Quick; hurry up and spend someone else's money

On Feb 10th 2009 the house voted 100% (not counting no-votes) to allow a 48 hour breathing period for supplemental appropriations (the stimulus bill) in order to give the public a chance to read/understand and voice back on bills [11]. At 10pm on Thursday Feb 12th, the final stimulus package was made available to the public via their website in PDF format [13]. At 2:24pm the next day on 2/13/09, congress started voting, resulting in a 246/183 final tally in favor of the stimulus package; this was done without a single Republican vote and 7 descending Democrats [12].

The average American adult reads prose text at 250 words per minute [1]. The average acceptable words per page is 250 [2]. The latest Stimulus bill is 1,073 pages [3]. This means that it would take ruffly 18 hours of non-stop reading to read the latest Stimulus package. Now lets factor in that this isn't a romance novel, but instead very dry reading with lots of facts and a lot of handwritten notes in the margin [4]. Lets be extremely nice and say even with their vastly superior intelect compared to me, it would take on average 1 minute 30 seconds per page to read the stimulus bill; resulting in ruffly 27 hours of reading time. Now lets factor in 12 hours days, with a 45 minute lunch break, with 4 bathroom breaks of 8 minutes each during the day. Now the bill takes a hair over 3 days to read if it's the only thing you do and you remain completely devoted.

So not only did Congress break their promise to us [again] and not give the public a chance to view this MASSIVE spending bill, but not a single person who voted for this bill could have ever read it. Not a single one even tried to lay claim that they had tried.

Now lets read what President Obama said on November 25th 2008

"In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative, We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges.... We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way. [5]"

Now, not only has President Obama broken his promise to us, but now he is going to sign a bill that he hasn't even read. Is this not a far cry from the change we were told we should expect and the "line by line" we were promised?

During weeks of fear mongering [6][7][8] by our President we are told that if we don't act now and if we don't pass this "stimulus" today, our economy may never ever recover [6]. Of course after it was passed we now have all the time in the world. Matter of fact, why don't we take an extremely expensive weekend trip to Chicago after chiding private companies of doing so [14], to have dinner at a nice restaurant (Table Fifty-Two) [10]. Where one of the co-owners is an ex-personal chef of Oprah and the other is a a large campaign contributor to Obama who was also recently pardoned for deception and forgery by the President's friend Blagojevich hours before being impeached [9]. I guess it wasn't the end of the world after all and we can wait until Tuesday before the bill is signed into law [15]!

Of course this makes me ponder, would it not also make more sense for the economy & environment saving superhero President to just sign the bill in Washington DC? Why is he flying his massive and expensive private plane and spending 10's of thousands on security to go to Denver? Afterall, I hear we are not only just moments away from ending human's time on earth [17], but also in the worst economic times since 1980's, or is it 1970's, no it must be the 1930's now? I can't keep track it keeps changing; as do the facts about each of our past economic depressions...

Here is a SMALL taste of whats in this bill that I can't wait for to kick in. I'm not even going to touch the Digital Health Care Records portion, the new government agency and steps towards socialized healthcare [16], thats a post all on it's own.

$125 billion for public education including $20 billion for school renovations and $79 billion to avoid education related layoffs
I would be more in favor of this one if it wasn't be wasted, misguided and if it wasn't in a stimulus bill. You should check out how some of this money us being spent.... wow...
$27 billion to continue unemployment insurance benefits
Instead of helping companies create more jobs, lets just help people live longer without them
$8 billion for renewable energies
This will be worse money spent than a hybrid car that you have to drive for 18 years just to break even with the comparable gas vehicle.
$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings
This one is going to let me hire another employee for my shop.
$6 billion for mass transit
You know, for things like monorails between LA and Las Vegas that require 5 more years of environmental impact study before it can even be approved.
$4 billion for community activist programs such as ACORN
I believe this is a specific ear mark and special thanks from the President himself
$650 million for coupons for digital TV conversions
$400 million for global warming research
WTF, do I need to even say anything on this
$335 million for STD prevention
This is an economic stimulus package right? Not a grab bag of goodies?
$50 million for National Endowment of the Arts
The Republican senator responsible for this should be dragged through the streets.

