signed.pngThe scintillating prose from CNN simply completes the picture, don’t you think?

President Obama today signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. So how will we know if it’s working? What will be the signs? The president and economists say the biggest marker will be an improvement in the jobs picture. Compared to that, CNNMoney reports, getting the law passed was the easy part.

Obama signs $787 billion stimulus plan into law [CNN]

Sign up for the Dealbreaker newsletter

Subscribe to our free daily email and get breaking news, financial headlines, commentary, and analysis from Dealbreaker.

— Advertisement —

Comments (133)

  1. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    Blatant racism.

  2. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:42 PM

    Ears too big, voted for other guy.

  3. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM

    This bill is the political equivalent of the sea monkeys and x-ray glasses.

  4. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    too shocked, didn’t awe…

  5. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    If it walks like a marxist and talks like a marxist…..

  6. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    Messiah’s successor will still be dealing with this in 2013.

  7. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    ‘Scuse me while I whip this out.

  8. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

    He’s a southpaw? Wish I had known that before I voted for him. You just can’t trust those guys.

  9. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:48 PM

    @6- still can’t get over the fact that you lost, eh?

  10. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM

    Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!

  11. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM

    @9 The markets are voting now.

  12. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM

    @9 – we ALL lost.

  13. Posted by merkin capital partners | February 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM

    Just when i thought I couldn’t like you less, you go and make a speech like that…and totally confirm everything i believed!
    also, your hair is falling out in patches.

  14. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM

    This bill will have “worked” when the economy recovers around 2012…

  15. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM

    So now I don’t have to pay my mortgage or car note?

  16. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM

    @7 well done.

  17. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM

    6 I agree. After all, its been almost a month already and he hasn’t been able to correct 8 years of mismanagement in the form of lets cut taxes and go to sleep.

  18. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM

    This is what happens when you give executive responsibility to a 47-year-old who has never held any job for more than three consecutive years.

  19. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM

    hey y’all the man says it better than i could:
    http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/blogs/phlog/OBAMA_IGNORANT.mp3

  20. Posted by legal eagle | February 17, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    Question to all of you who feign enlightenment on this board and think you may have the answer to the economic crisis: What would you have liked to see happen/how would you have liked to see a bill structured? You seem to want to blame the Obama administration for the current market failure, but you forget that neither he nor his cabinet actually caused the problem. Idiot lending, government incentive to lend to unworthy individuals and poor judgment by those individuals (among other things) caused this mess. And the banks, our “great capitalistic institutions,” were the ones lobbying for government intervention to support their failing enterprises.
    I think the government should have just let the big players fail and let smaller, better capitalized banks gobble up the good assets (or, if there weren’t any good assets left, let them fail anyway). And yes, this would have put me out of a job. But I’m tired of incentivizing failure.
    That’s my rant of the week. Interested in your thoughts of what the gov’t should, or should not, have done.

  21. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:03 PM

    19 Was there a spending cut with that tax cut? Thought not. Therefore it was a stupid idea.

  22. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:04 PM

    I’ll feel better in about 4 years when I get to vote again

  23. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:04 PM

    I hope I don’t get hit by any change.

  24. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM

    @21, Bess has a plan that will work.

  25. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM

    21 Interesting thought, but most people are convinced that letting Lehman fail was the beginning of the end.

  26. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM

    @11- interesting. question– if mccain had been elected, do you think things would’ve been better right now? this has precious little to do with who’s in office right now. this has been years in the making.

  27. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:08 PM

    @21 Great points all. But as the NY Times reported today, in the bill is $198 million for Philippine WWII veteran. Now if that doesn’t get the economy going (as the money sloshes around Manila whorehouses), then I don’t know what will! And there are many other such wonderful expenditures.

  28. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:09 PM

    @24, +1

  29. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM

    @28 YOU READ THE NY TIMES? BUNCHA COMMIES! WASHINGTON TIMES YES; NY TIMES ARE ELITISTS…

  30. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM

    Too mission, didn’t accomplish…

  31. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM
  32. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM

    Erin Burnett likes those zip-tie handcuffs

  33. Posted by legal eagle | February 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM

    26: Agreed, a lot of people do believe that, but I have a fundamental problem with the semantics in the first place–that Lehman failed because the government “let” it fail. Lehman failed because it destroyed itself. We’ve now become conditioned to accept statements that place the government at the center of whether our financial institutions will survive or fail, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
    Why not have the government just take a step back and play no active role in bank failure or success (this would be the equivalent of letting banks fail, but I see no problem with that)? It would be hell initially as we hit a giant reset button on our financial health, but I think it would work out for the better in the long run. I don’t want a government sponsored prop-up of our financial institutions or any other institution that receives governmental support. This is just another bubble that will probably have to burst (or maybe just fizzle out this time) when these companies realize they didn’t actually do enough to make themselves lean and profitable, they just relied on an infusion of capital to maintain their slightly reduced cash burn.

