Economists say time is of the essence

Well it looks like the republican obstructionists may have held up the stimulus too long for it to have maximum effect.

Well known economists from both sides of the isle have been urging the republicans to put partisan politics aside for the good of the country.

But so far to no avail.

The fact that they are assuring a back seat role for the GOP for the foreseeable future does not dissuade them.

They may have already grandstanded too long.

www.lynnsamuels.typepad.com

I'm going to go see if my husband has a set of waders I can borrow.

Hasn't the target date for signing the bill always been President's day?

And isn't that a week away?

And aren't democrats, along with the huckleberryies they round up supposed to pass the bill on Tuesday.

And hasn't our resident partisan told us these two liberal spending bills are very close?

So how have obstructionist slowed the process down?

Well as usual I guess you guys didnt check the source.

I am just the middleman.

Dont shoot the messenger ok.

"While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package -- even a flawed one -- is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy.

'Is it a perfect package?'
Many economists say the precise size and shape of the package developing in Congress matter less than the timing, and that any delay is damaging.

lynnsamuels.com isn't a source.

I'm opening a new thread, with a real source.

Your source is just guessing Sodbuster. They have no idea if the stimulus package will work or not but that's not going to slow democrats down in the slightest no matter what the consensus are saying.

After all, they're not going to waste a perfectly good crisis by doing what's best for America!!!!!

"lynnsamuels.com isn't a source."

Well Steph it works fore, but OC says sometimes it works if you use www.lynnsamuels.typepad.com

Also Aaron it is not just one source.

It is several sources from both liberal and conservative point of view.

And I could quote you 2 for 1 economist who say it will not work. But you wouldn't believe them just as you won't believe the source Stephanie.

After all, as your leaders have said, you can't waste a perfectly good crisis now, can you Sodbuster!!!!!

I went and found the article. What you have is a couple of liberals, one from the Clinton days, crying the sky is falling. It's all so much bullshit.

For years guys like Ron Paul & Peter Schiff warned of the calamity to come, but the liberals & the neocons wouldn't listen. Now the shit is hitting the fan and the liberals and the neocons still turn deaf ears to the very people who saw it coming. Why aren't I surprised?

When The O & Pelosi & Co. get this abomination passed turning this recession into the mother of all depressions, you'll still be blaming it all on Booosh & the obstructionist Republicans. It's like 1930 on steroids.

This nation and her people have indebted themselves to the point of financial ruin. The liberal answer is to dig us all deeper in debt. That's not just stupid, it's insane.

Lynn Samuels is brilliant!

Now, if the "stimulus" haha doesn't work, it's the Republicans' fault for delaying! Of course, if it does work, then the Republicans lose also.

There is no way for the dems to be wrong! Brilliant!

Sherm, that may well work on MSNBC, but the literate masses ain't faillin' for it.

Most of the spending doesn't come until after fiscal year 2010. Why is time of the essence? Are they afraid somebody is going to find out what is in it?

Sherm,

And as far as "putting partisan politics aside," you have got to be shrooming.

How any Democrat could say that with a straight face after the past 8 years is beyond me. (I'm assuming your face is straight, naturally)

The only time the Dems liked Bush was when he was spending money, and they ran against him in 2008 anyway, beating "him" because the actual candidate was such a limp-wristed nancyboy.

McCain was able to stare down the VietCong and is a true American hero. But he was unable to stand up to the Democrats in the United States who then went on to beat George Bush in 2008. As he wasn't actually running in 2008, beating him turned out to be a walk in the garden.

But let's have none of this crapola about "putting partisan politics aside." The only way in which the Dems are willing to do this is through having the Republicans adopt Democratic policies.

Or silencing them through the Fairness Doctrine.

Or organizing them through Card Check.

Or aborting them through the Free Choice Act.

Richard Neely says "measure twice, cut once".

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Op-EdCommentaries/200902070755

Oh, so this is what bipartisanship looks like!

"It is like they're born-again budget conservatives," Paul said. "Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.paul/index.html

sodbuster wrote:Well known economists from both sides of the isle have been urging the republicans to put partisan politics aside for the good of the country.

Here's a couple of hundred economist who don't agree with what you say.

"Sherm,

And as far as "putting partisan politics aside," you have got to be shrooming.

How any Democrat could say that with a straight face after the past 8 years is beyond me. (I'm assuming your face is straight, naturally)"

Well Sheik I hate to use a tired old phrase, but that is revisionist history.

I was the only one on here who defended Pres. Bush's efforts to solve this crisis early on.

You supported him because he listened to democrats and a Wall street insider and was willing to throw money hand over foot to bail out banks.

Sherm,

You supported Bush when he was a LAME DUCK acting like a Democrat.

You don't get credit for that.

I'm sure you missed my question. Let me ask it again: Why is it imperative to pass legislation that allegedly stimulates the economy in fiscal year 2011 and beyond right now?

Well OC do you want just a quick little short term pick me up?

Personally I think they should take the tax cuts for the rich out and spend more on roads, bridges, and cleaner power plants.

Also education and research.

But we cant all get 100% of what we want.

For example, one of those carbon sequestering power plants could be built here in Jackson County to serve Century aluminum.

If a Trillion is short term I'm scared shirtless of what long term's gonna cost us.

Well OC do you want just a quick little short term pick me up?

Personally I think they should take the tax cuts for the rich out and spend more on roads, bridges, and cleaner power plants.

Again, you have failed to answer my question - it a very simple one : why is it imperative to pass this legislation right now when over 50% of it does not impact the economy until (if at all) fiscal year 2011?

Tax cuts for the rich? Expressed differently might be called tax cuts for those who pay taxes. Many of us believe that language should be used to accurately describe what we mean. So you think we should gouge the rich and reward the poor?

Is it your contention that income redistribution somehow stimulates the economy? You don't have to answer that. You appear unable to respond to individual questions.