Lets not forget that to avoid one of the ticks of the official ear mark red tag of death. Much of this money is just being given to these groups with no strings and no instructions and certainly not much in the line of restrictions. Also, isn't saying that this bill will either make or save 40million jobs the same as saying this will either work or it won't? I'm slightly confused by the save jobs portion of this statement in regards to it's ties to reality and all things measurable.

[1] Wikipedia.org
[2] Google Answers
[3] NY Times
[4] ABC News
[5] Change.gov or US Budget Watch (change.gov tends to delete things when they can't follow through)
[6] Morning Call
[7] Huffington Post
[8] Free Colorado
[9] Now Public
[10] Sun Times
[11] House.gov - Roll Call 54
[12] House.gov - Roll Call 70
[13] CNN - Jack Cafferty Op-Ed
[14] Review Journal
[15] BizJournals.com
[16] SC Magazine US
[13] Washington Post

Comments

choke wrote on 02/17/09 3:07 PM

This is fine and dandy, as long as you get equally pissed off at the 600 Billion and counting being spent on a pointless war in Iraq.

Brian Rinaldi wrote on 02/17/09 3:32 PM

@choke - nevermind the useless and expensive war. how about the trillions in tax cuts from Republicans that got us into this mess (and clearly failed to do anything to help the economy) or the trillions more that said they would have preferred over this stimulus even though economists have said that tax cuts make for bad stimulus. Clearly though, Russell isn't concerned with issues of logic when they differ from his political bent which sounds as though he copies and pastes it from Rush Limbaugh and wastes all our time with it.

trini wrote on 02/17/09 3:40 PM

Man I thought this type of banana politics only existed in BANANA Republics or third world countries as you guys like to call them...

Your thoughts on bipartisanship was devoid of merit and just had me in stitches (LOL), now you continue to spew out more of your GOP crap. For example the 24 hour to read the bill is absolute nonsense, the bill was before the house/senate for more than two weeks this is not a new bill it is changes to the the same old bill so if you were not reading the bill before then shame on you in fact who ever read these bills anyway. I

If there is a travesty here it is because of the lack of use of technology by the gop to find the differences!!! No wonder they lost the election so easily to the new KID.

When compared to the last 8years 1 month hardly enough time even begin even starting to talk about broken promises or anything for that matter.

Russell Brown wrote on 02/17/09 3:44 PM

@Brian: Fact check, tax cuts did no get us in this mess. There were lots of factors involved in getting us here that started long before Bush, however Bush's terms in office certainly did nothing but help dig the whole deeper.

Your the one that sounds like your just copy-n-pasting CNN talking about those economists that CNN keeps mentioning. You'll find it pretty hard to find a true economist that says this spending bill will do squat to help.

I find it odd that you question my bend on logic and facts, when that is all I used. I tried very hard to stay on track with nothing but. All your doing is completely avoiding the subject I bring up by trying to talk about something not even in my post.

I think most of us conservatives would be fine and dandy with a stimulus package, that was made up of multiple differing parts. That's just not what we were given, instead this is just a barrel of pork. I'm guessing about 60% of this bill could be cut and it would have just as much effect on the economy as a whole..

Russell Brown wrote on 02/17/09 3:49 PM

The travesty is that the only reason this bill was pushed through so fast was because a higher percentage of voters were against it than it took to elect Obama as President. The longer this sat and stewed, the higher the likely hood was that the bill was going to need to be redrafted and some of the ear marks were going to be erased!

Jared wrote on 02/17/09 4:11 PM

It is sad that you guys attack Russell on his politics but ignore the message. The point is our grandchildren just got handed a bill to pay $335 million for STD prevention? Don't have unprotected sex with strangers!

$650 million for Digital TV, what people can't survive if their analog TV shuts off?!

Anyone who took Econ 101 in school knows half of this stuff will do nothing to improve the economy. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican you have to know deep down that this 'stimulus' is a bunch of crap.

Damon Gentry wrote on 02/17/09 4:14 PM

Wow. Remember when the Patriot Act was enacted? The Bush Administration told us that we had to do it now, now now! Remember when Bush requested authorization to invade Iraq? We must do it now, now, now!

