Forum Thread

Wallace Lake Topics

(Wallace Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,638 messages

Updated 5/27/2024 2:56:51 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Wallace Lake Fishing

(Wallace Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	PikeSki -	Reply
Subject:	You Won't Believe This !
Date:	2/13/2009 10:00:58 AM

OK. Now that the stimulus package is finally available to the public, here is a real breakdown of where the money is going in it. This is all directly from the document itself (all 1300 pages of it). This is not even close to all of the pork just a sampling.

Now . . . Can anyone tell me which of these are going to stiulate our economy? Please keep in mind what this package is supposed to be for. To Stimulate the Econamy and create long term jobs:

UNBELIEVABLE - WE ARE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THIS FOR DECADES ON END AND THIS IS ONLY A "SHORT TERM SOLUTION"!

$24 million for construction and repairs to US Department of Agriculture facilities

$22.5 million for the USDA Inspector General for oversight on the stimulus bill

$176 million for deferred maintenance on US Agricultural Research Service facilities

$50 million to modernize and maintain the IT system of the Farm Service Agency

$290 million for "Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations"

$50 million for "Wastershed Rehabiliation Program"

$1 billion for rural housing direct loans

$10.4 billion for rural housing guaranteed loans

$2.5 billion for rural distance learning, telemedicine and broadband

$100 million in grants for National School Lunch Program equipment assistance

$150 million in agricultural commodity assistance

$1 billion for the Census Bureau

$4.7 billion for "Broadband Technology Opportunities Program" which includes $350 million for the

development of a "broadband inventory map"

$650 million for Digital TV converter box program

$220 million for Scientific research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology

$360 million for Construction of scientific research facilities

$230 million in extra budget money for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

$600 million for NOAA "Procurement, Acquisition and Construction"

$225 million in grants for programs to combat violence against women

$2 billion in state and local law enforcement assistance grants

$225 million in grants to improve the criminal justice system

$225 million in law enforcement assistance to Indian Tribes

$100 million for the "office for Victims of Crime"

$125 million in law enforcement assistance for rural areas

$50 million in state and local grants to combat internet crime against kids

$1 billion for the COPS program

$400 million in operations budget money for NASA

$150 million for "Aeronautics" at NASA

$400 million for "Exploration" at NASA

$2.5 billion for research at the National Science Foundation

$100 million for NSF "Education and Human Resources"

$400 million for NSF "Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction"

$1.4 billion in Army "Operation and Maintenance"

$657 million in Navy "Operation and Maintenance"

$113 million in Marine Corps "Operation and Maintenance"

$1.09 billion for Air Force "Operation and Maintenance"

$98 million for Army Reserve "Operation and Maintenance"

$55 million for Navy Reserve "Operation and Maintenance"

$39 million in Marine Corps Reserve "Operation and Maintenance"

$13 million for Air Force Reserve "Operation and Maintenance"

$266 million for Army National Guard "Operation and Maintenance"

$25 million for Air National Guard "Operation and Maintenance"

$75 million each for Army, Navy, Air Force "Research, Development, Test and Evaluation"

$400 million for "Defense Health Program"

$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers construction

$375 million for Army Corps projects on the Mississippi and tributaries

$2.07 billion for Army Corps of Engineers "Operation and Maintenance"

$100 million for "Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program"

$1 billion for Interior Department "Water and Related Resources"

$50 million for Central Utah Project Completion Act

$50 million for California Bay-Delta Restoration Act

$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas

$16.8 billion for Energy Department, "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy"

$5 billion of that goes for "Weatherization Assistance"

$4.5 billion to improve the nation's electricity grid

$3.4 billion for "Fossil Energy Research and Development"

$483 million for "Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup"

$390 million for "Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund"

$1.6 billion for "Science"

$6 billion "Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program"

$5.12 billion for "Defense Environmental Cleanup"

$7 million for oversight of "Making Work Pay" tax credits and payments in this bill

$80 million to implement health insurance tax credit plan

$5.5 billion for the "Federal Buildings Fund"

$300 million to buy energy efficient vehicles for the federal government

$200 million to consolidate the Department of Homeland Security Headquarters

$100 million for hi tech border security technology along the Mexican border

$420 million for construction of US Customs land border ports of entry

$20 million for tactical communications equipment for immigration enforcement

$1 billion for Aviation Security (explosive detection equipment)

$98 million for improvements to Coast Guard shore facilities

$142 million for "Alteration of Bridges"

