No, just breathing heavy ;-)

It's not a direct stimulus package, it's a government power grab package with some stimulus involved indirectly where it benefits traditional Democratic allies such as unions. Now he's talking about how these things will be paid for and it's an assault on the engine you speak of because he's givng to the folks that don't produce while sucker punching those that do. If you raise the upper marginal rate, reduce allowable deductions, and raise capital gains taxes by 33% you are costing entrepeneurs and small businesses money that they would normally use to grow business and hire people.

And look at the SCHIP executive order and the cap and trade finance plan. The executive order funds SCHIP by raising cigarette taxes by $.65 or so per pack. Well, the majority of smokers are middle and lower class so who did he help?? The cap and trade plan on selling greenhouse emission leases to energy companies will increase energy costs to the consumers by a huge amount. It's mentioned that lower income families will get some sort of year-end rebate to cover the increased electric and heating costs but, c'mon Mike, that's a regressive expense. Households will have to make do with a lot less during the course of the year and that's bad for the economy. Wealthier consumers will get little or no rebate so back to point one: Kill the private economy.

Man, just run some numbers, please. You'll see some very legitimate concerns.

>FWIW I did not assume you were under the influence. Your message just sounded like you might have been.
>
>I don't think this is typical government spending. The economy is in dire straits (sultans of swing) and this is a stimulus package. Yes, there is some junk in there. Some Democratic legislators just couldn't resist the opportunity to play the old hits again now that they're calling the numbers. And I blame Obama for not being stronger and forcing the junk out so it would be clear to everyone that it's a stimulus package, not just wild spending. These are not ordinary times and government spending this year and next (or however long it takes to get us out of this) should not be viewed in ordinary terms. Say what you will about government, it does have the unique ability to affect the economy on a large scale. It's all the more important that they do so with businesses and individuals hunkered down. As I said yesterday, the engine needs fuel. If all spending stops we really will be in another depression.
>
>Good luck with the work project.
>
>>What, am I now seen as the gadfly drunk? Everyone assumes that I posted under an influence? Umm...no.
>>
>>My use of the term fascist refers to people voting and following someone based on a cult of personality rather than the facts on hand. Polls indicate that when asked on principle what the federal gov't should be doing the najority of Americans are knee-jerk against the level of government suddenly being imposed on us. So there's a schism there that indicates - to me - that folks love of Obama is not coupled with a knowledge of what he's trying to do. And that, in a nutshell, is the definition of a fascistic state.
>>
>>As to the other issue: What I post here are my true thoughts, hysterical as they may seem sometimes. I don't edit myself because I'm comfortable with the community and I'm not trying to tone down or spin. I don't rant because I'm under an influence; it's because I believe I'm in a group I can rant to. And my posting hours are weird because...well...my hours are weird.
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I think the term fascists was referring not to those who disagree with his 'analysis' but those who voted for Obama. :o) I took John's post as a late night ranting and perhaps under the influence? The response though, was from someone completely sober (I think). Perhaps I'm wrong on both counts...
>>>
>>>I was commenting on a statement that didn't have any 'facts' but perported to be 'additional facts.' I really thought I missed a message somewhere. I had problems with the UT interface before and thought it returned...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about Johns use of the word fascists to describe those who don't agree with his analysis. As I said the US right wing seems to be having trouble finding its feet and instead indulging in inflammatory rhetoric.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>s>I must've missed something. I didn't see any 'facts' you posted that would bring the discussion into 'balance.' I only saw posts deriding the original post in general:
>>>>>
>>>>>People who write this kind of stuff are automatically added to my "no reason to waste my time on this guy" list.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if my UT is not displaying all messages again (it's done that before)...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Only when I feel that nobody else write something to get the discussion "into balance", so to say. In that case I sometimes adds a few facts, but I don't feel the urge to get more involved than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But you keep commenting Tore ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have met John many times, and know that he's a good guy. But a good guy can have POVs which are quite different from mine. And as I wrote, I don't waste my time discussing these matters with them. That doesn't mean that I don't respect them or like them. It's just that I let them speak out without making any public comments myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>John's a good guy and generally worth listening to. He was just a little fired up there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>People who write this kind of stuff are automatically added to my "no reason to waste my time on this guy" list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What it has to do with VFP? There's Chatter forum on UT for sh*t like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Did anyone watch Obama's address to Congress?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, now this dude had moved into the category of outright liar. No earmarks? Hahahahah....the average American will burp, pull the tab on a new beer, and move on. But the truth is that the latest spending bill has between $4 Bn and $8 Bn in earmarks depending the interpreter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Now they're pushing through a bill to give the District of Columbia voting representatives. Seems fair, right? But it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, The only way legally to do this is through a Constitutional Amendment. But, golly gee, that would be inconvenient to Congress do we'll just overlook that aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>All you idiots who voted for this guy without knowing what he realy stood for and are singing his praises still are clueless or ... I dunno ... fascists. He's boiling the frogs, folks. If you don't know the analogy look it up.