So, today we have the 'administration of change', constantly telling us that we need to leave behind the 'failed politics of the last 8 years'. And what do we get? The Stimulus Bill. We must pass it now, now, now!

Whether right, or left, you have to admit that it is pretty ironic that President Obama is playing the same, tired, old, 3 card-monty-game that he accused Bush of playing.

Oh, and one link for humor: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Socialism-Explained.htm

Jared wrote on 02/17/09 4:18 PM

@Nute: Lots of bloggers on coldfusionbloggers.org post non-CF related items on their blogs. Do you want them all removed? Did you want Ray Camden's blog removed because he posts about something Star Wars related? Or do you just want the ones that you disagree with removed?

Don't be afraid of dissenting opinions, it is what makes freedom flourish. When we all start to think, talk, and act alike that is when you should really be worried!

Jeff wrote on 02/17/09 4:21 PM

Hope. Change. More of the Same.

"Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

This shouldn't be about R vs D. Liberal vs Conservative. Where you are for or against the stimulus where is the harm in giving everyone time to read the bill? I've always thought that legislators should be required to sign an sworn affidavit that they have read a bill before being allowed to vote on it.

Personally, I think this stimulus is bad policy, I think the war in Iraq is bad policy and I think that the tax cuts Bush pushed through way back when are bad policy.

No wonder our country is going to hell in a fiscal hand basket, neither our citizens nor our politicians understand the simple statement, "Spend less than you earn". The only time we've made any progress in the past 30 years is when Clinton and the Gingrich Republicans declared war with each other that resulted in gridlock.

Russell Brown wrote on 02/17/09 4:35 PM

@Jared, sorry I deleted Nute's posts, he posted the same thing about 4-5 times...

Brian Rinaldi wrote on 02/17/09 4:40 PM

I think its funny that someone clearly coming from the point of view of a party that celebrated a plumber so quickly dismisses economists as if the training and expertise were somehow a reason to distrust them. So how do you get your amazing understanding of the economy if you so quickly dismiss economics?

But hey, you seem to think that $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts the primarily benefited the wealthy and had at best a nominal benefit to the economy (and that is being generous) and $1 trillion dollars on Iraq are so easily dismissed. So clearly you have a warped view of economics.

I am not blaming Bush for the entire mess and my comment didn't say as much (though I do think a large chunk of blame surely does fall on his lap). I just think the sudden fiscal conservatism of the Republican party is a fraud given their spendthrift ways (which clearly did little to help anything) over the past 8 years. Its all posturing.

These economists all say that the economy will be jumpstarted by spending and in the absence of public ad private spending it has to be government that steps in. Besides the New Deal policies of FDR, it was a great government spending program called WWII that got us out of the Great Depression. The estimates are that our GDP shortfall is about $2 to 3 Trillion over the next three years, so $800 Billion doesn't even put a dent in that. Most economists (i.e. those who actually have studied the economy) don't even think this stimulus is enough.

Japan's slump similar to this has gone on over 10 years. How about leaving your kids that kind of mess? But hey, you are clearly offering a better solution...oh wait...no you didn't offer one...but please let's acknowledge that by listening to Rush Limbaugh you have a better understanding of economics than an economist.

Give me a break.

Jeff wrote on 02/17/09 4:48 PM

"I am not blaming Bush for the entire mess and my comment didn't say as much (though I do think a large chunk of blame surely does fall on his lap). I just think the sudden fiscal conservatism of the Republican party is a fraud given their spendthrift ways (which clearly did little to help anything) over the past 8 years. Its all posturing."
------------------------
AMEN TO THAT!

It's amazing how the instant a party gets into power their views on fiscal conservation go right out the window. It happened as soon as Bush took office for the Republicans and it's happened as soon as Obama took office for the Democrats.

This is really an issue that crosses party lines. The only thing either side truly cares about is getting and keeping power. They could care less about the crippling debt burden we are placing on our kids and grand kids.

trini wrote on 02/17/09 5:57 PM

A trillion dollar war, a lack of proper financial regulation and the doubling of the national debt in 8 years.

NOW you begin to worry about the burden we are going to leave our children man that is so much crud it is not even funny... You people buy media the bull wholesale.

