Comments on: Shovel Ready!

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:25:00 +0000

Another good and interesting cartoon! Just because something is shovel ready, does not mean it is necessary today, if it ever was. Since states need money, then they will pull out every project that has been on the shelf for the past ten years, and call them shovel ready. For example school districts, whose enrolments have fallen and have empty school building will spend money on building class rooms that were needed ten years ago, just in case they ever need them in the future. That bridge in Alaska, is probably shovel ready to go. The rebuilding of the small Airport in Kennedy’s home town, is probably shovel ready. I am sure you can think of others.

By the way did anyone notice that in one of Obama’s speeches this stimulus package will save and create 4,000,000 jobs, but in this mornings statement it was only 3,000,000 million. There is also a big difference between creating jobs, and saving jobs. One is about no improvements in the job market and the other is about adding people to the employment rolls.

By: Don X

Don X — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:45:39 +0000

That is one expressive cartoon, Pat. Makes one want to hold one’s nose! However, the Obot is pinnng his re-election hopes on the success of this pile. Seems very naive and ill-advised. I agree that something needs to be done to stop the bleeding, the loss of jobs, the loss of property and the fall of the dominoes. Whether the house/senate committee can agree on some workable plan that will accomplish anything remains to be seen, but I share your pessimism. I think the devil is in the details. You can’t just put people to work building infrastructure or creating electronic medical records. Almost all these jobs require training. You can’t just hand people a shovel and tell them to go to work. Well, maybe you could if the job is cleaning the crap out of a barn or digging a ditch. No way are you going to put 4 million people to work right away. What is missing from anything I’ve seen are the details of how any plan can get people who have lost their jobs working again. A lot of people who have lost or are losing their jobs are well-trained in certain areas. Where are the jobs for them? Employers who let them go are not hiring, they’re firinig. Is it any wonder the Republicans are dragging their feet? When the Obot’s plan fails, they can blame him since they didn’t support it. The Obot doesn’t want to be perceived as fiddling while Rome burns, but his plan to douse the fire is about as realistic as throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire. This is one sad case of wishful thinking.

By: obamastolemyboyfriend

obamastolemyboyfriend — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:50:44 +0000

Anyone have a botswatter?

By: obamastolemyboyfriend

obamastolemyboyfriend — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:48:55 +0000

Not exactly. The Stilulusbimulus is full of crap that will not create jobs and not long term ones if it does. Or maybe just put schools where they don’t need them. We don’t need more Government jobs either. Save America, don’t fatten up the Government!

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:41:16 +0000

Thanks, Sam. Your posts are such clarity amongst the okey-dokes who don’t get it.

This MATTERS.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:34:46 +0000

Geithner and Obama say that the buying of toxic assets from the banks by the taxpayer will help to free up that credit.

I’m not sure I believe that, but it’s what the Obama administration is claiming will be the result of TARP II.

We’ll see, won’t we?

By: Sam Copeland

Sam Copeland — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:19:14 +0000

Well put Mary.

I also agreed with your other posts including the comment about the political consequences should this stimulus package fail. The stakes are high and we better get this right.

By: Clara Barton

Clara Barton — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:09:19 +0000

I’d like to know what good the two amendments added by the Senate (real estate tax credit or new auto purchase credit) will do for the economy when people can’t get loans to buy that house or pay for the car over time because the credit still isn’t flowing?

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:01:15 +0000

You don’t think golf carts and frisbee parks and shelters for prostitutes are pork?

I don’t think you’ve even read the original bill, BB.

You haven’t a clue what Pelosi et al porked into it before it was cleansed of same.

Hell, even Claire McCaskill and Diane Feinstein said it was “larded up” and they might not vote for it.

Not to worry, though. You can thank the Blue Dogs and the Republicans for cleansing the bill of the pork so you as a taxpayer wouldn’t get BAMBOOZLED.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:57:00 +0000

And with very little oversight, BB.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:54:44 +0000

But here’s the irony: for the $9.7 TRILLION we’ve already spent to bail out these banks, we could have paid every one of those mortgages for less.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:51:34 +0000

BRAVO, sir!

Indeed, the American taxpayer is being asked to GUARANTEE a certain value for the banks’ toxic assets, while the banks themselves have no idea what the value is, or will be. If they overvalue now, and the taxpyers buys at that value, the taxpayer takes the loss if and when the lower value is confirmed.

It’s quite similar to the way Fannie & Freddie operated in the boom years…..and the taxpayer got screwed.

By: Sam Copeland

Sam Copeland — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:50:59 +0000

You know BB, I have not said anything negative about you personally so why attack me personally?

Usually this means you don’t have a good argument.

Now for smart economic analysis, Paul Krugman has a NYT piece about the stimulus package. Basically, this Noble prize winner is saying it is not enough and directed in the wrong places. He also criticizes Obama for his lack of political leadership.

I happen to agree with Krugman.

Now, if you have a good argument for why Krugman is wrong, I am more than happy to listen.

If you want to engage in personal attacks, then that is something I don’t need and won’t respond to.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:44:43 +0000

I think you’re very naive, BB. Don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but that’s the bottom line.

If you total up all the different bailouts, including TARP I under Bush (endorsed by Obama), we’ve spent around $9.7 TRILLION.

Of that total, the only bill that helps the “little people” is TARP II—yet to be approved or passed—and ONLY with a mere $50 billion. All the rest in TARP II goes to Obama’s banker buddies.

$9.7 TRILLION for corporate bailouts, and only $50 billion for homeowners.

Its speaks volumes about who Obama is bailing out, and where his priorities are.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:38:39 +0000

Uh, no.

What you’ve GOT here is a whole lot of well-educated people with MBA’s in Economics who clearly understand Obama’s in over his head.

I didn’t hear a single Economic analysis in your post. Nothing rational or factual.

Just the usual Obots posting emotional gobbledegook.

Take that trash to Kos. He LIKES it.

We don’t.