| Author | Post |
|---|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: The Republican wrote: Don Horner wrote: Try this. Yes, it's extreme, but it's based in reality. try to look at it from his point of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related
I wouldnt call it extreme, I would call it what it is... Revolting and Disgusting.
"Governments change. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad. But, they change. God does not change."
Yep, revolting and disgusting, alright...
To USE GOD's name in a manner which is Revolting and Disgisting is obviously the part I was pointing out. GOD does not Change, he got that part right, but it doesnt make the rest of what he says any better.
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 08:44 pm |
|
Is the fact that America once had slaves and did not treat all races as equal going to be held over America's head forever.
As far as the government goes all races are equal. As for the people it is going to take a little longer but for the most part most people are not racists.
Americans should not be punished for what their forefathers did, they had no control over them as they were alive to voice any sort of opinion against it.
Past is past that that is just where it should stay, in the past. American has tried to overcome what our forefathers have done. There is no reason that I can think of that prohibits any American from becoming all they can be, if they want to. All they have to do is try. All these excuses are just that excuses for why they are to lazy to put forth the effort and for some it does take more effort, but the resources are there for all Americans.
A very poor black child is the same as a poor white child. They have equal battles to fight to climb up and make something of themselves. Actually a black child has an easier time of making the climb as there are so many more resources out there for them.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
The Republican wrote: Don Horner wrote: Try this. Yes, it's extreme, but it's based in reality. try to look at it from his point of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related
I wouldnt call it extreme, I would call it what it is... Revolting and Disgusting.
"Governments change. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad. But, they change. God does not change."
Yep, revolting and disgusting, alright...
|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 07:53 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Try this. Yes, it's extreme, but it's based in reality. try to look at it from his point of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related
I wouldnt call it extreme, I would call it what it is... Revolting and Disgusting.
|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
we’re judged by those with whom we associate, here’s a questiion:
The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.
At a Democratic debate this year when the association between Obama and Ayers was raised, Obama said: “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. . . . He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” Obama called Ayers’ past radical acts detestable.
But critics note that Obama visited Ayers’ home for a meeting at the start of his first state Senate bid in the mid-’90s.
The UIC records showed that Ayers was instrumental in securing the $50 million education grant to reform Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg. . After Chicago was awarded the money, Obama served as president of the Challenge’s board of directors, the fiscal arm that disbursed the grants to schools and raised private matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with the grant recipients.
Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, served with Barack Obama on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago for three years and helped launch Obama’s political career in Illinois by hosting in his Hyde Park home an informal campaign event for the future state senator in 1995.
____________________________________________________________
OK. And then we go to the most controversial one, Reverend Wright. Now I talked to Barack Obama about this, and he said, "Look, this guy was a friend of the family. And he baptized my children, he married us. But I never subscribed to his radical views. I didn't hear them when I was in the church. And I have since disassociated myself from him." And I believe Barack Obama. But I don't know what kind of an influence Wright had on Obama's life.
FREDDOSO: I was actually surprised, Bill. When I watched your interview with Obama, he said that Wright really hadn't been his spiritual mentor, has kind of downplayed that. That's interesting because back in 2004, the Chicago Sun-Times did a story on Obama's spirituality in which they interviewed Obama at length and cited one of his — and they call him a close confidant and Reverend Wright. And they mentioned Father Pfleger in the same vein as someone who was part of his moral compass. But Wright appears to have been a great influence in his life. I believe that it was in the Rolling Stone that Jim Wallace, known as a figure on the religious left, said that if you want to know Barack Obama, you have to know Reverend Wright. So the two, I think, were a little bit closer than he was making out in that.
__________________________________________________________________________________
You cannot STAY in a Church for 20 YEARS and say that you dont know what the guy stands for. Either you never went to Church, or you are lying... When Obama said that Wright was a part of his family, and disowning him would be like disowning a member of his family.. that tells me something.. it says that these guys were very close... He changed his mind when it began to hurt his political career. Just like that his "member of the family" is no longer. Which is it? Is he loyal to the family member and called a Racist American Hater, or he is a betrayer of his own family member and loves the American people... cant be both ways..