  34. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM

    27 is exactly right.
    @28, since when has the Republican party been a good steward of the public’s money. They blow money like a TX gas trader in vegas, then quickly pull the “woe is me” card as soon as they are powerless, forgetting who was in charge until 2007. If they cared so much about financial responsibility, Republican’s wouldn’t be where they are today: hoping for a financial apocolypse so they can retake power next cycle.
    Absolutely nothing would be different if McCain and the R’s would have taken care of business, except D’s would be giggling with excitement as the market cratered. Pols love to say I told you so.

  35. Posted by Clown Capital | February 17, 2009 at 4:21 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZmHDEa0Y20
    Giant Recession Sloth: +67
    Cabinet of the Roundtable: -33

  36. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM

    @35 agreed, remember the statement made just 4 1/2 months ago “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” slow to act would be an understatement….

  37. Posted by legal eagle | February 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM

    On a lighter note, our downsized future:
    http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/medium-pimpin/

  38. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM

    Red meat for the freepers, as usual, that’s what you come to expect from EP.
    “There’s goes the neighborhood” is what white people say when black people become their neighbors. Nice picture of Obama to illustrate the point.

  39. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:27 PM

    @11- you need to lose your day trader mentality. are you really so stupid that you thought a problem year’s in the making would be fixed in less than a month? grow up.

  40. Posted by legal eagle | February 17, 2009 at 4:27 PM

    On a lighter note, our downsized future:
    http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/medium-pimpin/

  41. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:30 PM

    35 said “….Republican’s wouldn’t be where they are today: hoping for a financial apocolypse so they can retake power next cycle….”
    You mean like the Democrats were hoping for a crushing American defeat in Iraq so that they could win the election?
    Funny ain’t it how tables turn when you are in power? All of a sudden all the outrage about lobbyists, pork, ‘PayGo’, feam mongering, tax gap, bipartisanship, ‘torture’ etc etc gives way to ‘necessity’ and ‘urgency’!
    How does the foot taste?

  42. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:33 PM

    They made fun of Jesus, too.

  43. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM

    @43,
    too soon.

  44. Posted by Equity Private | February 17, 2009 at 4:37 PM

    “Posted by guest, Feb 17, 2009 4:26PM
    Red meat for the freepers, as usual, that’s what you come to expect from EP.
    “There’s goes the neighborhood” is what white people say when black people become their neighbors. Nice picture of Obama to illustrate the point.”
    Actually, I was referring to this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joe_Walsh_-_There_Goes_the_Neighborhood.jpg
    But obviously I’m a racist because I don’t believe in this bullshit bill and I re-posted a picture of a black man from CNN.
    How about you find your way back to whatever urban anthropology classroom you came from? If you don’t hurry going to miss tomorrow’s assignment on “All Sex Is Rape” and I think that your stirring the cesspool of PC sewage will be better appreciated there. You might even get an “A” for class participation and the comment “The student stimulates class discussion on difficult topics,” for your midterm marks.

  45. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM

    Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

  46. Posted by NegativeConvexity | February 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM

    a major point of confidence erosion in govt’s ability to mitigate this severe financial debacle is public record.
    if only we couldn’t look back to Fed minutes of Bernanke claiming that subprime issues are contained within that segment… how do central bankers have any credibility with such myopic financial views..
    Also, people say that the govt’s fatal mistake was NOT letting Lehman fail but rather rescuing Bear Stearns.

  47. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM

    Left-handers rule!

  48. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM

    Notice how liberals all blame GWB, but all the states writing IOU’s for tax refunds/going bankrupt are blue states…
    How they push low income home loans…
    How they snap at every chance to declare emergency, and need you to give them all the power…

  49. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:42 PM

    Why is Obama signing what looks like a single page, and not the full 1,000+ page bill? I guess that’s not the image Mr. Gibbs wanted to portray.
    Has he even read it all? Or is he waiting for the Cliffnotes to come out?

