Despite the Ass-kissing, Stimulus Plan Passes Without a Single Republican Vote

[Cancel 2016.2]

Pop quiz: what types of funding are provided "to education" in the bill that passed yesterday?

Edit: Question 2, what funding contains the prohibition on spending on voucher programs?

"In the education realm, the stimulus aims more than $125 billion at bolstering public education, an unusual federal intervention in a sphere usually left to state and local governments. It calls for spending $20 billion on school and college renovations. There's another $79 billion proposed for aid to the states to help them avoid education-related layoffs. In addition, more than $2 billion would go to the Head Start program, $13 billion to supplemental funding for high-poverty areas, and another $13 billion for special-education programs."

So yes, part of the spending is on infrastructure... but the bulk is not.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Oh god, well now the thread's just been ruined. Can't we have a secluded spot for asshat and damo when they do this?

Why don't you open your mind and join the debate instead of going into liberal "I don';t think in those words" mode.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why don't you open your mind and join the debate instead of going into liberal "I don';t think in those words" mode.

um... because she is a liberal??

 

[Damocles]

production based on artificial demand is moronic.

nuke is really the best option for getting off oil. But of course getting off oil is not really the goal. Devastating the economy at large, while wallstreet makes money off their mandated and ineffective green technology is the goal, and a dystopic scenario of epic proportion.

DId you ever work on that plan of specifics to go along with protectionist agenda that you support wholeheartedly?

It isn't "artificial" to want to stop needing oil from sources outside the US that may, at times, be unfriendly if not directly hostile towards her interest.

Only your outrage is artificial and irrational.

The reality is I gave good reason that it isn't created artificially and why it would benefit us. You? All you can do is parrot the same line again.

Think for once. It would be a good thing to not need foreign sources of energy. It is stupid to continue refusing to even think at all because you don't like the "global warming" rationale.

And Nuke energy is one thing we can do. Again, one doesn't exclude the other except in your mind.

 

[Bonestorm]

"In the education realm, the stimulus aims more than $125 billion at bolstering public education, an unusual federal intervention in a sphere usually left to state and local governments. It calls for spending $20 billion on school and college renovations. There's another $79 billion proposed for aid to the states to help them avoid education-related layoffs. In addition, more than $2 billion would go to the Head Start program, $13 billion to supplemental funding for high-poverty areas, and another $13 billion for special-education programs."

So yes, part of the spending is on infrastructure... but the bulk is not.

OK. We're finally getting somewhere. The funding that prevents funds from being used for voucher programs is the $79 billion, $39.5 billion for the 2009 school year and $39.5 billion for the 2010 school year. Pursuant to the bill, the funds can only be used to bring spending in the 2009 and 2010 school years up to 2008 school year levels of spending.

If you can explain how it makes sense to include a voucher program, a transfer of funds from public schools private schools, in a bill that attempts to maintain current levels of funding for public schools I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It isn't "artificial" to want to stop needing oil from sources outside the US that may, at times, be unfriendly if not directly hostile towards her interest.

Only your outrage is artificial and irrational.

The reality is I gave good reason that it isn't created artificially and why it would benefit us. You? All you can do is parrot the same line again.

Think for once. It would be a good thing to not need foreign sources of energy. It is stupid to continue refusing to even think at all because you don't like the "global warming" rationale.

It is artificial if the demand is created by law.

THere's no outrage here. Only sense.

I don't think green technology is the solution to our jobs issue. Comingling the issues is dishonest.

Did you work on that plan of protectionist specifics? Oh wait, you;re not for it at all, that was just a rhetorical device. My bad.

 

[Damocles]

It is artificial if the demand is created by law.

THere's no outrage here. Only sense.

I don't think green technology is the solution to our jobs issue. Comingling the issues is dishonest.

Did you work on that plan of protectionist specifics? Oh wait, you;re not for it at all, that was just a rhetorical device. My bad.

Who said it must be "created by law"? So far only you have said that.

When did I say we should create laws that force people to buy "green"? I didn't. Only you said that.

There is demand regardless of laws, they are unnecessary, and it is good for our national security. You are still arguing against the "global warming" people, even though none of them are participating in the conversation.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Who said it must be "created by law"? So far only you have said that.

When did I say we should create laws that force people to buy "green"? I didn't. Only you said that.

There is demand regardless of laws, they are unnecessary, and it is good for our national security. You are still arguing against the "global warming" people, even though none of them are participating in the conversation.

It was my understanding there would be laws created to mandate emissions or green technology usage in some way. Is it that the demand REALLY IS THERE, but the laws will just reinforce the demand?

Are you really saying there will be no laws created that will drive demand for green technology? I just want to get you on record.

I haven't mentioned global warming. In the context of job creation, green technology is not the solution. It's just another facet of the illuminati agenda presented as a solution to an obvious problem. Of course, the obvious solution, protectionism, will be overlooked, because it would actually work, and we can't have all these people living and breathing.

 

[Damocles]

It was my understanding there would be laws created to mandate emissions or green technology usage in some way. Is it that the demand REALLY IS THERE, but the laws will just reinforce the demand?

If the laws are created it would be without my support. Again, promoting new production and research would not mean that we make laws that force you to drive GEOs. You are arguing with an entirely different group of people, who aren't participating in the discussion we are currently having... The "global warmers" want to save the world with laws. I want to save our economy by actually becoming a producer rather than simply a service economy again.

Are you really saying there will be no laws created that will drive demand for green technology? I just want to get you on record.

I am saying that there are other factors that will drive the demand for green technology. Like the Tesla, in production with a waiting list. If you make it not suck, people will buy it because it is what they want, not because you force them to.