$150 million in FEMA Public Transportation Security Assistance grants

$150 million for Port Security Grants

$210 million in grants to upgrade non-Federal fire stations

$125 million for Bureau of Land Management activities

$180 million for Bureau of Land Management construction

$15 million for Wildland Fire Management

$165 million for Fish and Wildlife Service deferred maintenance

$115 million for Fish and Wildlife Service construction projects

$15 million for preservation at Historically Black Colleges

$589 million for National Park System construction

$140 million for repair and restoration of US Geological Survey facilities

$450 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs construction

$600 million for EPA Superfund program

$200 million for Leaking Underground Storage Tank program

$4 billion in Clean Water grants

$2 billion for safe drinking water projects

$300 million for "Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants"

$650 million in US Forest Service "Capital Improvement and Maintenance"

$500 million for Wildland Fire Management

$85 million for Indian Health Services

$415 million for Indian Health Facilities construction projects

$25 million for repairs on Smithsonian Institution facilities

$50 million for National Endowment for the Arts to help preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector

$3.95 billion in worker training and employment services

$400 million in state unemployment insurance funding

$80 million for enforcement of worker protection laws

$250 million for construction of Job Corps Centers

$500 million in grants to health care centers

$1.5 billion for health information technology systems

$500 million to address health professions workforce shortages

$1.3 billion for National Institutes of Health research resources

$7.4 billion for Office of the Director, NIH

$500 millio

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Excuse me
Date:	2/13/2009 10:18:55 AM

while i go throw up (puke).

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	The only good thing
Date:	2/13/2009 10:21:28 AM

is as this wasteful spending bill fails and we wind up with stag flation with high interest rates .... Obama has written his ticket for one term. Lets hope the american people start to wake up and throw the dems out of congress before they do too much damage.

Name:	PikeSki -	Reply
Subject:	another good thing
Date:	2/13/2009 10:33:04 AM

Water, I feel so much better that our economy is going to go into the toilet, however, at least the toilet water should be clean:

$4 billion in Clean Water grants

I hope watch groups take current measurements on water cleanliness and then watch if over the next few years to see if it gets any better. I gaurentee you since it is government run . . . it won't be any better and probably worse.

Now that I think about it, maybe this will stimulate the economy. Now that all this money is going to go into the hand s specific people and special groups, they will be buying new homes, taking lavish vacations, buying new cars and boats. Maybe this will work after all !

Increadible disgust !

The people in charge of this money should be watched very carefully and if they spend 1 penny of this money or get raises or bonuses . . . BAM right to prison.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	You Won't Believe This !
Date:	2/13/2009 11:37:05 AM

The Dems will now be chomping at the bit in about six months to come up with a "revenue bill" to pay for this. Be sure to have your wallets ready, and a supply of Depends on hand - we will need 'em.

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	You Won't Believe This !
Date:	2/13/2009 1:41:10 PM

Oh come on, all these patriotic Joe Biden Dems are going to pony up their fair share PLUS send more so we can continue to spend more than we make. NOTE: Conservatives keep this disgust fresh so you can help elect fiscal conmservative in 2010..........

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	You Won't Believe This !
Date:	2/13/2009 2:29:25 PM

This bill comes out to around $50,000 per person. They could cut the bill in half and send us all $25,000 and I would bet it would stimulate the economy better and much faster.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	You Won't Believe This !
Date:	2/13/2009 2:31:56 PM

I didn't think there were enough cabinet posts available to get all the good Dems to admit to their "tax mistakes", but after looking at some of these allotments..... Sure, why not.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	The only good thing
Date:	2/13/2009 3:16:45 PM

Interesting stat I listened to on MSNBC.

If the entire 800-900 billion dollar package was applied directly to outstanding home mortgages in the Country, 90% of us Americans would be mortgage free..

That would stimulate me alot. To go out this weekend and buy a new 2009 bass boat and Off Road Z-71.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Yes, I do
Date:	2/13/2009 4:11:33 PM

You list the amounts, but you don't provide the details of how the money can be spent. A lot of times, these kinds of earmarks have conditions associated with them.

Some of it clearly should be in another kind of bill, not a stimulus package, at least on the surface. But don't forget, Congress (both sides, both houses) have never forgone an opportunity to fund pet projects in a bill, no matter what the original purpose. So this isn't any different. Democrats are not the only one who fund pet probjects.