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
Try this. Yes, it's extreme, but it's based in reality. try to look at it from his point of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related
|
LovebeingaSouthernGirl
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Chobee Town |
| Posts: | 369 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 07:19 pm |
|
I do appreciate your comment Mr. Horner. And I will try to look into it. Not sure where I will find an entire sermon online, but I will look for it.
All I can say is this, I hope you are right. I truly believe that it is the balance of things that keep America going. The Republicans, and the Democrats. It gives it an even balance at times. That way it gives power to both sides, not just one, then we lose our democracy. And yes it is definitely time for a change. (Starting to wish I had voted for John Kerry 4 years ago, might would have saved us the headache now)
And I definitely believe that Pres. Bush has led our country into places it should not be in. He himself misrepresented himself even to the "Bible Belt". I think he has set out on an aganda to single handedly try to bring on the end times. And in the meanwhile, I do believe he has cursed our country. Some things you just do not mess with, and he has done them all.
But again, I do appreciate your reply. Thank You.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:36 pm |
|
LovebeingaSouthernGirl wrote:
... I will be prejudiced against anyone who openly has attended a Anti-American, Anti-White church for 20 years, and I do not think that even you can defend that one Mr. Horner. How can you?
I have been avoiding this one because, while I understand it, it's really difficult to put into a few words, especially for someone who is predisposed to disbelieve it. But, you asked, so here goes...
Rev Wright did state, "God d--n America!" and has said other things that sound anti-American on the surface. However, I would like you to try to understand the context.
America is not perfect. No matter how patriotic your are, if you believe they have never made a mistake, and always do everything correctly, you are deluding yourself. We made a mistake invading Iraq in the first place. We made mistakes in treatment of prisoners in Abu Grabib and the way we tortured prisoners. We made mistakes in Vietnam, first believing the PT boat attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin were real, and in the way villages were cleared, and the way we announced false body counts to the press to try to fool the American public. We made mistakes in the basic support of slavery and in the treatment of minorities after slavery was outlawed. There are hundreds more examples.
If you are a TRUE patriot, you want America to face up to it's mistakes and try to correct them. If you are a FALSE patriot, you will not admit our nation has ever made any mistakes.
The Rev Wright has been addressing mistakes for years. He grows frustrated. When he sees the mistakes happening over and over, he gets angry. He actually gets SO angry, he asks God to damn America for it's mistakes, and it's unwillingness to even admit them, let alone try to correct them. He rants and raves -- but it is actually out of LOVE for the nation, and out of frustration that the nation does not live up to its potential.
Many of the wrongs that he sees are racial, but that's to be expected -- he is a member of a minority. He will obviously be more aware and more sensitive to wrongs committed against blacks. Certainly, most of us are more sensitive to perceived slights against whites!
But, he is not anti-American -- he is a more passinate patriot than most of us! He is a Christian -- who calls God's wrath against a nation he sees as failing! He preaches to change America, not tear it down.
Listen to his sermons as a whole, and I hope you will begin to see what I see.
So, if this is true, why did Obama suspend his membership in the church? Precisely because of the difficulty of explaining such behavior to people who have not experienced it, who are distrustful of Blacks in general, and who may find it too subtle to understand, It was easier, inthe politics of the moment, to distance himself.
So, why did I take the time to try to explain it? Because every once in a while, I see a glimmer of enlightenment shining through your clouds of preconceived ideas. I think you're worth my time.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf
His plan is more modest than the one that I laid out, at approximately 300,000 participants (instead of 2 Million) and $3.5 Billion per year (instead of my guess of $40 Million), but it's a start and goes further than anything McCanin is proposing.
Obama also says it is fiscally responsible as he pays for it through reducing some corporate tax breaks and using a small portion of the money saved by ending the Iraq war.