The national schools are in a mess if I had my way i would spend most of the stimulus on education the children are not an excuse they are the future. Education in the US is in a MESS...

@jared Econ 101: What is your suggestion less taxes, the bill shows one of balance taxes 3+ trillion Spending on infacstructure 4+ ... The best econs have said it would take a bit of both (taxes and spending)

Lemme break it down... a beggar ask you for help, and your yard needs a cleaning you would most likely give him the money to clean you yard... he gets paid you get you yard clean, he needs the money to buy food so he spends it immediately... COMMON SENSE...

The REPS, tell the beggar to pull himself by his boot strap... Don't clean the yard wasteful spending, give the money to some rich dude to sit and wait for it to trickle down... ECON101

@Russel: You are a developer so you understand what it means to implement any projects and what it takes to meet your deliverables on any project, why the hating...

Mike Rankin wrote on 02/17/09 6:21 PM

Hey Brian,

Have you seen WALL*E from Disney? You're comments make me think of a quote from that movie where the little security robot is cruising down the hallway when the yellow line swerves off into a closet. The quote goes something like this:

"Wrong."

So when you refer to "these economists", are you referring to a handpicked group of keynsian/marxist economists?

Here are at least a few economists that think the stimulus bill (or porkulus bill or Generational Theft Bill of 2009) is not in the best interest of Americans.

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Here's the back story published 2 weeks ago:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/28/economists-against-the-stimulus/

What the heck are you talking about when you say a better solution was not offered? I guess you weren't paying attention when none other than John McCain offered a $450 billion dollar alternative that was quickly dismissed by the Democrats.

I think part of the reason that people have not been outraged by this bill (and others including the Republican TARP bill) is that the numbers are just too big to comprehend. It doesn't feel like there is a difference between 400 billion and 600 billion. It's just numbers. Maybe if we spoke about what the bill will be to every man/woman and child in the country, that would put it into perspective.

So that's 787billion / 360 million Americans or roughly $2,186.11. So if you're married and have 2 kids, that's $8,744.44. That is, of course, in addition to your regular tax bill since this is extraordinary spending.

So if you think this bill is a good idea, get out your freaking checkbook. Send your check here: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html.

Jared wrote on 02/18/09 8:59 AM

@Mike, it was not just McCain with an alternative plan. See the article below where a Democrat Congressman offered an alternative bill with $170 billion in pure stimulus. Gee, are you shocked that it barely made the news? No, they would rather spend money that we don't even have on things we don't need that will keep them in power.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Blue-Dog-nips-Obama-with-a-better-stimulus-idea-39358182.html

trini wrote on 02/18/09 9:06 AM

@Jared are any of the plans available online to read (mccain / the 170billion)...
What part of the problem do you think these could seriously address...

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 9:11 AM

@trini: The part where we waste billions of dollars on programs that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

I liked McCain's proposal. He had a poison pill in his, so that if the economy recovered they could cut off spending and hopefully spend even less money.

Nobama's the big ZERO wrote on 02/18/09 9:13 AM

We're all socialists now !!! I'm waiting for all of the "0's" (not the 1 as some of you think he is) carbon taxes to kick in, boy if we're not sunk by then we sure will be. Obama - poster boy for the New World Order. Oh and by the way since election day the DOW has only gone down 18.97% - what does that translate out to over the next four years? How do you spell Obama - FAILURE !!!

Nute wrote on 02/18/09 10:36 AM

@Jared. In no way do I wish Russell to be censored. What I do wish is for him to be filtered. I don't want to read coldfusionbloggers.org and find a multitude of posts about politics or star wars. I would never introduce a newbie to coldfusionbloggers.org. This site is a PERSONAL blog, which is fine...just keep it out of coldfusionbloggers. It's the equivalent of spamming as far as I'm concerned.

If everyone cares about 'the dead of coldfuson' as they say they do, then keep on track.

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 10:43 AM

I think I have 3 posts on politics in the last year and a large number of on topic conversations that are very helpful to most people. If you don't like it, then don't click on the link. If I could filter my posts to the tech blogs that use my RSS feed I would, but right now it doesn't work that way. This is a blog, and everyone else posts their personal pieces.

