More fall-out from rush to pass stimulus bill
Once more we see more fallout from the the ill-advised rush to produce a so-called stimulus bill.
When Congressman Russ Carnahan gave his “state of the District address” at the Affton firehouse, it was clear that he was absolutely clueless. He read a text that he obviously had not written, and apparently had never bothered to read. He was unable to answer any questions coherently, and the entire theme of his talk was that we might not know what we’re doing, but we’d better do it fast.
During Mr. Carnahan’s speech in Affton, one could actually see Nancy Pelosi’s lips moving and could marvel at how she manipulated his strings.
Now Carnahan rushes to the microphone to get in line to decry the evil AIG management that paid out bonuses, and to cosponsor a bill to try to impose a 90% tax on them. The problem is, he voted for the provision in a bill that just had to be rushed through before the public could get wind of what it conatained.
Senator Chris Dodd, who inserted the language specifically allowing the bonus payments (and the biggest recipient of AIG campaign funds, slightly ahead of Barack Obama), first denied knowledge of the provision, then claimed that he never understood that it would actually allow for AIG bonus payments. Treasury Secretary Geithner, who claims to have known nothing before this week, suddenly appears on video tape answering comnittee questions about the upcoming payments nearly three weeks ago.
These actions represent everything that many Americans find reprehensible about Congress and the government in general.
We in Missouri can do nothing about Mr. Dodd. Maybe the good citizens of Connecticut will fire him when he runs for a sixth term next year. In the meantime, we have the opportunity to throw Mr. Carnahan out on the curb next year. We should not miss the chance to do so.
Bob Byrne
St. Louis
This really struck me…
“The folks in the blogosphere largely cheerleading the Tea Parties are the same folks in the blogosphere who cheerleaded the war in Iraq. So apparently, government intervention to the tune of $650 Billion is okay to spend when it comes to an unnecessary war that in no way advances American interests, but not okay when it comes to building bridges, cutting taxes, helping state governments meet budget shortfalls, or making sure that Americans don’t get covered in lava. Gotcha.”
Bobby Jindahl, stand up and be recognized…
…good news for the administration.
Despite the middling reviews for his handling of the bonuses, however, the president continues to get high marks overall for his job performance and his handling of the economy.
Forty-two percent of those surveyed disapprove of the president’s handling of the AIG bonuses, while roughly the same percentage — 41 percent — approve. Another 17 percent don’t know or aren’t sure.
Yet President Obama’s overall job performance rating appears unaffected by the AIG fallout. Sixty-four percent approve of the president’s performance, roughly the same as last week.
And ratings for the president’s handling of the overall economy are actually up slightly: Sixty-one percent now approve, up from 56 percent last week.
The CBS News poll suggests there’s a reasonable explanation for the seemingly contradictory results: Americans disapprove of the AIG bonuses, and would have liked to see the administration block them, but voters don’t hold the administration responsible for the payments.
The same poll found that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, despite a week of fairly intense criticism, still fares relatively well with the public, with a majority (54%) expressing some level of confidence in Geithner. The results, though, showed a considerable partisan divide — Democrats back Geithner (69% have confidence in him), Republicans don’t (35% have confidence), and Independents are closer to the poll’s top line (51%).
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017422.php
and lest we forget, when passing the TARP bill, President George W. Bush stripped a provision from it prohibiting bonuses for banking executives…
magnum
Let us talk about the conservatives successes.
You say “Obama just about killed the stock market. It did rebound a little yesterday” YES LET US FORGET ABOUT THE 6000 POINT DROP DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
You say “Obama wants to seize some firms.”. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRMS YOU GUYS RAN INTO THE GROUND
You say “Obama wants Cap and Trade to take more money out of our pockets because of a left wing liberal friggin’ HOAX. Global warming.” IF THIS IS A HOAX THEN THE REST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR CHINA AND INDIA IS BUYING INTO IT. OF COURSE YOU CLOSED MIND CONSERVATIVES ARE SIDING WITH THE COMMUNIST ON THIS ONE.
