and entrepeneurs can?

Give the money to the companies. Let them hire us. Then we won't need unemployment.

corporate america is not interested in using the money right now to hire people, but to patch up their bottom line so their stock doesn't drop out. I don't see the airlines hiring people with the money the govt. just dished out do you?

Money doesn't get allocated by the govt. to corporate america and then all the layoffs get undone.... it's not that magical.

IIt's not a 1:1 hiring recovery and what Daschle and others are after is to supply extended benefits to those laid off. Indications are that the economy is on the road to recovery anyhow. With that comes the natural balance of hiring people.

the line more carefully why don't you.

Business will always hire people if it will lead to productivity.

I say, lets follow your reasoning to the end and tax the corps that still have employees more, and give it to those laid off, because that would be the most efficient way of producing an economic recovery.

Better yet, lets give them jobs as parking police and raise the fines and tighten the restrictions because lord knows, that is the most effecient use of our corporate dollars (taxed of course.)

Yes lets do what the Bush clan would propose...
no nation building (dinged clinton for bosnia, but now we're doing it in Afganistan and soon Somalia)...
no raised taxes (yet the way the Bush is spending money we'll have to)...
smaller government (yet jr. is expanding it)
lets forget about civil liberties we don't need it as we're at war (thank you mr. ashcroft)
lets drill protected lands for an extra months worth of oil (thanks to Cheney's [mr. ex oil corp. ceo] grand energy policy that asks us to revisit coal and nuclear power)
lets put the country back in debt, pilfer social security and use the money to splurge on defense... even better worthless defense like a missle defense program. Won't work but it will make jr's friends rich.
blah
blah
blah...

what makes me laugh is that lemming conservatives out there think that this stimulus package is the end all. It's not.

You mock me and "liberals" (which I'm not ) but it might help if you open your eyes and question what is going on rather than running with the lemmings.

Oh and no I wasn't referring to welfare if you read up on current events one of the big hold up was on whether health benefits should be extended to those laid off and/or affected by 9/11. If the money were to go to corporations those people affected would still need to pick up the tab for health coverage and there's a limited time frame it's good for (i.e. cobra) then they're SOL and on their own.
If the purpose is to help those they claim then putting the money to corporations doesn't make sense especially after they passed the previous stimulus package.

The funny thing about this one point is that "liberals" get dinged for subsidizing social programs, but when it comes to the government subsidizing corporate america you don't hear the same people bitching. Odd isn't it?

I would have expected a little more reason if that is the case.

Whenever the government gets involved in reallocating anything it leads to huge wastes and inefficiencies but at the same time, I would not be so naive to think that giving corporations money will lead to hiring.

Rational entities, people and corporations, will seek to maximize value and this does not always mean hiring more people. You cannot solve problems by throwing money around.

See, I do agree with you.

Assuming that corporations will always hire more people if they have the money to do so comes straight from the pages of Marx. Sadly, in this economy, things just don't work that way. If big businesses get breaks, they'll generally throw them toward the already inflated salaries of their higher level execs in an attempt to make the company look "stronger." In terms of hiring up those that have been hard on luck? I don't think so. Like the rest of Bush's plans, this one will only help out those that don't need any help.

Increasing unemployment benefits would be the best thing we can do at this point in time, especially if we want to excite the economy a little bit more. I know people that have been out of jobs for coming up on six months due to this economy. These are people that were accustomed to popping bottles of Cristal and taking big-buck nights on the town, not the proletariat you perceive them to be.

One more thing, why is it that the hardcore conservatives (like you) think that everybody out of a job is inherently lazy? Can you not put yourself in their shoes for a moment and realize that times aren't as good for everybody as they are for you while you putter along in your leather-and-wood lined luxury vault sipping on a $5 mocha?

C'mon now, man.