  50. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:43 PM

    Spreadsheet of the bill you can DL and analyze:
    http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw

  51. Posted by Pelitiah | February 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM

    @21 “Darkness warshed over the Dude – darker’n a black steer’s tookus on a moonless prairie night. There was no bottom.”

  52. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM

    Hey, wait a minute! The USA now has a leftie president and a leftie congress?

  53. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM

    @46…thanks..made my day…

  54. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM

    I’m a BDSM manager, what is sex without rape?

  55. Posted by legal eagle | February 17, 2009 at 4:48 PM

    49: I don’t know the numbers, so you may be correct, but there are PLENTY of red states that are in serious economic trouble right now, basically, the entire Southeast. Terribly high unemployment rates and they are running out of state unemployment funds so they are having to hit up the federal government for a bailout. Slightly different issue than what you mentioned, but the point is, states of both “color” are in trouble.

  56. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM

    Agreed 49, your jist like me ! The LIBERAL Phil Gramm helped pass a law to deregurlate home loan practices of major LIBERAL banks so they’d LOAN money to LIBERALS who they knode would never pay the loans back!!! Now the LIBERALS want to take our right to own mortars away and ban heterosexuals. You can have my heterosexual when you pry my cold gray hand off of him! Come on 49, back me up aginst the LIBERALS who want jobs and a decent economy!
    ~Karl Luggummer
    Shack, Idaho

  57. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM

    @45 EP
    TOUCHE!

  58. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM

    How about the fact that he’s increasing the troops in Afghanistan. We are never going to get back on track if we keep up this spending. Or how about that our tax dollars are subsidizing Israelis and Egyptians for no reason! I want my tax dollars to help out our country.

  59. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:50 PM

    @49– why bother making up facts that can be easily disproved, such as liberals blaming GWB? The name Bush has yet to be mentioned in this thread. If you’re talking about ppl saying this problem has been years in the making, are you so thin skinned and of tiny intellect that you can’t understand that that’s not just about Bush but a variety of factors? Stop clinging to your tired tripe about how liberals just hate Bush.

  60. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM

    @45
    You should have used Joe Walsh’s album cover. Since you didn’t, then it’s clear where you were coming from. You have no talent for comedy, just stick to your GOP talking points and don’t embarrass yourself any further. See @1.

  61. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 4:53 PM

    Props to #44 and #52…well played, very well played.

  62. Posted by Equity Private | February 17, 2009 at 4:58 PM

    “You should have used Joe Walsh’s album cover. Since you didn’t, then it’s clear where you were coming from.”
    Oh, gee. You caught me. Watch out for ep the racist bible thumper driving around with Louisiana plates and a tattered Confederate flag bumper sticker on my rust colored 1966 Ford pickup.

  63. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 17, 2009 at 5:01 PM

    61,
    You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Take a refresher course on “thinking for yourself.” Your own inner racist is burning a whole through your stomach, as you equate a picture of our president signing a thoughtless bill as racist due to the amount of melanin his skin carries.
    Give me a break.

  64. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:04 PM

    @61 – I’m gonna go here so ep dosn’t – your a friggin moron

  65. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM

    Sweet,
    The bill was signed, change is upon us. I was always wondering why we didnt have a train from Disneyland to Vegas. Now we will finnaly have one and a pony for everyone.
    I heard after he signed it, he smoked it.

  66. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:07 PM

    @66- SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. Has he said ONCE that it will be instant change? NO. He’s said repeatedly it’s going to be a long haul.

  67. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:09 PM

    @63
    I’ll never forget going deep sea fishing on the OBX and looking across the water to a beach covered in gigantic pickups all flying confederate flags. By far the most disturbing sight I’ve seen with my own eyes in the US.
    My ass was happy to be on a boat heading out to sea.

  68. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:10 PM

    Well, the terrorists want Obama to fail and Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail.

  69. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM

    #49 said, “Notice how liberals all blame GWB, but all the states writing IOU’s for tax refunds/going bankrupt are blue states…”
    B Berg says, “Kansas may withhold state workers’ paychecks, tax refunds and payments to schools…”
    Kansas one of them “blue states” #49?

  70. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM

    40, no one is evaluating whether he has managed to ‘fix’ anything.
    But most rational people would think that spending close to half a billion dollars on a a new convention center in Las Vegas – while at the same time ratcheting up public angst to ensure that no one makes a trip to the same place, or spending millions of dollars on new schools in cities where even the existing schools are empty and have declining enrollment is going to do precious little to solve the crisis.
    Sure, he did not create it an neither can it be solved so soon. But from the looks of it, he isnt even looking capable of or having the intent to solve it. In the immortal words of his chief-of-staff Rahmbo – you cannot let a crisis go waste. Thus, he is simply fear mongering to push through his policies regardless of the overall impact on the financial crisis.