I see some job creation in these. Construction, maintenance, building projects -- maybe not the kind of jobs that you wanted to see, but the construction business has been hard hit. Almost all of these kinds of things are contracted out and I'm sure that some portion of it will be identified for small business.

The Military Departments O&M money can be used for anything that is not military construction, acquisition of military equipment and R&D. That can mean hiring contractors to do analysis, fixing equipment, etc. Money can also be used for war ops.

It would be wonderful if Obama now took his scalple to the bill and cut anything that even remotely looks like pork and is not directly related to a stimulus objective. Unlikely that will happen, but he did say he would do that on bills that had pork.

I don't know why it is impossible for our Congress to just pass a straightforward bill. I know you are all dying to blame the democrats, but the truth is that both parties are incapable of creating a "pure" bill.

Hopefully, it will be enough to stimulate something, since almost all the money is coming from loans from China and other foreigners. I hope they don't have to foreclose on us.

Name:	PikeSki -	Reply
Subject:	Yes, I do
Date:	2/13/2009 4:23:52 PM

Hound, I am 100% behind you when you say that some of these will create jobs. I have no problem with that. But the vast majority of them will not.

example: not 1 not 2 not 3 but $4 billion in Clean Water grants ?

How is this goin to create jobs.

As for the remaining items that do not create jobs. . . If this was being passed by the republicans I would be against it as well. This is nothing more than insane spending on the part of the big government gone bad their personal pet projects.

I can't believe any body can look at this and say "oh...this looks like a great bill!"

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Yes, I do
Date:	2/13/2009 4:29:59 PM

No not a great bill. Not even a good bill.

Without seeing the legislative language, it's hard to say what "clean water grants" might be. On the surface it looks bogus, but if it involves giving $$ to companies doing environmental protection, well, maybe it will.

Don't get me wrong, I think this has just as much opportunity to be a waste of money as much as the first traunch of the bank bailout has proven to be.

I'm worried and I'm not seeing anything that is making me feel better about it.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	How much per job created?
Date:	2/13/2009 4:56:34 PM

You can argue all day long about whether one portion or another will create jobs but based on the words of Obama himself this bogus stimulus plan will only create or save (the latter of which can never be proved) 3 million jobs. Do the math. That's over $260,000 per job!!!!!! For $260K I can create 10 new jobs and thats a fact. And those are jobs paying between $50,000 and $125,000 in annual salary plus benefits.

Don't you see what is wrong with this Hound?!?!? We and our children and our grandchildren are going to be paying this back and it is a monumental waste of the people's money. How can you defend this with even one word? If this were really all about job creation and politicians in Washington were serious this kind of a bill would have never been introduced, much less pass. It got the support of a grand total of 3 RINOs in both houses. You think that's politics? Well, you are right but they didn't sign on because their constituency doesn't want the government to help. They didn't sign on because it won't work and they don't want to share the blame. We tried this in the 1930s and it failed miserably and it won't work today.

I will once again make my prediction. THIS WILL NOT WORK, THEY WILL BLAME BUSH, THEY WILL COME BACK WITH ANOTHER TRILLION IN PORK AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL, IT WILL NOT WORK. You only have to look at the growing numbers of economists who say it won't work and look at the reaction of the stock market since BO became president (down 2,000 pts) and you can only look at the reaction of the world markets to see that no one except BO, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the other idiot, destructive Dems in Congress. Oh, I forgot my three idiot RINO's.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Tarp
Date:	2/13/2009 5:30:18 PM

Keep in mind that the bank bailout money was to add liquidty to our financials system that protected tax payers from losing their money from a bank failure and a collapse of our financial system. That money will be paid back and it is backed by equity in the banks. We can debate good or bad, but at least it had some opportunity not to cost the tax payers and maybe even be a good long term investment.

This is simple wasteful government spending ... and when it doesn't work what happens next?

Tax credits do work, business investment credits do work, job creation credits do work. It lets the private sector create the jobs which will create tax revenue. What good is creating 600,000 new government jobs that are paid for by tax payers now and forever?

Much of these pet spending projects, even if they will create jobs, will be implemented starting in 2010 and 2011 .... that should tell you right there that this spending has nothing to do with stimulating the economy NOW.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Tarp
Date:	2/13/2009 6:28:30 PM

I'm not sure I agree that creating 600,000 government jobs will be no good and only a burden to the tax payers. It depends on where those are located and what they are doing. Someone has to do the government's business. And I would assume that the jobs would be career opportunities, not just "jobs". Not everyone working for the government resides in Washington. I wonder if you would have that same opinion if you knew that 25,000 jobs were going to be engineering positions established in Huntsville?