I haven't mentioned global warming. In the context of job creation, green technology is not the solution. It's just another facet of the illuminati agenda presented as a solution to an obvious problem. Of course, the obvious solution, protectionism, will be overlooked, because it would actually work, and we can't have all these people living and breathing.

No, you have assumed that people would "make laws" to "create demand" artificially. That is an argument against the "global warmers" who seem to believe that there is no other reason possible to need this stuff. Of course there is.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

If the laws are created it would be without my support. Again, promoting new production and research would not mean that we make laws that force you to drive GEOs. You are arguing with an entirely different group of people, who aren't participating in the discussion we are currently having... The "global warmers" want to save the world with laws. I want to save our economy by actually becoming a producer rather than simply a service economy again.



I am saying that there are other factors that will drive the demand for green technology. Like the Tesla, in production with a waiting list. If you make it not suck, people will buy it because it is what they want, not because you force them to.



No, you have assumed that people would "make laws" to "create demand" artificially. That is an argument against the "global warmers" who seem to believe that there is no other reason possible to need this stuff. Of course there is.

Just because you don';t support it, doesn't mean it won't happen.

People do make laws to create demand. It's one of the fascist purposes of congress.

And still I have not mentioned global warming, I just know that if you have to create laws to make something happen, it is illegitimate, in my book.

It's definitely not a solution for jobs in any sense.

 

[Cancel7]

OMG

No one ever invite asshat and damo to a party. You can invite one, but never both.

Snoozefest.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

OMG

No one ever invite asshat and damo to a party. You can invite one, but never both.

Snoozefest.

Butt... we also do Hall & Oates tunes. So factor that in.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

m.e.t.h.o.d.o.f.l.o.v.e.

 

[Cancel7]

Butt... we also do Hall & Oates tunes. So factor that in.

Oh yeah, that changes everything!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

OK. We're finally getting somewhere. The funding that prevents funds from being used for voucher programs is the $79 billion, $39.5 billion for the 2009 school year and $39.5 billion for the 2010 school year. Pursuant to the bill, the funds can only be used to bring spending in the 2009 and 2010 school years up to 2008 school year levels of spending.

If you can explain how it makes sense to include a voucher program, a transfer of funds from public schools private schools, in a bill that attempts to maintain current levels of funding for public schools I'd be glad to hear it.

Easy... student A moves from public school to private school. Federal funding for student A moves from public school to private school. Public school still gets same amount of money per student. Parents/student get to attend the school of their choice. Federal government outlay per student remains the same.

 

[Damocles]

Just because you don';t support it, doesn't mean it won't happen.

People do make laws to create demand. It's one of the fascist purposes of congress.

And still I have not mentioned global warming, I just know that if you have to create laws to make something happen, it is illegitimate, in my book.

It's definitely not a solution for jobs in any sense.

We're discussing our opinions, not predictions. I very well know that "just because I don't support it" doesn't mean it won't happen. Duh.

It is one of the points we agree on, I was telling you so. If you want to convince somebody start with somebody who doesn't agree on that point.

One more time for the slow. (That's you, AHZ.)

You are arguing against making laws to "create artificial demand".

I agree with you on that point.

I then add that it is a good idea to work towards this technology regardless and give reasons why it is, I show the demand exists and give examples, and I show how and why I think it would work to help in many different ways.

I now suggest for the third time in this thread that you actually think for a bit, stop "arguing" about something that nobody you are talking to is suggesting, and think a bit beyond your original assertion and your obtuse objection to all things 'green' because you think the demand will be "created artificially".

We agree, there is no need to make laws to create the demand and such laws shouldn't be made. What we disagree on is the supposed "irrationality" of 'green' technology. It is a good idea because of the benefits we could get from it that I listed earlier, regardless of people who think they are "saving the world" by buying the technology those reasons will still exist and are still good reasons.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We're discussing our opinions, not predictions. I very well know that "just because I don't support it" doesn't mean it won't happen. Duh.

It is one of the points we agree on, I was telling you so. If you want to convince somebody start with somebody who doesn't agree on that point.

One more time for the slow. (That's you, AHZ.)

You are arguing against making laws to "create artificial demand".

I agree with you on that point.

I add that it is a good idea regardless and give reasons why it is, show the demand exists with examples, and show how and why it would work to help in many different ways. Then I suggest you actually think for a bit, stop talking about something that nobody you are talking to is suggesting, and think a bit beyond your original assertion.

We agree, there is no need to make laws to create the demand.

But laws will be made about it, so discussing it should reflect that reality. I know you want to discuss your fictitious case where it;s not mandated, so you can speak of it as legitimate demand. But it will be mandated and the demand will be based on that government fiat, and not actual market desire, and thus, is illegitimate.

It's a bad idea, and it';s definitely not a solution for jobs.

 

[Epicurus]

The rich really are greedy. And we really were in a new gilded age. And they really want more and they really don't care who starves, and they really think everyone else can go eat cake. And they really want to make sure we never get health care, and the captains of industry really do have phone calls where they plot and plan to ensure that there are no unions, and they really were caught on tape doing that, and they really do think that we need a peasant class.

And that is how I really see it.

So we just have a difference of opinion on this. I do hope that this bill staves off the worst of it, but I think it could have been that much better.

Two tickets to Crazytown, please.

 

[Bonestorm]

Easy... student A moves from public school to private school. Federal funding for student A moves from public school to private school. Public school still gets same amount of money per student. Parents/student get to attend the school of their choice. Federal government outlay per student remains the same.

Are you even trying? You are presumably much smarter than this but maybe I presume too much.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Are you even trying? You are presumably much smarter than this but maybe I presume too much.

If you truly want to critique what I wrote, how about you explain what part of it you disagree with. Then we might actually be able to have a conversation on the topic rather than having to read your pathetic attempts to insult me.