  71. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:14 PM

    @71 said “no one is evaluating whether he has managed to ‘fix’ anything. ”
    um, that’s exactly what (moron) people are doing.

  72. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM

    @64
    Once again you show that you have no clue. Take a course in propaganda.

  73. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM

    $140,000,000 for Climate Data Modeling
    That must be some pretty badass pie charts. (Probably hire Boston Consulting for work that amazing)

  74. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM

    @69 Rush’s full quote was that he wanted Obama to fail at implementing socialist policies. I’m sure you knew that, but it’s not as much that way, is it?

  75. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM

    @42
    It goes both ways, that is why I posted the following:
    “Absolutely nothing would be different if McCain and the R’s would have taken care of business, except D’s would be giggling with excitement as the market cratered. Pols love to say I told you so.”
    Go turn on Hannity you angry, illiterate schmuck.

  76. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM

    Given what i pay in taxes, and the number of people I am now supporting, how many people can I expect at my house on Saturday to help clean out the garage?

  77. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM

    Too yes we, didn’t can

  78. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM

    @74
    I guess you think modeling the weather/climate is done with slide rule and calculator? Your ignorance is showing – I suggest you pull your pants up, moron.

  79. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM

    Sic transit gloria mundi

  80. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM

    @75
    What the comedian Limbaugh said equates to “I want Obama to fail if he does things that I want him to fail at.”
    So, he wants Obama’s stimulus bill to fail because he doesn’t agree with it, no matter whether the bill is intended to bring in an economic recovery for the benefit of the country. And Limbaugh doesn’t need to know economics to justify why he doesn’t like it. He just labels it as “socialist” and that’s enough for him to make it want it to fail.
    All you philosophy majors, have a ball with the comedian’s logic.

  81. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM

    #57 thank you, Barney Frank is NOT responsible for the subprime stuff, Gramm and the corrupt mortgage guys are.

  82. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM

    #57 thank you, Barney Frank is NOT responsible for the subprime stuff, Gramm and the corrupt mortgage guys are.

  83. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM

    @15
    Nope, and if you write a note to Geithner on nice stationary — probably won’t have to pay the fed taxes either.

  84. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM

    #81, Rush does not know economics and neither does Obama.
    Nonetheless, would you be open to trying to defend about two thirds of the ‘stimulus’ package as some critical one time spending enacted due to dire financial situations as opposed to discretionary spending that should be a part of a usual spending bill but has been shoved in and pushed through with fearmongering?
    Doubling unemployment or handing out DTV vouchers by borrowing trillions of dollars is not ‘stimulus.’

  85. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM

    of the $26 billion of monthly interest what’s my share of the deduction? loking forward to next year’s taxes who knew BO would give me a bigger deduction than my kids.

  86. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM

    @78
    time to knock off now – been drinking since noon?

  87. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM

    Voodoo economic pot starting bubbling before the Messiah, the Bushies, and Clinton took office and each administration and successive U.S. Congresses have made it worse. Not fixable in 3-4 years. 5-8 years, maybe.

  88. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM

    全ての国々のプロレタリア、あなたの組合代表を殺してください。

  89. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM

    (re picture) “…hey Obama what’s in the big pink box?” (Buckaroo Banzi)

  90. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM

    @85
    I know the economics. I know that it’s stimulative as a whole, but not big enough to cover the GDP hole that’s building. Too many tax cuts were also added to please the GOP. The AMT tax fix should have been left for another bill, for example. And some of the business tax incentives may not work.
    Saying that, do I want this plan to fail? The answer is a resounding NO because I don’t want to see more suffering, even though I’m doing very well, thank you. You see, Limbaugh is an idiot, but the majority of the country that supports this bill is not.
    But knowing what I know my expectations for its full effect are lowered somewhat. Which means, more stimulus is coming down the pipe. Doing nothing is not an option in my book.

  91. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM

    Bam boy looks like he’s smilin’ and hummin’ while signing. Probably thinks he can keep any of the money if it isnt spent, just like his campaign.

  92. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:24 PM

    @91
    ur a buzz kill – think I’ll rent Buckaroo banzi thx 90.