I realize that you don't hold government jobs in high esteem, but I think serving your country is a valid career. (Of course, I would).

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	How much per job created?
Date:	2/13/2009 6:34:07 PM

Your prediction is noted.
I'm not defending the bill. I have my doubts about it working as well. I'm just trying to find some small glimmer of something positive in what's a done deal.

But, make no mistake, I'm disgusted.

Name:	Swimmer27 -	Reply
Subject:	Nomenclature
Date:	2/13/2009 6:40:32 PM

Sorry hound, but working for the govnerment and recieving a pay check and benifits beyond anything in the private secotr is NOT SERVING.

Putting on a uniform and standing a watch is serving. Working for the guvment is career. And dont even bother with the 'you can make more in the privated sector' argument. That is usually true, but only on average of 10%, the esceptional beneifits more than make up for deffeicency in pay.

Name:	cobra -	Reply
Subject:	How much per job created?
Date:	2/13/2009 9:01:58 PM

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/AL

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Actually, it is serving
Date:	2/13/2009 10:03:29 PM

Wearing the uniform is obviously serving one's country, but behind every soldier there are a bunch of civilians, government employees, making sure he has everything he needs to fight.

I'm sorry you don't have an appreciation for government service. Lots of smart people do it because they feel that public service is a worthwhile thing.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And I guess you Know this
Date:	2/13/2009 10:04:54 PM

Because you have worn the uniform and stood watch? So tell about your military service. I know a lot of people in the South feel military service is a civic duty.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Tarp
Date:	2/14/2009 6:11:14 AM

I would much rather see the government hire private firms and let them hire people rather than the government.

Name:	muddauber -	Reply
Subject:	Yes, I do
Date:	2/14/2009 6:12:14 AM

Congress did pass the bill giving the President line item veto. Our Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom struck this down as unconstitutional. Clinton made good sense use of it while we had it.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Tarp
Date:	2/14/2009 6:13:44 AM

One other thing ... the government creating a job does zero for the economy. The salary is paid by tax payers so no additional revenue is created and in fact more is taken from the private sector. A non government job created adds revenue to the government and expands the economy.

Name:	Swimmer27 -	Reply
Subject:	i owe you NOTHING...
Date:	2/14/2009 7:57:34 AM

.. in the way of an explanation, but I will tell you AGAIN, that I tried to join TWICE and failed the physical BOTH times.

What you did was work, NOT serve. To call a civil servierce job 'service' dimishes those the that do serve.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	But govt employees pay taxes
Date:	2/14/2009 8:51:38 AM

like everyone else. And they buy homes, cars, and other retail.
The government actually does hire a number of contractors. Everything from analysts, to people working on construction, not to mention all the defense contractors who supply equipment, services and all that jazz.

But, I have no problem if they took all the money and created business jobs. The main thing is to get people working and stimulate the economy.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	You don't get it
Date:	2/14/2009 8:57:36 AM

Yes they pay taxes with tax payer money. The government does not make money ... they only take from others. So any taxes a gov employee pays is from what started as earned income from the private sector.

Why is that concept so difficult to understand. That is just like when people get a tax refund and think the government gave it to them ... no they are just getting back the excess money they gave the government.

No government program comes from the government it comes from real tax payers.

Beyond national security we could debate the value of pretty much any government program. Not that some of them are not good ... but in most cases the private sector can do it cheaper, better and more efficient than government.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	OK
Date:	2/14/2009 9:07:21 AM

I'm not sure why you have to make a show out of saying this. TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF YELLING, which I'm sure you know.

We obviously agree to disagree on the point of whether working for the government is serving the country. But I would point out that there are civilians in the war zone, both government and contractors, who are also putting themselves in harm's way, just as much as some uniformed person. In fact, not everyone who wears the uniform serves in the war zone. So I don't think it is quite as clear cut as you might believe.

When I worked counternarcotics programs in the late 80's - early 90's, every time I went South, I was issued a weapon, traveled in an armored vehicle, and had a military body guard because being a 'target of opportunity' was a strong possibility.

And what about the government civilians. that were taken hostage in the Iran? Do you also say that they didn't "serve" their country?