You might not find this relevant, but this information is pretty important to anyone in the tech world. WE are on the list of people the government considers too "rich" and WE are going to soon be targeted for wealth redistribution. And WE will certainly be the ones who pay for this "stimulus" package with our tax dollars!

trini wrote on 02/18/09 10:51 AM

@Russell
Why cant you filter your feeds???

I will ask again where are the links to the MCCain stimulus plan or any of the others?????

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 10:58 AM

I can't seem to find links to the bills in their entirety. If you do some Google searches for [John McCain Alternative Stimulus] you can find lots of info. Also McCain was on Hannity's radio show on 2/3/09 I believe where he went into some good details on his plan, including talking about the poison pill. I'm not sure where on house.gov or senate.gov you could find proposed bills that didn't make it to vote.

Why can't I filter my feeds? Well I guess I would have to write handlers to detect WHO was getting my feed are create out going filters... For the handful of non-tech posts I make why bother. I don't make any more than anyone else...

trini wrote on 02/18/09 11:30 AM

Hmmm.. You cannot "seem" to find them, have you read any of these in their entirety??? How can I come to an informed decision if I cannot read them... If a couple of google searches, and Mccain on Hannity's show is all it took for you to come to such a strong decision then Obama met and surpassed your requirements...

About "wealth redistribution"... Is this when you take from the rich and give to the poor??? So wont say the REPS engaged in "poverty redistribution" by taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy, and poverty redistribution is ok!!!

I don't use CF but I could this in less that five lines in php by filtering out politics category!!!!??? Thing is you are using these feeds to get your point across, and I don't mind that, I hate the propaganda that you are spewing though and don't make silly excuses about it...

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 11:37 AM

No I have not read them in their entirety, but I'm guessing I know WAY more about them then you know about the stimulus plan you support!

There is no such thing as poverty redistribution. The government doesn't even collect taxes from poor people and last time I checked capitalism doesn't qualify!

(btw, maybe I don't want to filter my posts!)

Nute wrote on 02/18/09 11:42 AM

He knows how to do it. I've msg'd him many times on how. He keeps censoring my posts though. Oh well, just another useless blog.

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 11:53 AM

I'm not censoring your post you keep spamming the same shit over and over again. Give it a rest.

Jared wrote on 02/18/09 12:10 PM

As far as I know Coldfusionbloggers does not do any category filtering. It just grabs all of the posts from a blog and displays them by date. Russell does not own that site, so he can't write code there to filter blog posts.

Like he said, even if he could filter why would he want to? Almost every blog I read, (technical or not) is considered personal and contains at least a little personal interests.

What are you scared of? Being challenged in your beliefs? Use your brain to think, not just picking a side then sticking with out no matter what the logic!

At what point does one person's opinion on his own blog become propaganda trini? We live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech. No one forced you to click on his blog. Do you read every single blog entry from an aggregator? Of course not. Seriously, if you find a political story on a technical blog so upsetting I would suggest getting off the Internet and just reading technical blogs.

You should not be scared of Russell's opinion. None of you responding have made a valid argument that STD prevention is good for the economy. You just attack him on his politics, or point to the fact that Bush was bad. I want to hear both sides of every story, and then use my brain to decide what is best. I want to hear your valid points on why this stimulus is good, just don't be afraid to hear the other sides.

trini wrote on 02/18/09 1:00 PM

"Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda)"

@jared My point is!!! when you don't know what you are talking about don't act like you do!!! this blog is also on ADOBE FEEDS... and I know for sure that the user can filter the feed on their side... Don't make silly excuses, when you know that you are using these feeds to promote your blog you are free to do so but do not make silly excuses like you cannot filter your feeds....

@RUSSEL OK... lets degrade this into a discussion about how much more You know than me, sounds very familiar Mc Cain oopsss...

Funny 5 years ago there was no such thing as a blog!!! Maybe there should be such a thing as poverty redistribution because that is what is going on right now... and Why do you say poor with such a tone of disdain, arent they people too.

Anyways.. you are half right a poor person does not file for income income taxes... so he cannot write of the taxes he of she pays on cars, goods, appliances as a business taxes or work related for that matter.

