To update Sen. Dirkson’s brilliant quip: A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.
Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country’s 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
The governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin — all Democrats — said the initiative for the two-year aid package was backed by other governors and follows a meeting in December where governors called on President-elect Barack Obama to help them maintain services in the face of slumping revenues.
Gov. David Paterson of New York said 43 states now have budget deficits totaling some $100 billion as tax revenues plunge.
“It’s clear that the federal government needs to step in and jump-start the economy,” said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.
The latest package calls for $350 billion to create jobs by building or repairing roads, bridges and other public works; $250 billion to maintain education; and another $250 billion in “counter-cyclical” spending such as extending unemployment benefits and food stamps, which are typically a responsibility of the states.
The remainder would be used to fund middle-class tax cuts, stimulate the embattled housing market, and stem the tide of home foreclosures through a loan-modification program.
#27 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Oh, you mean the same type of education that
>>people who have screwed everything had? LOL
Leave it to a minimum-wage counter boy at Radio Shack to snicker at an education from Yale and MIT (MIT is not part of the Ivy League, RAMBO).
Perhaps once you complete your GED studies, you’ll realize that there are people in this world (most of them, in fact) who are smarter than you. And I’m not just talking about the assistant manager down at the ‘Shack.
#28 – Bobo
Perhaps if you took a rhetoric class or something at the local junior college, you could write in such a way that native speakers of English understand what the fuck you are trying to saying.
Dudes like Paddy-RAMBO and FuckUp may be morons, but at least they don’t write in such flowery, ostentatious, pompous, flatulent, pretentiou home-schooled prose that nobody has the slightest idea what they mean.
#28 mustard:
“…you could write in such a way that native speakers of English understand what the fuck you are trying to saying.”
“Trying to saying?” Perhaps YOU should take a writing class. Pompous ass.
NO. Let the States learn to balance their budgets and if all else fails, let them use the bankruptcy courts like everyone else.
The only possible good that can come from this is that the dollar completely tanks and becomes “officially worthless” so maybe, just maybe, we can finally dump the Federal Reserve.
#35 – Berm
>>Perhaps YOU should take a writing
>>class. Pompous ass.
Haw, ya got me there!
Don’t forget: all pro football players have college degrees, many from illustrious schools.
Where you went to school and the piece of paper you got for your wall means shit if you didn’t learn anything.
#34–Mustardo==while not 100% wrong, rhetoric most often refers to speaking not writing as we do at this here blog. But I won’t follow your lead and quibble, so yes, a study of rhetoric does improve one’s expository skills, unless that term is restricted to music?
I forget who said something like:
Reading makes an informed man,
Speaking makes an eloquent man, but
Writing makes a precise man. /// I’m sure there are other formulations, all to the point these activities are related but different.
What I really like is how the people of the US want the best of everything for their society, yet they complain tirelessly for paying less in taxes than most of the civilized world. I used to be the same, till I started to travel, till I came to live elsewhere. No doubt about it, they’re gonna have to raise some serious taxes to payoff the bailouts. I’m just wondering if it was all worth it. Even if all the bailouts work, what then? Will things be better? I imagine the US paying european size taxes in the near future, but not getting anything in return in the way of social programs. All the money’s earmarked to save drastically mismanaged institutions both public and private.
It’s not too late, EMMIGRATE!
#18
> various goods have fixed
> relative worths compared
> to other goods and products
Not true. Worth varies per person and per circumstance. The price in a currency is acts like it is fixed only because it is (currently) impossible to determine the actual price a person would pay in real time and because business have a degree of inflexibility in their ability to change due to market conditions.
Bailing out the States with money that comes from the constituents of the States is idiotic. I refuse to vote for any candidate that wants to raise taxes and this is why. I have absolutely zero confidence that any additional tax money will be spent wisely nor do I have any confidence that when the reason for the tax increase is gone that the tax increase will be repealed. Bailing out States and corporations that spent their money poorly sends the wrong message.
We’re in a global deflationary spiral. The saturated debt either will default or be paid off. The The US may be screwed, the rest of the world is screwed more. The DX (Dollar Index) shows us that. While the US may print like crazy, the global deflationary forces will make it seem like pissing on a forest fire.
# 36 Miss_X2b said, “The only possible good that can come from this is that the dollar completely tanks and becomes “officially worthless” so maybe, just maybe, we can finally dump the Federal Reserve.”
I wish.
#39 – Bobo
>>while not 100% wrong, rhetoric most often
>>refers to speaking not writing as we do at
>>this here blog.
Not 100% wrong, not even 0.0% wrong. Rhetoric is the study of human discourse, be that written, verbal, or IM.
You’re thinking of Toastmasters International.
The war has CUT allot of services.
This is cheaper then the BANKS and Car corps bailout..
I mentioned in other posts that the NEXT president(obama) is going to have FUN correcting all the PAST 8-12 years of CUTTING COSTS/services.
Giving the money to the Corps will do NOTHING.
Helping the states, Wont help a lot unless you wish to WORK FOR THE STATE..
GIVE a boost to ALL the poor bastards out here, and watch the money FLOW UP..
Cars, home, GAS, toys, and much MORE could be BOUGHT and stimulate the WHOLE market, and Gov structure with CASH.
#45 ECA said “GIVE a boost to ALL the poor bastards out here, and watch the money FLOW UP..
Cars, home, GAS, toys, and much MORE could be BOUGHT and stimulate the WHOLE market, and Gov structure with CASH.”
Not really. There is no money to give. It would have to be printed. Thus the net effect is just $ devaluation.
Now, if the gov’t cut spending below the tax revenue and then eliminated taxes for everyone making less than $200k, THAT would stimulate the economy.
