NewsViewz.com

Stimulus spending could alternately pay off 90% of mortgages. Which would you prefer?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok

I hadn't thought about it quite like this article puts it.  But it is an interesting point to think about.

Do you think that paying off 90% of U.S. mortgages would stimulate the economy?  I think it might stand a better chance at economic stimulus than how it's being spent now.

What do you think?

But here's why it won't fly: It's not really about stimulus, it's about payoffs.  The Democrats who are cramming this so-called stimulus down our throats mainly cater their policies to lower income people who are least likely to own their home and have a mortgage.  (Hence, why they're so interested in throwing money at programs that supposedly get people into homes.)

If we paid off 90% of mortgages, we'd still be missing payoffs to the kinds of people who are likely to be Democrat votors.

Where are the real economic conservatives?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VULUO0&show_article=1

This article discusses President Obama's willingness to compromise on the so-called "stimulus package" that is likely to be voted on by Congress today.

Some Republicans quoted in the article say that they are getting more hassles from Democrats in Congress than the Democrat in the White House.  While I assume that's true, I think there is a bigger concern that Republicans (many - not all) have conceded the argument over whether it's the government's job to stimulate.

The argument they should be having on Capital Hill is whether they should even be spending any money to "stimulate" the economy.  Republicans seem to have conceded that core issue.  All that's left to discuss is the level to which it's appropriate for the government to spend.

If they truly believe that the economy is best recovered through government spending, then why stop at $800 or $900 billion?

Why's everybody in such a rush to stimulate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Months ago, when the first "bailout" plan was announced, we were told that swift, immediate, and decisive action was mandatory.  We must act now... or else.

We've been told the same thing as it relates to the global warming panic for decades now.

And now this latest round of bailouts and supposed economic stimulus must be done right now.  There is a sense of urgency beyond anything else, and it's getting a little rediculous.

So what's the rush?  Usually, we would argue against making rushed decisions.  About anything.  But certainly about spending this kind of money.

Time tends to bring light to things previously unthought about or considered.  I wonder how many congresspeople have even read half of the stimulus bill?  I doubt many, if any.

How to balance the budget? Increase the number of abortions.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html

You've been warned about this thinking coming from the Democrat party, and here it is straight from the lips of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

In these tough economic times, the way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce the number of people by way of increased abortions.

This is the way they justify money in the ill-advised "stimulus" package.  It will help the bottom line because there will be less people being born who will cost money.

Nice, Madam Speaker.  Real nice.

Don't say you weren't warned about this.  Democrats will talk out both sides of their mouth on this issue until their blue in the face.  In the end, they want your tax dollars to fund abortions simply to reduce the financial burden on the federal budget.

Folks, ask yourself this question: Why is there ANY money in the federal budget going to anything related to abortion, whether pro or against?  This is a state issue, at best, and the federal government should be silent on it.

Introducing the Bill that would repeal Presidential term limits.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

I used to laugh this off as a conspiracy theory.  But a new bill has been introduced in Congress that would remove Presidential term limits and allow Barack Obama to remain in office as long as he could continue getting voted in.

Now, I'll admit that this bill has very little chance of actually passing.  However, this is just another example of Obama-mania.  Do you think such a bill would have ever been proposed while a Republican occupied the White House?  Doubtful.

Raise your hand if you want the 250 Gitmo detainees in your back yard.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_guantanamo_15

There are stories out today that President-Elect Obama will sign an Executive Order to close Gitmo within his first week of office, and possible on his first day in office.

Note in the article that the Executive Order may be signed, but that does not mean they really believe that Gitmo will actually be closed any time soon.  But perhaps the symbolism of the act will placate angry liberals who voted for him in part based on his promises to close the prison.

But the reality of the issue is much more complicated.  After all, which of the Senators will stand up and say their State will take on the 250 detainees?  None, I suppose.  Probably won't find any takers in the House, either.

Think some other Country will volunteer to have them moved to their prisons?  Doubtful.

Do you turn them lose?  If so, where?

Do you try them in American courtrooms, even though they're not U.S. Citizens.  That's not technically legal, and the ramifications are possible worrisome.

There are a lot of decisions to be made about Gitmo and the detainees being held there.  But remember that these are all enemy combatants who were captured fighting against the United States.  These are people who want you dead.  They want our way of life dead.  It's likely that some, if not all, of these prisoners will return to the battlefield if they are simply released and not detained somewhere.

So THIS is Speaker Pelosi's idea of a more fair, more bi-partisan congress?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_go_co/house_rules_3

Do you remember a couple of years ago when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats won back a majority in Congress?  She promised a more open, transparent, and bi-partisan government?  Remember how everone bought into the rhetoric?  Seems to me that it's the same rhetoric that helped Barack Obama get elected, but that's a different story.

Anyhow, Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats voted today on a new set of House Rules that, among other things, removed the term limits on her ability to remain speaker.

But that's not the most troublesome part.  The worst part may be a new rule that makes it difficult for Republicans to offer their own versions of legislation and allows Democrats to push through their own agenda without any real debate.  Essentially, they can overpower Republicans any time they choose.  So much for a bi-partisan climate, huh?

In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, House Republicans argued...

"President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. This (rules package) does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago."

It's a good point.  Remember, back in 1994, Republicans won a majority in the House after more than 40 years of Democtrat rule.  These rules that Speaker Pelosi is now changing used to be the rules before the Republican-led House changed them in 1994.  Unfortunately, the Republican plea fell on deaf ears.  About half of America asked for this; but we're all stuck with it.  If you have a Republican congressperson, that's a muzzle you see over their mouth.