Note, also, that the proposal includes significant increases and support of the military, as well as civilian corps. I took a good look at it. It's very nice, but you just answered my question about the money for this
He pays for this "by reducing some corporate tax breaks" (money I thought was going to reducing the tax of 95% of America. Just how many times can you spend the same dollar?) and using a small portion of the money saved by ending the Iraq war. (so the war ends but the spending for it goes on?)
Someone will likely come along and say that Obama is talking a good game but won't follow through. (After the debacle of the "Peace Dividend" in the Clinton Administration, doubt should "pop up" don't you think?) That may be so, given the financial troubles we now have. Glad to see you agree But, I think the important thing is that Obama is at least planning it and proposing it. right off the bat, that is more than McCain is doing. So to paraphrase, it's better to plan for failure and to lie to your constituents about issues than to not? I think I can state that there is a better chance of Obama doing something like this if possible, than McCain, who has no such intentions in the first place. That's a pretty fair statement, if you don't plan to lie and fail, you generally don't It is that hope that leads me to support Obama.
Don, I see more tax and spend in this future of yours. I respect you as a person and I respect your position, but I don't believe that Sen. Obama is "all that and a bag of chips".
|
LovebeingaSouthernGirl
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Chobee Town |
| Posts: | 369 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
It is that hope that leads me to support Obama.
Hope....Hope....Allow me to think of this for one second.......Hope. (Not to pun the conversation at hand, becase it does have it's possibilities. And DH did a good job presenting it But the words Hope + Obama....)
Hope.... Hope.... I hope that in the event that Obama does manage to get elected that we still have a country in 4 years. Considering that most of the Muslim nations, and we all know they are third world countries we are speaking of, and do not have tv sets, but they think he is already President. And are very very happy about this. Does that mean they are planning on unleashing Jihad against us the likes of which we have never seen? Does that mean they think Obama is weak? That he is not strong enough on foreign policy? Or does it mean that they think he will talk them through it and hold thier hands patting them and telling them it is ok, we will get whitey in the end?
If it is being unpatriotic to say that I love my fellow Americans. If you want to call me prejudice, so be it, I will be prejudiced against anyone who openly has attended a Anti-American, Anti-White church for 20 years, and I do not think that even you can defend that one Mr. Horner. How can you? If the man did not believe the doctrine being taught he would not be there. Nor would he have such a close association with Rev. Wright.
Now we are trying to turn our great nation, and yes it is still a great nation even with all of it's trials and turmoils, to a man who is "iffy" at best. Now DH I hope that if the man does get in, all of our fears will be put to rest, and I hope we get through them all with no incident. I would hope that he turns the economy around, and that he can establish "peace". And we will all have healthcare coverage, and we will all have a better slice of the pie so to speak, and he will help Middle Class America. (Even though there is no way all of this can be done because he is NOT the Messiah) But the truth of the matter is, that when you take all of the if's and put them into one place, the if's are way to much. They outweigh everything that could possibly turn out well for us.
Honestly, if Hillary would have won, you could have possibly gotten a democratic vote out of me. Truly. Honestly. Probably would have. I want to see a change in this nation as much as you do and anyone else. But he is just too damn scary. Way too much of a wild card. Just my opinion.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:52 pm |
|
Bilgerat wrote: Don Horner wrote: Bilgerat wrote
Again, may I point out that Obama is proposing some sort of similar solution, and McCain is not. You don't mind giving a "link" to this proposal, do you?
Sure, here you go:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf
His plan is more modest than the one that I laid out, at approximately 300,000 participants (instead of 2 Million) and $3.5 Billion per year (instead of my guess of $40 Million), but it's a start and goes further than anything McCanin is proposing.
Obama also says it is fiscally responsible as he pays for it through reducing some corporate tax breaks and using a small portion of the money saved by ending the Iraq war.
Note, also, that the proposal includes significant increases and support of the military, as well as civilian corps.