Your don't have much of an argument here, and maybe you think it is ok too pollute the blogs sphere with mindless dribble as far as I can see you cannot provide any factual information only, just one sided views and opinions... when you can i will respond until then good luck...

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 1:18 PM

"as I can see you cannot provide any factual information"

Are you reading the same blog post that I wrote above? Considering your liberal slant/propaganda, your anger, disdain and lack of topical discussion shouldn't confuse or surprise me. But it does nonetheless!

"Why do you say poor with such a tone of disdain, arent they people too."

Having grown up dirt-poor, yes you are imagining things!

Nickelback wrote on 02/18/09 7:06 PM

A search for 'std cost' on google returns a few results, including.

1) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3601104.html
2) http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/13/std.report.cdc/

Looks like Health care for STDs cost us 15.3 bilion annually. I'm guessing that's why STD prevention is in the stimulous package. The idea being if we spend more in education, we will spend less in Health Care.

the wrote on 02/18/09 7:34 PM

If you grew up dirt-poor, then you grew up on my money. Lower tax rates, government handouts. Can I have it back now that you have some?

Russell Brown wrote on 02/18/09 9:17 PM

Growing up dirt poor does not mean I grew up on your money. My parents were never on any government assistance of any shape for form. My dad was always self employed because he couldn't get a job working for someone else that payed enough.

So he busted his balls and now owns a successful construction business as well as being my partner in a motorcycle custom paint shop.

My mom was stay at home and my father through hard work was able to do great things. Personally I see too many people looking for handouts that are not willing to work harder for anything else. There of course still is a solid percentage of people who are on and off welfare just long enough to get back on their feet.

But now we are extremely far off topic.

BTW: Until you do something to earn it, no you can't have a dime of my money!

Nickelback wrote on 02/18/09 11:00 PM

"BTW: Until you do something to earn it, no you can't have a dime of my money!"

Ahhh...I think he wants his money back that he feels you took from him when you were 'dirt-poor'. Most peoples definition of 'dirt-poor' would mean 'someone who makes next to nothing and needs help from outside sources.'

The whole problem is you are getting mad and not thinking your ideas through, or the ideas of others. The times you do are sullied by all the times you don't.

Take this for instance...

"Of course after it was passed we now have all the time in the world. Matter of fact, why don't we take an extremely expensive weekend trip to Chicago after chiding private companies of doing so [14], to have dinner at a nice restaurant (Table Fifty-Two) [10]."

The problem here is you are comparing Apples to oranges. According to your source, and every other news media outlet. "...Obama slammed bailout-taking bankers for planning a get-together at a swanky Las Vegas resort" He is not slamming private companies that have made their own money and wish to spend it foolishly. He is slamming the private companies that cannot effectively run their own business and then come begging to the government for YOUR tax dollars to bail them out. That's definitely something to be mad about.

You then compare a corporate get-together costing millions, by CEO's asking taxpayers for billions, to a night out at a very expensive restaurant for a family of four. The problem with this logic is Obama has plenty of his own money and could easily pay for it himself, though I'd be willing to bet he got the dinner for free. You are assuming your tax dollars went to pay for the dinner, the article you reference does not say, so we may never know. Or maybe your issue is that he used Air Force One to get there, do you really think he is the first president to use Air Force One for a private get-away? Should President's NOT use Air Force One in this manner? If not, then what should they use?

"Of course after it was passed we now have all the time in the world." Actually Obama has been pretty busy his first 1.5 months in office. A few days off in 1.5 months doesn't sound to bad to me.

So simply calm down, present your arguments clearly and people will listen. Until then they will just shoot bullets through it all.

Jeff wrote on 02/19/09 8:41 AM

Nickleback, a few points to consider....

Any time the President travels he has to have SS on the ground in advance to handle security. So, travel costs for those guys. He also flies a 747 which isn't exactly fuel efficient. That gas costs money, flight time causes maintenance needs. Now, the airport he lands at has to block off time so his plane is the only one landing which pushes costs and delays onto everyone traveling or meeting someone that has traveled that day. Then there is the motorcade that he uses, police escorts, interstate closings along the travel route, etc all of which cost direct money (cars, gas, police man power) in addition to costs pushed onto those stuck in traffic burning their cars gas waiting for the President to leave. Now, repeat it all for when he leaves! These are not free! Sure, some costs are fixed and will be incurred regardless of how much he travels (capital cost of Air Force One, the cost of it's crew, maintenance staff, etc) but to say the President zooming around the country doesn't cost anything is really pretty amazing.

