At Home

I'd need more information before I made any kind of judgement. The article doesn't say whether or not they could tell it was alive or what judgements were made when they tossed the little bambino out. Remember that murder necessitates a motive. The mother was in the 2nd trimester, there's probably no way this fetus could have survived if it was given birth to anyways.

Really? Tell us all about it.

No we shouldn't. It's one of the few things alkeiper and I agree on! If you don't like someone, that was the whole purpose of the ignore button. Use it. Of course we should. If someone is a piece of shit and the whole board agrees on their terribleness, but they insist on staying (Marvin, Taiga, Jingus) for some masochistic reason, it's fully within the bounds here to ban them. They're not contributing anything worthwhile and are, in fact, lessening the whole schema of things here. No one's bound by anything contractually, and that is the beauty of it. If they're shit, fuck 'em. No reason for them to stay here. As the Khmer Rouge said, keeping you is of no benefit, killing you is of no loss. They were talking about peasants, but use your imagination. If they didn't do anything ban-worthy like having another account, so fucking what? They're shit, and everyone agrees upon it. Who are they going to complain to? This forum isn't a democracy. I spent too much time typing that.

You could suicide bomb them, that would probably do some good in the world Why in the world would the Department of Children and Families need to be firebombed? Well I was saying that she should kill herself, but I imagine that she is angry that the DCF tried to take away her children after she mistook them for food for the hundredth time.

Yes we should.

Half of the post was on some lost Floridian?

You could suicide bomb them, that would probably do some good in the world

It's EHME

I don't have TV.

Two of the smartest guys in the system, Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Taleb, talk about what needs to be done. The MSNBC assholes are pitching them softballs and ask them "SHOULD I PUT MY KID THROUGH COLLEGE," when they should've been talking about, you know, what needs to be done. The two are very intelligent, cipher through those idiots. Also, ten minutes long, but sit through it. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1027496846&play=1

No, the problem is that Republicans have a genuine disagreement about the nature of the stimulus package, hardly with its details. They don't want to see government get expanded into a larger role than it already is. There's also a motive, I'm sure, about the 2010 mid term elections. This would've been true a year ago, but now this sentiment is incorrect. People now are virtually guaranteed going to be saving money, and not spending it. Which is exactly what they'll do. They won't spend the money that they get. If they're afraid that they're going to lose their job, they're not going to buy a big screen TV. They're going to save their money, tuck it under their pillow. This is why government needs to do the spending, because people aren't going to be stimulating the economy with their extra dollars, they're going to be stimulating by going and getting jobs that they may have lost. Chances are, these jobs are going to be in the public sector, which is no bad thing at all. Really? No shit man. You should forward this to some people, there's real insight in this.

Please go ahead and read Geithner's plan, because I'm pretty sure that you have not.

Lots of letters, zero content.

Woops, you're right. I think that was for CA legislature. My mistake.

The NY Fed released a paper (pdf) explaining another dimension that hasn't been discussed here so far: deflation. Specifically, the role of tax cuts in deflation. If you don't want to read the paper, you can read Justin Wolfer's summarization of it. Key selections: Lacking a historical grounding in which Eggertsson bases his claims, Wolfers offers this: Jeff Sachs, Five Points on the Critical State of the Economy: What's point number one? Thanks, Jeff. Point number two: What's that, Jeff? Those were mostly things that the Republicans cut out of the stimulus package? Say it isn't so!

Yes, I do know how the Senate works. Believe it or not. The Republicans aren't trying to get the tax breaks that McCain pushed for in the election, they're trying to get the tax breaks that they've been pushing for for the last 40 years. Let me ask you then, if you're saying that he should've just told the Republicans to kiss off in the Senate, do you know how the Senate works? Because the stimulus bill requires a 2/3 majority in order to pass, and the Democrats don't have that many seats. Please don't tell me to go out and be proactive/tell me to have a life. That's pretty condescending. Again, believe it or not, I do have a life, just like most everybody else here. And you're not going to score any points here for telling us that George Bush was a bad guy. We know.

I don't really know why I should give him a break. He's not going into little league; he's the President. He bungled the stimulus package, and there are serious consequences. The Republican garbage is a minority in both the house now at both tiers, but he let them control the dialogue as if the last 8 years had never even happened at all. Hopefully he learned his lesson about this. What do you mean, "you people?" It's not like we weren't watching. Also,

He doesn't deserve it.

"Obama's killing Wall Street, saying no private bonuses" Fox News

Who cares

The problem isn't that there are Old Guard Republicans (as in from the 1830s) in the Senate, the problem is the entire Republican economic philosophy is wrong. They were wrong about the financial industry, they're wrong about tax cuts, and they're wrong about government's role in this recession. They misunderstand that this is, as their own Milton Friedman put it, "unlike most cases." If you're going to count on the Republicans for things like health care, just look to the Clinton administration and you'll realize how much of a pipe dream that would be.

Tax credits shouldn't even be in there at all. Their multiplier is around .5 (that is, the return on the economy will be half as much as they cost, in addition to the fact that this bill is going to need to be repaid at sometime or another), and people will be more likely to save it than spend it, which is exactly what we don't need. It should be government spending totally. The tax cuts aren't even going to the people that are affected, and if they are, chances are they're going to be tax credits on the income tax, which some people pay none of, so therefore no tax credit applied. Of course, you do have the $15,000 tax credit for flipping houses, which is complete Republican blowing of the people who need this stimulus package the least. And what jobs will that create? Right. Education funding and actual shovel-ready projects are going to create jobs, which should be the focus of the package. Investing for the future with certain projects are needed as well. It all sounds all airy and abstract, but these government jobs and projects should come now. For several reasons: a) time to bring America into the 21st century; b) these projects are going to save states money, which means less budget cuts, and more prosperity; c) increases GDP; d) these projects will create JOBS.

Really depends on what you mean by "on the ball." As politifact.com was absolutely enthralled to point out to us, Obama did break a promise relating to letting every bill have 5 days of public opinion before it was signed into law. He also, in my opinion, totally mishandled the stimulus package (see the US Economy thread).

Yes!

With a smile like that? Nah.