Someone will likely come along and say that Obama is talking a good game but won't follow through. That may be so, given the financial troubles we now have. But, I think the important thing is that Obama is at least planning it and proposing it. right off the bat, that is more than McCain is doing. I think I can state that there is a better chance of Obama doing something like this if possible, than McCain, who has no such intentions in the first place. It is that hope that leads me to support Obama.
Last edited on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:59 pm by Don Horner
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 09:57 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Bilgerat wrote:
Can you imagine the outcry from the "bleeding hearts" and the ACLU? Why, that would be nothing more than "legalized slave labor".
And to pay them anything less than "living wages" would be an atrocity. Let's not forget they must have health care (with dental) and housing for themselves and their families.
And a Union would most certainly have to be established to protect the workers rights and to negotiate exactly what is a "living wage".
Oddly enough, FDR was a Democrat and his "New Deal" spending has been decried by conservatives for decades. It's the same conservatives who want tax cuts for the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans who would make the outcry. Oddly enough, A poll of Republicans supported it by 67 percent at that time
I don't see the ACLU crying "legalized slave labor" at the military. Of course not, the Military has LONG since been established. This "workforce" would require new rules, thus the effect I predict. There was health care with the original CCC; each camp had a doctor for only 200, a better ration than mnay enjoy, today. And you don't forsee that expanding? Housing is included as I outlined, but there was and would be no housing for families, because the original CCC only accepted unmarried young men. Which I'm sure will be addressed and extended to family men if enacted. Today, I would expect it to include young women, because no one seriously questions that young women cannot hold their own in the world. I concur, but also having had young women on board ship the "warning flags" should be most certainly raised. There would be no need for negotiation or a union, because the program would be voluntary. Accept it, or not. Sort of like the TSA? Again, may I point out that Obama is proposing some sort of similar solution, and McCain is not. You don't mind giving a "link" to this proposal, do you?
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
Bilgerat wrote:
Can you imagine the outcry from the "bleeding hearts" and the ACLU? Why, that would be nothing more than "legalized slave labor".
And to pay them anything less than "living wages" would be an atrocity. Let's not forget they must have health care (with dental) and housing for themselves and their families.
And a Union would most certainly have to be established to protect the workers rights and to negotiate exactly what is a "living wage".
Oddly enough, FDR was a Democrat and his "New Deal" spending has been decried by conservatives for decades. It's the same conservatives who want tax cuts for the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans who would make the outcry.
I don't see the ACLU crying "legalized slave labor" at the military.
There was health care with the original CCC; each camp had a doctor for only 200 camp members, a better ration than mnay enjoy, today. Housing is included as I outlined, but there was and would be no housing for families, because the original CCC only accepted unmarried young men. Today, I would expect it to include young women, because no one seriously questions that young women cannot hold their own in the world.
There would be no need for negotiation or a union, because the program would be voluntary. Accept it, or not.
Again, may I point out that Obama is proposing some sort of similar solution, and McCain is not.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 09:15 pm |
|
Razorback75 wrote: How about bringing back the CCC (Civilian Construction Corps) -- put these out of work folks back to work building public projects. If necessary, train them for the jobs. That would give them some new job skills and work experience, and make it easier for them to eventually find work in the public sector again. If the government is going to give able-bodied people money, we could at least get some labor on public works projects in exchange.
Can you imagine the outcry from the "bleeding hearts" and the ACLU? Why, that would be nothing more than "legalized slave labor".
And to pay them anything less than "living wages" would be an atrocity. Let's not forget they must have health care (with dental) and housing for themselves and their families.
And a Union would most certainly have to be established to protect the workers rights and to negotiate exactly what is a "living wage".
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 08:56 pm |
|
Razorback75 wrote: How about bringing back the CCC (Civilian Construction Corps) -- put these out of work folks back to work building public projects. If necessary, train them for the jobs. That would give them some new job skills and work experience, and make it easier for them to eventually find work in the public sector again. If the government is going to give able-bodied people money, we could at least get some labor on public works projects in exchange.