#46 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Now, if the gov’t cut spending below
>>the tax revenue
Ahh, you mean like Bill Clinton did. Damn, I miss the days when we had a competent POTUS.
Oh well, only 16 days to go……
# 47 Mister Mustard said, “Ahh, you mean like Bill Clinton did.”
No. Like the House did. Remeber, Clinton said balancing the budget wasn’t a priority for his Admin. The House crammed it down his throat. You should track a bit better with what happens in D.C…
46,
that would help also..
BUT stop Bailing out LARGE CORPS..
THEY made mistakes, and THEY are supposed to KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING..
# 49 ECA said, “that would help also..
BUT stop Bailing out LARGE CORPS..”
I agree. Market forces should be free to sort out poorly run businesses.
#48 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>No. Like the House did.
HAHAHAHAHA! Riiiiiiight. And then that same Republican-controlled House all of a sudden started spending like a drunken sailor when Dumbya came into office, right? LOL! They couldn’t cram the same fiscal responsiblity down his throat? LOLOLOLOL!!
>>Remeber, Clinton said balancing the budget
>>wasn’t a priority for his Admin.
No, I don’t remeber that. Perhaps you have a link showing this quotation? And even if he DID say it (which awaits your link to prove), it’s probably because fiscal responsibility just came naturally to his administration; it’s wasn’t like pulling teeth, as were the failed attempts to curb Dumbya’s enthusiasm for pissing money away.
LOLOLOLOL!! Admit it, RAMBO, you’ve got bitter bile in your throat because the “conservative” administration of Dumbya drove the entire economy into the shitter, while “tax and spend” “liberals” like Clinton ran a real tight ship.
HAWWW!!!!
try reading economists Krugman snd Stiglitz,also read Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams. Sowells basic economics should be required reading.
Also I am screwed I live in a state that is not in the red and has a repug gov.
# 51 Mister Mustard said, “No, I don’t remeber that.”
That’s because you don’t track what really happens in the world.
#51,
>>Remeber, Clinton said balancing the budget
>>wasn’t a priority for his Admin.
No, I don’t remeber that. Perhaps you have a link showing this quotation? And even if he DID say it (which awaits your link to prove), it’s probably because fiscal responsibility just came naturally to his administration; it’s wasn’t like pulling teeth, as were the failed attempts to curb Dumbya’s enthusiasm for pissing money away.
So let me get this straight:
If he did say it, he was lying.
Gotcha.
BTW . . . here is an interesting article concerning the 90s
http://tinyurl.com/5u7zvo
#53 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>That’s because you don’t track what really
>>happens in the world.
Neither do you, apparently. If you did, you’d be able to supply a link to back up what you claimed.
In the alternative, you’re just blowing smoke up all our asses, like usual.
How many times will you allow yourself to be throttled before you quit your bullshitting ways?
#54 – Liberty Loser
>>So let me get this straight:
>>If he did say it, he was lying.
Get is straight, Loser. Right now, you’re hopelessly confused.
I don’t believe he did say it, because Paddy O’Pinocchio says he did, and Paddy O’Pinocchio lies all the time.
If he DID say it, he (Clinton) was telling the truth. It wasn’t “a priority”, because it was something that just came naturally. No need to devote resources to doing something that they’re already doing anyway.
# 55 Mister Mustard said, “Neither do you, apparently. If you did, you’d be able to supply a link to back up what you claimed.”
I don’t bother linking generally known info.
#57 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>I don’t bother linking generally known info.
Oh, get stuffed, RAMBO. You made a claim, I called bullshit. You couldn’t support your claim (suggesting everybody knows it).
Again, I call bullshit.
If you can link, link. If you can’t, STFU. And if you dont’ know how to link, as somebody down the ‘Shack who has some computer savvy.
Cow-Paddy,
You are correct, Clinton say say a deficit was not as important as getting the country back on its feet after the mess left by Reagan and Bush I. But you did misquote Clinton. By the mid ’90s it was Clinton that vetoed the Republican budget, not once but twice if memory serves me correctly.
Now, why would someone who said a deficit didn’t matter veto a budget? Simply because it cut way too much to social programs and gave way too much to large corporations. Clinton knew how this would stifle the economy by hurting the engine of the economy.
#28, bobbo,
Will a mansion always be worth more than a hovel? Sure, because you will use a tautology to secure your idiot statement. If your brain were more flexible than a slab of concrete, you could hypothesize a Mansion being worth less than a previously less valuable house.
Sometimes you can be a real Cow-Paddy. This comment is one of those times. Why not ask if a $10 bill could worth less than a quarter? I’m sure in your alcohol fueled mind you can justify that happening.
#54, Loser,
BTW . . . here is an interesting article concerning the 90s
How is such an obviously biased, silly, article be interesting unless you are in denial about life?
#41, Thomas,
Bailing out the States with money that comes from the constituents of the States is idiotic.
Spoken by someone who claims to understand economics. The States are not allowed to manipulate monetary policy and thus may only use fiscal policy to control their budgets. Fiscal budgeting is great for families and corporations. But not for governments.
We demand services and actions from our government. While you may not approve of many of those actions, it is what we have.
I refuse to vote for any candidate that wants to raise taxes and this is why. I have absolutely zero confidence that any additional tax money will be spent wisely nor do I have any confidence that when the reason for the tax increase is gone that the tax increase will be repealed.
Which is why it is important to
1)vote for whoever agrees the closest to your opinion,
2) get involved in the government process, let your representatives know what you dis/approve of,
3) run for office yourself if the above don’t work.
Sitting at home complaining doesn’t fix a thing.