You say “Obama wants the upper 2% of tax payers to pay for the other 98% of the country. Won’t work and you know it.” EVERY TIME YOU START THIS CRP YOUR NUMBERS GET SMALLER AND SMALLER SOON IT WILL BE DOWN TO THE TOP 1%, YET TAX RATES WOULD GO BACK TO A LOWER RATE THAN DURING REAGAN
You say “Obama wants to increase the welfare state, for the lazy liberals.” IF THIS HAPPENS IT WILL BE BECAUSE YOU CONSERVATIVES HAVE DRIVEN THE CORPORATIONS INTO THE GROUND
You say “Obama wants unfettered abortions, including infaticide.” YEP THE SUPREME COURT DESCISION ROE V WADE WAS OBAMA, CUT THE ABORTIONS IN HALF TELL THE CONSERVATIVES GETTING THEM TO STOP
You said “Obama said NO earmarks in budgets. Lie, 8700 of them.” HE CANNOT VETO EARMARKS TELL MCCORMACK, REPUB SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, TO GET HIS LEADING NUMBER OF EARMARKS OUT OR LINDSEY GRAHAM, REPUB SENATOR FOR SOUTCH CAROLINA, TO GET HIS 35 EARMARKS OUT. THEY SHOULD EITHER GET THEM OUT OR STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF EARMARKS.
You Conservatives are pathetic on your best day.
Bob, Let’s say it’s 25% of the top earners instead of 2%. You’re OK with that? Why should taxes not be spread across the entire board? Unless you believe one day we should all get everything for free and none of us should have to work, then why shouldn’t everyone pay something in?
SoCo
Lets start with $27,000. This was a number given to me by a conservative who was advocating the flat tax. According to him a family of four buying just the essentials, we are not talking about a tv or cable etc just essentitals, they need $27,000.
This $27000 is funny because the poverty level today is about $22,000 and minimum wage for working 2000 hours a year would bring you $14,000. So someone can be above the poverty level and still not be able to afford essentials. I am assuming the essentials include minimum transportation, i.e. enough transport to get to and from work and the kids get to school and transport to get to and from the store.
So if someone with a family of 4 is making $27,000 how much should they pay and then how do they obtain the essentials? Someone making between say $27,000 and $35,000 do not have much room for error. How much tax should these people pay? Someone making $30,000 a year can only pay $3,000 before they can only afford the essentials.
The funny thing is that these are the people that because of the hard times need the food stamps and unemployment insurance and help with housing. Yet these are also the people you hear conservatives talking about being a drain on society and feeding off of the the government.
D.Sims,
Building Bridges to nowhere? Democrates have NEVER cut taxes. How about states learning to work within the confines of their budgets. Does it not make you wonder that the 3 states most heavily in debt are California (40+ Billion) Illinois (11 Billion) and New York. These states have been run by Democrats for how long? And you lost me on the Lava thing.
Bob
You may educated with books, but you are a complete dips**t. Answer the mans questions and stop with the crap. Yeah baby, twist them words.
slim
I would rather be what you just called me than what you are, which is something so low that they have yet to find a word disgusting enough to describe what you are.
I did answer the question if $27,000 is needed, as described by a conservative, how much taxes can they pay before they cannot buy essentials. You evidently believe you are a math wizard so tell us how much can they pay?
Bob
You need to remember when the market started to drop. After the dems took control of congress.
So you are ok with Obama being a Chavez wanna be, and start seizing cpmpanies. How about he seize the oil companies, all the utility companies and anything else his corrupt heart desires?
The earth has been COOLING since 1998. Yes, it’s a friggin’ HOAX.
2% is your Messiah’s percentage. Ok, just as SoCoBoy asks, the top 25%. By taxing the top 25% more, how in the freakin’ world, can they support the other 75%?
The Obama welfare state, is his socialistic desire to control everything we do, and dictate how much money any person is able to make.
Yes Bob, unfettered abortions here and around the world. We should not be paying for it!!!
He cannot veto earmarks is correct, but by god, he can VETO the damn bill until the earmarks are taken out.
Bob you and your liberals, are the pathetic ones, every day.