  93. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:29 PM

    91 – “I know that it’s stimulative as a whole”
    Care to qualify that? How? For all your claims of knowing ‘economics’, you dont seem to have heard of the broken window pane paradox.
    So why not simply pass a bill to break down all the foreclosed houses and rebuild them? This way all the builders and construction workers would have jobs once again! Viola, jobs created, money spent, everyone stimulated and problem solved!
    Ironically the bill DOES include these kinds of schemes. There are hundreds of millions of dollars for new uniforms for TSA employees. Why you ask when they already have perfectly fine uniforms? Because some folks believe that making the uniforms will generate jobs for textile workers. Broken windowns anyone???
    And the only parts of the stimulus that you do not think will work are the tax cuts, not the useless value destroying spending. Looks like you are from the Krugman schools of ‘I won my Nobel prize for real work in economics by not I use my stature as a Nobel laureate to feed populist BS completely contradictory to my prior works to the masses and that makes me feel like a BSD.’ I guess that terminated all ‘economics’ related discussion right here.
    Btw, Bush was hammered for not having an exit strategy and for fearmongering to pass laws to his liking. Even if I leave the present persistent fear mongering about the end of the world aside, what is the exit strategy about the trillions of dollars of debt being raised? Does you understanding of ‘economics’ offer any clue about it? Or is it the simple concept of ‘tax the rich’?

  94. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM

    @63
    Whatever, that’s why they pay you the big bucks here. See @92.

  95. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM

    So much bs above this post. Why can’t Wall Street face the mirror?
    “More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
    Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.
    Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failures and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
    True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money.
    Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored conditions. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.
    They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
    The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.”

  96. Posted by bondguy007 | February 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM

    Here’s a thought.
    WHY DONT WE DISCONTINUE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING? LET’S GET OUR SHIT TOGETHER IN THE U.S. BEFORE SENDING ANOTHER DIME TO OTHER COUNTRIES. OH WAIT, WOULD THAT NOT BE POLITICALLY CORRECT. TAKE PC AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.

  97. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM

    to all of those defending this stupid bill, take a look at the markets since it was announced. if it was going to work, the market would be up not getting hammered! 1,000 pages of spending! what a train wreck. could have done a lot more good cutting taxes 20% across the board for everyone. let’s face it, obama go rookied by pelosi and reid. sucker!

  98. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM

    @ EP, life’s been good to me… so far

  99. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM

    @98
    You know markets, eh? What are you doing here? Go back to your yahoo finance boards, that’s where the real experts comment.

  100. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM

    @98 – all herded animals should either moo or be quiet.

  101. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM

    will we see 5200 this year?

  102. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 9:17 PM

    WHOA… EVERYONE NEEDS TO CALM DOWN… I THINK WE’RE MISSING THE POINT. President Obama signed this bill in Denver! At least President Obama has the decency to sign the stimulus bill in the same location that he plans to use to pay for it. To tour the Denver Mint please use the link below: http://www.usmint.gov/mint_tours/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=StartReservation

  103. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM

    Dudes and Dudettes, what would Palin do? For shits and kicks, I would have fuckin LOVED to see Sarah “I read all the newspapers except those with black ink” Palin, John “Lehman fails tomorrow but the economy is fundamentally sound today” McCain and John “where is my commode b1tches?!” Thain (his Treasury Sect. to be) handle this mess.
    EP, I love your pseudo non-partisan posts. It is such a turn on to see you fake the funk. But really, why do you fake it? Oh baby.
    Let’s be real though, Obama SHOULD be able to fix this mess in one month. I mean, it’s not like it took us eight plus years to get into it, what is so illogical in expecting him to fix it in one month.
    And Obama SHOULD not help the housing market directly. It’s not like HOUSING is the root of this all. It’s not like housing causes the write downs and credit reserves which deplete bank capital and make them keep going to the feds…
    And doesn’t it really make more sense to cut the payroll tax and give us all $8 every 2 weeks as opposed to pooling that money and handling the foreclosure crisis in the most severely hit neighborhoods? I mean, like how is stopping foreclosures gonna get us out of this mess? It’s NOT LIKE HOUSING IS THE PROBLEM. I much rather $8 to buy an extra happy meal every week. That would REALLY STIMULATE the economy b1tches!
    Back to EP and me. I really think your raging carelessness for lower income folks and your lack of care to fix the root of the problem make us a great couple. Imagine how we could make up with each other after we debate our political views! Call me babes!
    P.S. EP, I am just kidding w/ you and I do like your post. No need to go all buckwild on me.
    Peace out b1tches,
    Tanned Banker

  104. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM

    rice and beans ted

  105. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM

    @104
    The worsrt case is you are the Reverend Wright.
    The best case is you are a righteous brother.
    We can both agree that we can judge by the content of the bills signed into law.