That's a pretty good idea. Last week, I stayed at a state park in Georgia that had been constructed by the CCC, and they had a nice display outlining their work. I bought a book on the history of the CCC, because my Dad had been a member.
There were approximately 4,000 camps in the CCC, each inhabited by about 200 men, so there were as many as 800,000 men enrolled at any one time. Altogether, over 4 Million men were part of the organization.
They were paid $30 per month, of which they could keep $5 to spend at the camp canteen, and $25 was sent home to their families. This was a little more than $0.18 per hour, at a time when the minimum wage was $0.25 per hour, so they earned about 75% of the minimum wage. However, they also received housing, uniforms and food, making the actual cost of the program about $60 per month, at an educated guess, or about double what they were paid.
There were 125 Million Americans at that time. Today, there are over 300 Million, so an equivalent program would have to enroll about 2 Million men at any one time. the minimum wage today is $6.55 per hour, and 75% of that is about $5 per hour, so the equivalent pay today would be about $800 per month, with about $133 going directly to the young person and the rest being sent home. Doubling that to get the total cost of the program would be about $20,000 per year (rounded up) per person, so the total cost would be about $40 Billion per year.
We could certainly afford that, especially considering the cost of keeping young people in Jail if they turn to crime in desperation.
Unfortunately, John McCain has NO intent to do anything close to it, and Republicans have pooh-poohed Obama's plan to expand Americorps to 250,000 young people, a mere fraction of the numbers that were once served by the CCC.
Still, I believe that at least Obama is willing to make a good start towards such a program, and I believe a lot of good will come from it. Of course, if we want to have programs like this, we have to be willing to spend the money for them.
|
Razorback75
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 654 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:11 pm |
|
| How about bringing back the CCC (Civilian Construction Corps) -- put these out of work folks back to work building public projects. If necessary, train them for the jobs. That would give them some new job skills and work experience, and make it easier for them to eventually find work in the public sector again. If the government is going to give able-bodied people money, we could at least get some labor on public works projects in exchange.
|
Southern Diva
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
Saved the country MILLIONS, put those to work that are able to work, get rid of welfare, make these people get off there behinds and work, Welfare should be for the disabled and the elderly that are not able to work, that would save tax dollars..
I had to go to the health dept last week for a permit, of course you know you have to walk thru the the actual health dept to get there, I counted 37 people from the ages of 18 to approx 30 no one any older, a couple of days later I was helping an elderly friend renew her food stamps and had to go to the office, there were approx 20 people sitting in there again no one older than 30, and most of them looked healthy, not saying some of these people did not need the help, but there are alot of people that work the system so they dont have to work, we need to weed them out so our tax dollars go to bigger and better things...
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 12:59 pm |
|
missk wrote: You wrote:
Sen. Obama has already said that he will tax the "wealthy"
Where will this money come from?
Check your wallet at the door, that's where!
Well, I agree, the wealthy should be taxed the same as the walmart worker, sorry, but that's just fair.
The "wealthy" are being taxed the same, in fact they pay at a higher rate
If it was "fair" the rate would be the same
|
missk
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 04:27 am |
|
You wrote:
Sen. Obama has already said that he will tax the "wealthy"
Where will this money come from?
Check your wallet at the door, that's where!
Well, I agree, the wealthy should be taxed the same as the walmart worker, sorry, but that's just fair.
|
Concerned Taxpayer
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 239 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 03:39 am |
|
| When it comes to politicians, especially those in the Congress, if their lips are moving, they are lying!
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 03:16 am |
|
WASHINGTON - Friday’s House approval of an $800 billion bill to keep banks and investment firms afloat heralds a new fiscal era.
At first blush, an era of constrained federal spending appears to be dead ahead: Every $1 billion going to the bailout and the tax provisions in the bill would be $1 billion less for highway construction or federal aid to public schools.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders do not see it that way.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said shortly before the House voted that the cost of the bailout will not be $700 billion, but far less than that. For that reason, he said, the bailout will not inhibit the ability of Congress to spend on roads, bridges, public education and other items.