Sure, he's not the first President to use AF1 for his personal playground. So? Does that mean in these extraordinary times in which we are supposed to be getting our fiscal house in order he should be taking trips to his hometown for fun? Or flying to CO and AZ to conduct business that could be done in DC? That's OUR money he's burning through, well really our kids and our grandkids, but that's another story! LOL! Not really, I think we need a COL (crying out loud). :(

Nickelback wrote on 02/19/09 10:43 AM

Who said it didn't cost us anything? Please point out where it says that. You've proven my point. Please read and understand what the poster is saying before writing. What I asked was what else should a president do? Is there anyway a president can travel that would not incur costs? Or should the president never leave the White House?

Russell Brown wrote on 02/19/09 10:49 AM

He should absolutely leave the white house and I expect him to... But maybe he should limit needless travel. My problem comes from his more do as I say, not as I do mentality (along with seemingly half his preferred cabinet choices). This was a campaign stop and I don't like it no matter who is President.

Which is why (alongst numerous other reasons) that I'm in favor of 6 year election runs with no re-elections!

Nickelback wrote on 02/19/09 11:13 AM

@Russell - as stated above, I do not see where he violated the 'do as I say' rule, at least not from your examples. Unless you feel the president should never use AFO for personal reasons that is. I personally think that's fine, as long as it's not abused. I guess the difference is you feel that it is, fair enough.

You do ring of a person who hates the current president, rather than someone who hates his policies. You seem to be reaching for reasons to hate him.

So how about the articles above them? If STD proventipn cansave us money down the road, is it ok to be in the package then?

Russell Brown wrote on 02/19/09 11:23 AM

@Nickelback - Considering that ALL of my posts anywhere lack any of the vial language used by the majority of the left for the last 12 years towards G. Bush I find it odd that you say this. I'm sure the President is a nice guy and I bet we would even get along. I however strongly disagree with what his vision of America is. I don't just disagree with what he wants to do, but who he thinks we should be and operate as a Country.

In reference to the STD package: No I think that even if the above number was double what was stated that it still has no business whatsoever being in a stimulus package. No matter how you try to slant the argument, it will never result in STIMULUS. There for it belongs in it's own bill. This is not Santa's Christmas bag!

Also note: This view point is coming from someone who directly benefits from the STD package being passed. My wife is an Event coordinator for the AIDS Council; her hours and pay have been reduced due to lack of funds. So even though this package will still put a few more dollars in my pocket, I'm one of the FEW and my small gain is not worth the expense to the rest of the country!

Jeff wrote on 02/19/09 11:47 AM

Nickelback,

This country is $11 trillion in debt (if you ignored SS/Medicaid liabilities) and is fixing to take that up to $12-13 trillion. Yes, I'm saying that the President shouldn't be using AF1 to fly to Chicago for dinner. I'll also say he shouldn't be using AF1 to fly to Denver to give sign a bill he could sign from his desk in the White House. It's a WASTE OF MONEY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE!

I'm not against Obama taking a family vacation once or twice a year on AF1. I understand you need to get away. Great, go for it. That's the price we have to pay. Jet setting around the country however is not a price we have to pay. That costs real money that we do not have.

Just as bank executives and auto executives need to learn to drive or fly commercial, the President needs to learn to do without some travel. Camp David is a short helicopter ride away if he needs to get away. We have to stop spending money we don't have!

It's not an R thing, or a D thing, it's a money thing and cash transcends party lines.

Nickelback wrote on 02/19/09 12:45 PM

@Russell - OK, well said, thanks for hosting. :)

@jeff - OK as well. :)

trini wrote on 02/19/09 8:34 PM

The president of the US makes less than $500,000 dollars a year and that is a crying shame, Comparing him to persons whose bonuses alone are a lot more that his salary is a even worse and again you fail to recognize that the Presidents point is that you people are coming to the taxpayer to ask for bonuses then going back and firing them while using the money to fund useless junkets.