Name:	Swimmer27 -	Reply
Subject:	WW & MM....
Date:	2/14/2009 9:19:51 AM

"Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Anything and everything you say falls on deaf ears. She is a democrat which means guvment good, business bad in her world.Take a look at one 'program', the Head Start Program. Started about 40 years ago to increase the reading level of preshoolers. Here we are 4 decades and countless dollars later and reading scores are lower than when the program started. Now to most folks they would just say give up, but not dems. Gotta throw more money at it. That's the problem, we aren't spending enough!!

I noticed the list above contains 3 billion for 'child care assistance'. What a joke. I read just last week about 3 sisters in Madison, WI, that have vollected over 500K in three years babysitting each others kids. One actually got shild care payments for her kids, because, guess what, she was busy keeping her sisters kids!!!! One was being paid for 'overnight' care while one sister 'worked night shift'. Her listed job was a retail outlet dress shop. And some guvment beaurocrat approved the payments without ever checking. When the reporter went to inquire at the 'dress shop', they had never heard of her, never open past 8pm, and NEVER had a 'night shift'. Thats ONE case, in one town. Wonder how much of the 2 billion these gals can get?

but the saddest part of all was when the agency itself was confronted. They didn't care. They defended the case workers (imagine, a guvment union employee defended another guvment union employee) Whats more was they said AFTER looking in to it, that nothing would/could be done becasue they were only following the rules that were in place at the time. They did however implement and employer verification program. WOOHOO!!

And now there is a Trillion $$ added to the prize pool.

And before you even ask Hound, I don't have the source now. I read the article from a Drudge Report link. Search his archives or google if you demand sourcing. I am NOT going to do your research for you.

Name:	Swimmer27 -	Reply
Subject:	OK
Date:	2/14/2009 9:26:43 AM

Only a guvment beaurocrat would/could compare themselves to kidnapped HOSTAGES. How laughable!!

As for civillians in war zones. Yep, they are there, BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL, and highly compensated to boot. I know a few of them over there now working 'security'.

As for all CAPS, yes I know it is yelling in 'internet speak'. Sometimes I am yelling at you. But mainly it is the ONLY way we have here of showing emphasis. Many times I would use italics, bold, or even underlines, IF those options were available.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You don't get it
Date:	2/14/2009 9:52:22 AM

WW, I have tried to explain the simple economics of government spending to Hound multiple times and from different perspectives and I can tell you she just will not allow it to sink in. It would crumble her world view. I have tried to explain that taxes on corporations is still a tax on an individual. I have tried to explain why a government job is not comparable to a private sector job in terms of spurring the economy (if it were why don't we all work for the government). I have tried to explain to her that the private sector can create 5 to 10 times more jobs for the same cost that the government creates one. I have tried everything I can think of.

Sometimes with her I feel like a dog who beats its head against the wall because it will feel good when it stops. Maybe I should stop.

Name:	Swimmer27 -	Reply
Subject:	Shw will never 'get it'
Date:	2/14/2009 12:09:35 PM

As you said, it would destroy her world view. But remember the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing, and expecting different results.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	You don't get it
Date:	2/14/2009 12:41:39 PM

Well, someone in the government agreed with you, I believe it was Al Gore, who got rid of a lot of civilian jobs and started hiring contractors. And I agree that contractors can many times do it cheaper and more efficiently, except when they don't. There is a law that contractors cannot do work that is "inherently governmental" such as making policy decisions and representing the government's interest. For example, I pay a contractor to do a intelligence assessment that leads to a decision, but the contractor cannot make the decision or the recommendation for the decision. And they are still paid with taxpayer dollars.

I think I get what you are trying to say, but on the other hand, you need to accept that business is not the answer to everything. You have to have some government structure to provide oversight. All you have to do is look at one large government acquisition program and look at the cost overruns and inefficiencies to know that you have to have government oversight. I mean, look what happened to the financial markets when the government decided they could self regulate. Did they? NO.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	MM
Date:	2/14/2009 12:45:20 PM

Explain to me how it is so much cheaper to have a industry job over a government job. I've done a lot of analysis in my time on this issue and I'm sorry, the cost of an employee is the cost of an employee. Unless of course, you don't pay the employee any benefits. Now you can argue that an industry employee is paid from the profits of the company and the government employee is taxpayer funded.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Doesn't Destroy my World View
Date:	2/14/2009 12:51:06 PM

You think I'm ill advised about industry; I think you are ill advised about the government. I don't have the right wing's view that all government is inherently bad and wasteful.