“It’s not going to cost $700 billion,” he said, referring to the bailout portion of the bill. “It’s going to cost something. We are buying assets with that money, which we will own and we will resell. Nobody knows what the net cost will be. ... It depends on how the economy performs.”
Limp economy, robust federal spending
As Friday's employment data indicated, the economy is not performing well right now. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nearly 160,000 jobs were lost last month, the ninth straight month of net job losses.
Yet federal spending and borrowing are robust, with federal outlays growing nearly three times as fast as the economy itself.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that, as of August, federal spending for the first 11 months of the current fiscal year was 8 percent higher than in the same period the prior year.
But receipts are down 1.4 percent so far this fiscal year and are sure to decline further given the dismal employment data.
The revenue forecast facing the new president and the new Congress looks grim, largely due to that unemployment.
Fewer Americans are earning income and thus fewer are paying federal taxes. Higher unemployment means higher federal outlays for the Medicaid program for low-income people, as laid-off workers lose their employer-provided medical coverage.
'Revenue is going to dry up' That has many Republicans calling for restraint on spending.
“Revenue is going to dry up because we’re going into a recession, so you can’t whet your spending appetite when you have a recession and eroding revenues,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. Ryan voted for the bailout.
“We’re going to have lower revenues next year because I think a recession is unavoidable," he said. "The question this (bailout) bill hopefully will answer is whether it is a short recession or a long recession.”
An increasing number of House Democrats, looking at Obama’s campaign momentum, assume he will be president. But many do not believe his and their spending desires will be limited by huge debt, borrowing costs and inflation.
Indeed, Obama made phone calls Wednesday and Thursday to several House Democrats, including freshmen members such as Rep. Masie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, assuring them that, if elected, he will sign a new economic stimulus spending bill.
At Pelosi’s press briefing Thursday, she indicated that the $800 billion is expected to be offset, in part, by congressional action raising tax rates on higher-income people.
Pelosi promises new spending Investing in the future
And if the bailout bill ends up costing the Treasury money, she said, “the financial services industry and those affected by this would have to make up that shortfall.”
Turning to new spending, Pelosi used the word “invest” or “investment” five times in response to a question, using it in the accepted Capitol Hill sense: federal spending on items that Congress deems useful and likely to encourage economic growth.
“Nothing brings more money back to the Treasury than investing in the education of the American people,” she said.
She also argued for “investing in the future, whether it is infrastructure, whether it is investing in innovation to create good paying jobs in America, whether it is investing in our health care system in a way that reduces costs, reduces harm and improves health care.”
The spending would, she predicted, have the salutary effect of “creating good paying jobs, bringing jobs to America.”
Democrats won’t let the fiscal picture discourage them, Pelosi said.
And yet she also said, “We have said all along that when we go forward we do not want to increase the deficit.”
The paradox: How to spend more — much more — and yet not increase the deficit and borrowing at a time of sluggish income growth and with $800 billion in revenue potentially already spoken for?
Evoking Ronald Reagan
Using the phraseology of Ronald Reagan, Pelosi spoke of “subjecting the spending of the federal government to the harshest scrutiny to remove waste, fraud and abuse.”
And Pelosi assumes the $120 billion per year being spent on Iraq will go away fairly quickly.
But one longtime Pelosi ally, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, did not sound quite as bullish as the speaker.
Miller said, “I don’t know yet” when asked whether the bailout and tax extenders bill might inhibit Congress’ desire to spend more on domestic items.
“When you’re inheriting an $11 trillion debt, you have to have a fundamental conversation," Miller said. "The new administration and the Congress have to decide, because there are so many unmet needs. Whether it will inhibit or not, or whether we’ll have to figure out another way to finance it, I don’t know yet.”
He added, “There’s a pent-up demand in the country for infrastructure, for research and development dollars. We’re falling way behind here.”
Sen. Obama has already said that he will tax the "wealthy"
Where will this money come from?
Check your wallet at the door, that's where!
|
Current time is 05:38 pm | |
|
|
|