Robert Reich vs Newt Gingrich Smackdown

Yes and so much more. Allow me to set it all up.And its all about this week’s “Democrat Talking Point”

Reich begins to push the Democrat talking point of the day (more on that in a bit). He claims Republicans don’t want to be a part of the bill because when the economy doesn’t get better they will campaign on the issue. Gingrich will have none of that, and says Democrats have blocked Republicans every step of the way, they are trying to save the Dems from themselves

which sets up bite #2 and the Democrat talking point of the day. That is “Republicans refuse to be a part of the bill so they can campaign in 2010 against it. Here’s Senator Kent Conrad.

Which begs the question … if this is such a sure fired spectacular stimulus plan, and recessions generally run just 18 months … why are the Democrats so sure the economy won’t get better. Why does it seem the Republicans have more faith in their plan than the Democrats in theirs? The answer is easy. Listen up my liberal readers … WE HAVE FAITH IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY BETTER THAN BARNEY FRANK CAN. We in fact really do believe in America.

7 replies
  1. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Jim, could this stimmulus package, with so much earmarks or pork, plant the seeds of a pro-GOP revolt the likes of which could be a replay of ?”1994″ ? By what has been presented in both the House and now Senate Democratic bill, the debate over it does point the way for a possible backlash in 2010.

  2. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    ?: Anglo-Saxon model has failed

    By FT Reporters
    Published: February 9 2009 15:35 | Last updated: February 9 2009 15:35

    The Anglo-Saxon model of supervision and regulation of the financial system has failed, Nouriel Roubini, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University, told the Financial Times on Monday.
    Answering questions from FT.com readers, Prof Roubini, who is widely credited with having predicted the current financial crisis, said the supervisory system ?relied on self-regulation that, in effect, meant no regulation; on market discipline that does not exist when there is euphoria and irrational exuberance; on internal risk management models that fail because ? as a former chief executive of Citi put it ? when the music is playing you gotta stand up and dance.?
    ?All the pillars of Basel II have already failed even before being implemented,? he added, referring to the internationally agreed set of banking regulations that are forcing banks to set aside more capital to maintain their existing lending.
    Prof Roubini also predicted that it was possible another large bank could fail, saying: ?In many countries the banks may be too big to fail but also too big to save, as the fiscal/financial resources of the sovereign may not be large enough to rescue such large insolvencies in the financial system?.
    He also criticised the US and UK approach to bank bail-outs, comparing it with attempts by Japan in the 1990s to solve its banking crisis. ?The current US and UK approach may end up looking like the zombie banks of Japan that were never properly restructured and ended up perpetuating the credit crunch and credit freeze,? he said.
    ?
    ?
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7dce3c14-f6ba-11dd-8a1f-0000779fd2ac.html

  3. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    The first money seems to go to government agencies.? Guaranteed through 2012 (guarantee for more regular folk is through 2010 “In General- All funds appropriated in this Act shall remain available for obligation until September 30, 2010, unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act.-”

    SEC. 1106. SET-ASIDE FOR MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT.
    ?

    Unless other provision is made in this Act (or in other applicable law) for such expenses, up to 0.5 percent of each amount appropriated in this Act may be used for the expenses of management and oversight of the programs, grants, and activities funded by such appropriation, and may be transferred by the head of the Federal department or agency involved to any other appropriate account within the department or agency for that purpose. Funds set aside under this section shall remain available for obligation until September 30, 2012.

    ?
    SEC. 1107. APPROPRIATIONS FOR INSPECTORS GENERAL.
    ?

    In addition to funds otherwise made available in this Act, there are hereby appropriated the following sums to the specified Offices of Inspector General, to remain available until September 30, 2013, for oversight and audit of programs, grants, and projects funded under this Act:

    ?

    ?

    (1) `Department of Agriculture–Office of Inspector General’, $22,500,000.

    ?

    ?

    (2) `Department of Commerce–Office of Inspector General’, $10,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (3) `Department of Defense–Office of the Inspector General’, $15,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (4) `Department of Education–Departmental Management–Office of the Inspector General’, $14,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (5) `Department of Energy–Office of Inspector General’, $15,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (6) `Department of Health and Human Services–Office of the Secretary–Office of Inspector General’, $19,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (7) `Department of Homeland Security–Office of Inspector General’, $2,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (8) `Department of Housing and Urban Development–Management and Administration–Office of Inspector General’, $15,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (9) `Department of the Interior–Office of Inspector General’, $15,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (10) `Department of Justice–Office of Inspector General’, $2,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (11) `Department of Labor–Departmental Management–Office of Inspector General’, $6,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (12) `Department of Transportation–Office of Inspector General’, $20,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (13) `Department of Veterans Affairs–Office of Inspector General’, $1,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (14) `Environmental Protection Agency–Office of Inspector General’, $20,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (15) `General Services Administration–General Activities–Office of Inspector General’, $15,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (16) `National Aeronautics and Space Administration–Office of Inspector General’, $2,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (17) `National Science Foundation–Office of Inspector General’, $2,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (18) `Small Business Administration–Office of Inspector General’, $10,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (19) `Social Security Administration–Office of Inspector General’, $2,000,000.

    ?

    ?

    (20) `Corporation for National and Community Service–Office of Inspector General’, $1,000,000.

  4. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    Ironically, the Government?Accountability Office has its own funding in here (probably to avoid any scrutiny).? Wonder how “accountable” they’ll be for the funds:

    SEC. 1108. APPROPRIATION FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.
    ?

    There is hereby appropriated as an additional amount for `Government Accountability Office–Salaries and Expenses’ $25,000,000, for oversight activities relating to this Act.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111PmMPm5:e4013:

  5. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    Well, now I feel MUCH better about it:

    SEC. 1109. PROHIBITED USES.
    ?

    ?

    None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool.

    Such a relief, although I think zoos and aquariums are just as deserving as honey bees.!? Bet you golfers are upset.

  6. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    read through the entire stimulus package.? It’s just a cornucopia, a breadbasket for the entire nation, well for bureaucracy anyway.? Looks like we’ll have to double the size of government to “supervise” it.? Unbelievable.? Hey, they even have something in there for distance learning 🙂

  7. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Just for once, I would love to see them justify any of those amounts.? I mean really, did they just pull those numbers out of their hindquarters?? In gillie28’s post above, all I see are nice round numbers, which for me, is indicative of the fact that they are just fabrications made up on the fly.? Who asked for the money?? Breakdown the costs!

    Newt’s smackdown of Reich sure must have left a mark!? It stung out here, so I can only imagine how it felt to be on the business end of Newt’s correction of the record.

Comments are closed.