But, I've already said that if all the stimulus money went to industry for job creation, modernization, new technology I'd be happy as a clam.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	OK
Date:	2/14/2009 12:57:46 PM

While I will agree that there are some highly paid contractors doing security in the war zone, there are also people who aren't. Lots of people providing support services. A few of them are government civilians who were killed when bombs were lobbed into the green zone.

And yes, some of the hostages were government civilians, and I'd say they served their country. And I'm not comparing myself to a hostage, but on the other hand if I had been kidnapped by a drug lord, I would have been a hostage too. Or if I had been killed by a sniper, I would be just as dead as someone in a uniform.

Swimmer, I'm not trying to take anything away from the military. But, I am saying that there are more ways to serve your country than you might think.

Name:	Swimmer27 -	Reply
Subject:	Once again...
Date:	2/14/2009 2:40:13 PM

The banks were FORCED to make bad loans. That is what caused the meltdown. They knew that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, but the dems, mainly Barney Frank, BLOCKED any investigation or overhaul.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	I know you did not as me ...
Date:	2/14/2009 10:11:11 PM

but I will give you my feedback. It is not the the "cost" is cheaper but the impact on the tax payer. A government job is paid for with tax payer dollars ... so there is a net negative to the government for that job. Even though that job pays taxes back to the government, it is lets say 20%.

If the job was created in the private sector, there would be no government drain and in fact 20% additional tax revenue.

For every governemt job added you need 4-5 private sector jobs created to pay for that job to stay even. Since the government does not generate revenue that take revenue, someone needs to actually generate and and create real jobs for every job the government craetes or we add to deficits.

That is why the republicans believe in private sector job creation and lower taxes to do it, which does lead to more tax revenue. Yet them dems create more government jobs and when there is not enough tax revenue to pay for them they say tax the remaining private sector jobs more.

The dems want bigger government and more people relying on the government ... that assures their reelection thoughs that that rely on the government to feed them through the gov job or gov programs would not want to vote against that had feeding them.

Come to mamma !!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Another economics lesson
Date:	2/15/2009 9:46:05 AM

Hound, I didnt say it was cheaper, I said it was cheaper to create a private sector job than a job created by some government program like this pork plan. I already showed you in gory detail how I can create nine jobs for every one job created by this bill. Do you prefer one job created or nine?

Maybe the way to get you understand this is to have you answer a simple question. If a government job is equivalent to a private sector job, then why don't we all work for the government?

Think about that get back to me.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Tough question I know
Date:	2/16/2009 9:54:56 AM

There really is no right answer to this question because if we all worked for the government and the government gets its money from the wealth created by private individuals then there would be no money. That in itself suggests that government should be limited, something our founding fathers understood but we have lost.

If you take a dollar from Peter in the private sector, waste 10% on the collection and disbursement of that dollar and then give Paul the 90 cents then the transaction was a net loss. Peter has one less dollar to spend and Paul only has 90 cents to spend. The economy loses and we all lose with this monumental waste of money called a stimulus plan.

But, we all know things are worse than we expected so when this one doesn't work, we'll need another one. Just like TARP didn't work so we needed this one. And so on and so on until the American people wake up and vote for someone who understands economics and history.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Tough question I know
Date:	2/17/2009 6:30:27 AM

Obama said yesterdays that the spending planned passed will not be enough and that we will need a second bill. The stock market is reacting accordingly. Futures down 116 and will probably break the november lows. There has not been one thing this joke for a president has done that wall street has rallied on thinking it was a good plan.

wll street is main street ... it is our businesses that employ people and it is everyones 401k and IRA. It is individuals that are looking at the impact of government and how it will impact business 6 months down the road. Right now they are saying it is not going to be better and it may be worse.

This crazy wasteful spending plan will start to raise interest rates when we need continued low rates, it will be infationary and will bring us to a return of the Carter years.

It makes me sick when Obama thinks his 144 days experience is better than those with much more experience. He preaches (yes that is what he is doing) when he says we will not return to the failed policies of the last eight years ... we had great growth under Bush and he inherited a bad recession and then 9/11 which could have collapsed our economy. That was the goal of the terrorists. Yet Obama won't admit the mess we are in were caused by the failed policies and thinking of the democratic liberals.

Quick Links
Wallace Lake News
Wallace Lake Photos
Wallace Lake Videos