He has no problem if they were doing it with their company's money thats who they work for, the president works for the American people.

To be honest most of the business execs would consider a job in the us senate an insult and because of the significant pay cuts and when they do the lure of bribes always gets the better of them...

"You do ring of a person who hates the current president, rather than someone who hates his policies. You seem to be reaching for reasons to hate him."

Well said...

The problem is that it is the hate that is at the base of your articles, you do not want to deal with the facts!!!!

To serve as an American President should be honour whether you are a republican or democrat white or black, do not dishonor the office to dishonor the man....

BTW. I realize you deleted my last post I kept this one just in case!!!

trini wrote on 02/19/09 8:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Salary

"Traditionally, the President is the highest-paid public employee. President Obama currently earns $400,000 per year, along with a $50,000 expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[9] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001; prior to the change, the President earned $200,000, plus expense accounts."

...

Russell Brown wrote on 02/19/09 8:56 PM

Want hate? Go read the comments on CNN from all your liberal friends who are supposedly all more tolerant, diversified and smarter than me.

You can hide behind all the name calling and accusatory comments you want; it doesn't change the fact that not a single person here can defend this spending bill to any degree. Your so busy trying to piss on my boots that you don't realize that you've just been swindled. I already see the news media starting to deal with buyers regret, I'm sure your time will come too.

This country has had enough from the last 8 years, the last thing I wanted was 4-8 more years of even worst... Change? How about just more of the same!

trini wrote on 02/19/09 9:33 PM

And there you go again to rant off about the quote "You do ring of a person who hates the current president, rather than someone who hates his policies. You seem to be reaching for reasons to hate him."

And you sidestep the main points as you have through the discussion:-

1. That the President is is not paid nearly as well as these executives, but you choose to broad brush him as more of the same... what same I ask...

Is he not right in stopping these execs in spending the tax payers money for the junkets and bonuses for jobs poorly done...

2. That the time in office is too short to make outright an outright judgments as to his Presidency!!!

3. That the fact is that the president is under paid, and deserves to travel in and fashion that is as honorable as the job???

You talk about liberals on the other side and assume that I 'am one yet you behave the same way... You assume that you know more than me without even knowing me... When I ask you for a link to read the McCain's plan you cannot point to anywhere I can read it...

You do not admit the promise of transparency in government is a huge undertaking and the the urgency of the financial crisis may have necessitated a forgoing of the promise to allow 24hrs to read before voting...

What else do you want me to think....

Jared wrote on 02/20/09 8:49 AM

@trini - 'I hate the propaganda that you are spewing' that is your quote from above. You are the only person on this page admitting to hate. I think also by your own definition, that you are spreading propaganda. :)

Not that I mind, I like hearing diverse opinions. Just pointing out your double standard.

trini wrote on 02/20/09 9:24 AM

It is coming clear that you are not willing to deal with the issues or have any sensible debate... The definition of propaganda was not my own but wikipedia's, an independent and credible source... The hate was a quote from a previous comment on the thread...

It also seems that Russell cannot answers my previous questions would like to take a shot Jared!!!! or are you tooo going to skip the issue and use engage in the same rhetoric that lost McCain the election, rejected by the American people....

Jeff wrote on 02/20/09 9:52 AM

WTF does the President have to spend money on while he's serving?

Honestly. All his housing, food, travel is all paid for. Do you think if the President wants a new suit he has to pay for it? Or wants steak for dinner he's getting out a $20?

While I understand that complaints concerning his pay, that's not actually that important since he has nothing he needs to purchase. If the President wants to go out fishing, I'd expect the Secret Service (or someone) to provide the boat, bait and tackle, etc. I just don't see this is as a huge issue.

While we are on the topic, even AFTER a president leaves office they still get a lot of expenses covered and even have tax payer funded staff and offices at their disposal. To say a President's salary is low is to ignore all the fringe they get.

Now, if the President had to pay for Air Force One out of their travel account....LOL!

CZ Rings wrote on 10/31/09 7:25 AM

I bookmarked this already dude great work

Monthly Archives

Feeds

RSS Feeds