F*cking Arlen Specter UPDATE

By VA Blogger

I always had a soft spot for him, too.

Official statement of John Cornyn, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

“Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”


Comments

  • A Voter says:

    I Bleed Obama Blue -

    Oh, you don’t have to do it right now… reading is an important thing… and recognizing that you have no idea about how some the most basic and significant moments in US history occurred – is a big deal!

    Recognizing that you were failed by an education system that allowed you wallow in ignorance of such events for all of these years, is also a big deal.

  • RichmondDem says:

    The nation’s GDP grew every single year of FDR’s Presidency except for one. That one year where it didn’t grow was 1937, when he tried to balance the budget.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg

    Notice that in 1936 the size of the economy had returned to 1929 levels. Had FDR not cut spending the depression would have ended that year.

  • RichmondDem says:

    This graph is also helpful:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1930Industry.svg

    Industrial production, which also returned to 1929 levels by 1936. Again, in 1937 Roosevelt cut back on spending trying to balance the budget. But he cut back fiscal stimulus too soon–just as the economy was beginning to turn around.

  • I Bleed Obama Blue says:

    A – Hole

    My education as served me quite well, thank you. Tell me, where has your arrogant superciliousness gotten you?

  • A Voter says:

    I Bleed Obama Blue -

    I can see that… your witty retort that encompasses you replacing my blogging handle with a part of the human anatomy is clear evidence that your education has taught you a great deal!

    RichmondDem -

    What you’ve said is true, however the market had already bottomed out and began its recovery before FDR ever took office.

    In fact, FDR’s Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”

  • edmundburkenator says:

    A Voter, some blame Morganthau for extending the GD due to his putting on the brakes…

    War is government spending? No?

    Here’s how it goes (it went this way only weeks ago during Gate’s Pentagon budget announcements): Republicans say government spending isn’t stimulative. Unless they have a fighter getting made by the government in their district. Then, spending is stimulative.

    If there were more than two sides of their mouth they would talk out of those too.

    Not to say you can’t call huge BS on Ds too. It’s the sad nature of politics.

  • Dan says:

    It is getting a little heated in here. I believe we could use a bit of comic relief.

    Once again everyone’s favorite moron has provided it. That’s right folks. Congresswoman Michele Bachman is at it again!

    She took the House floor and said Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression through the “Hoot-Smalley” tariffs. She must be the stupidest person who has ever been elected to Congress. And that is saying something because there have been some real dopes up there. I don’t know who number two in the Congressional stupidity race is, but they are miles behind Bachman. She is a moron in a class by herself.

    Of course the tariff bill in question was the Smoot-Hawley bill, co-authored by Republicans Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover. She was right about one thing though. Smoot-Hawley was terrible for the country.

    Coming right on the heels of her idiotic swine flu comments you have to acknowledge that Bachman is working overtime to give us laughs.

    Republicans say the darndest things

  • A Voter says:

    Edmundburkenator-

    I don’t think that Government Spending can’t be stimulative… in fact it’s a major factor in determining GDP. However, it’s foolish to say that ALL Government Spending has a net stimulative effect on the economy.

    For instance, the recent Democrat Stimulus Bill spent $789 Billion to create 3.5 million jobs by 2010 (best projection). Which means you’re spending over $225,000 per job, for workers who will be making between $10-$18 per hour. There’s something in that math that just doesn’t work.

    Will those workers be making an income that will be taxed? Yes. Will to ROI be comparable to the investment? Absolutely not.

    And all of this ignores the fact that to pay for these jobs, we are printing out more money which is lowering the value of the dollar and making it more difficult for anyone to pay for basic goods and services. Even the Congressional Budget Office said that this will have a negative impact on our economy!

    Heaping on to this the negative effect of a certain tax increase which will be required to pay for both this bill and the $3.5 trillion budget, and we’re looking at several factors which will only prolong this recession rather than stimulating a faster recovery.

    That said, we will make an economic recovery because our economy is arguably the strongest on the planet… however, to make comments like IBOB and say that “All government spending, including pork, is simulative” is utter foolishness.

  • I Bleed Obama Blue says:

    “…it’s foolish to say that ALL Government Spending has a net stimulative effect on the economy.”

    You make this broad declaration, yet fail to back it with a reasoned argument. Government spending creates jobs – all kinds of jobs, in both the public and private sectors. People earn money from jobs which they in turn spend…which creates MORE jobs. It’s called the Multiplier Effect – look it up.

    “…printing out more money which is lowering the value of the dollar and making it more difficult for anyone to pay for basic goods and services.”

    Maybe, eventually, this MIGHT be true. In the short-term, especially when the stimulus was enacted, we were more concerned about potential deflation than inflation. In fact, the Fed met on Tuesday and left interest rates alone, an indication that inflation is a non-issue.

  • A Voter says:

    I Bleed Obama Blue -

    You’re missing my point… it’s not that ALL government spending is negative, but FOOLISH government spending is!

    Seriously, you need to take at least one economics class (where they are not teaching Keynesian Economics)… and pay attention!

    I thought I was very clear about how it is not fiscally sound to spend $225,000 per worker, who is only going to be making between $10-$18 per hour. These workers are making a median income of about $28,000 per year…. if they actually had work that lasted all year.

    Since these jobs are geared towards short-term contract workers, you’re looking at people who have jobs to tide them over for 9+ months worth of contract work, and then looking for work shortly thereafter. A majority of these workers will not be paying very much in taxes, and you’re not going to go on any wild spending binges due to their paltry salaries and the short-term nature of their work.

    Adding to all of this, the Congressional Budget Office has even stated that this will cause a long term negative effect on our economy!

    In our credit crunch, money doesn’t move with the same fluidity as it did just a few years ago. This creates inflation. This means that our worker making $28,000 now has to spend more of his money in order to afford food, shelter, etc.

    But don’t take my word for it… the CBO, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

    CBO went on to project that the Democrat Stimulus Bill will create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

  • I Bleed Obama Blue says:

    A –

    Okay, so tell me your understanding of the difference between “FOOLISH government spending” and it opposite. Particularly, in term of the stimulus, what part of it is foolish spending?

    “…the CBO, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term…“ But isn’t that the point of the stimulus?

    So you think that the net effect of the stimulus will be a couple of million jobs paying $10-$18 per hour that last a year or less? THAT’s ridiculous! Many of the jobs created will pay far better than you estimate AND be permanent. Also, were you aware that nearly half of the stimulus funds are for tax cuts, Medicaid reimbursements to the states, and unemployment benefits, that’ll be dispersed within 12 months?

    “…so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.”

    You left out the part about that decrease in GDP being 0.01” to 0.03%. To reap the benefits of the spending today, I’ll gladly forfeit one tenth of one percent of GDP in ten years.

    While I can understand your bias, you’re being tremendously short-sighted and overly pessimistic as a result.

Leave Comment