  106. Posted by StupidEquityGuy | February 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM

    Perlen vor die Säue werfen

  107. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 10:53 PM

    Any of you unemployed? Well, here’s a little wake up call.
    If you lost your job *before* 9/1/08, you don’t qualify for the 65% COBRA subsidy.
    AND you are paying for this subsidy (that you are not entitled to receive) through the taxes you are paying on your unemployment benefits.
    How’s that for “Drop Dead?”

  108. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 11:03 PM

    Not Rev Wright & Not a “brother.”
    Tanned Banker

  109. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 11:03 PM

    you can put lipstick on a community organizer…….

  110. Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 11:25 PM

    TB-
    007 Babe?

  111. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 8:59 AM

    “Oh, gee. You caught me. Watch out for ep the racist bible thumper driving around with Louisiana plates and a tattered Confederate flag bumper sticker on my rust colored 1966 Ford pickup.”
    It is a straw man argument to believe that all racists are southern rednecks that drive pick up trucks. There are plenty of racists in every region of the country, and plenty of them in NYC.
    EP I read this blog every day, and I rarely comment. Previously, you have stated that you were not born in the USA so I am (grudgingly) giving you the benefit of the doubt in this case where you claim that you didn’t understand the racial implication of putting a picture of the black president below a title that says “There Goes the Neighborhood”, but I ask that you do not attack those who were offended (including myself) by simplifying our objection by stating “just because I think this is a bullshit bill you think I am racist”. Most of us are intelligent enough to realize that this was not at all why people were offended.
    I don’t agree with your political views, but this has nothing to do with politics. I grew up in neighborhoods as the “pioneering” black family (first on the block) where our neighbors treated us poorly and made us feel unwelcome in just about every way short of burning crosses in our yards for years. (I lived in the North)
    The title of the article is a slap in the face to some of us who endured very real racism in the past and is amplified by putting a picture of our first black president next to it.
    I don’t expect an apology, (just like I don’t expect him to escape criticism which I really have no problem with) but after sleeping on it I just needed to properly articulate why I personally felt a little offended by this.
    To paraphrase a famous TV promo:
    It’s not supposed to be offensive, it just is.
    - A Black Corporate Lawyer

  112. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM

    Giving this president a free pass just because he is black is equally racist…

  113. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM

    @113
    The complaints were not about the man’s policies and how they needed to be defended (or not). Go find another red herring. Because if you think that whoever defends the man’s policies is avoiding to be a racist, and conversely whoever attacks his policies is a racist, then you have a lot of growing up to do. Go back to the yahoo message boards, or freeper land.

  114. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM

    Hey bailing out Big Auto (again) is only going to cost $100+ Billion.
    Pfft, that’s chump change these days.

  115. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM

    @67- You can be fine at home waiting for his change to kick in. Infact, he did say chnage would be immediate. He backed off that when he got into the office and realzied, running for office is far different then running the office. How was he to know, he has no experience.
    If you think his “long haul change program” begins with 5 non tax paying cabinet memebers and a train to vegas…
    I feel sorry for US that they allowed you to vote.

  116. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM

    This is to second @112. EP, you sound just a trifle defensive (actually, a lot). So you chose that headline because you didn’t get the allusion? If that’s true, then be big about it, apologize, move on.

  117. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 3:50 PM

    @112- I always find it interesting when the suprior PC guys come out of the woodwork to “be offended”. While I appreciate your background and am not defending the title of this piece. I do take issue with hypocracy. If you want to be offended by racial remarks, be offended all the time. Like when the news features only Palastinian children dead from Israel attacks. Where were you when Rev Wright was heaving anti white statments in Obama’s church? were you offended then? Were you offended when Rev Jess Jackson refered to NYC as “Hymie Town”? Racism doesn’t always manifest itself in a blatent remark. It can come out in many ways. My point is simple. Take your stance but be universal about it. Obama is a big boy. He sat in Wrights church as a half white American for 20 years litsening to Wright’s trash and he wasnt offended as a white man. I can only assume he wont mind the title of this piece since that would be hypocritical.

  118. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 5:20 PM

    If you hated the title on this piece you are going to really hate the cartoon in the NY Post today.

  119. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM

    EP: for any thinking white person over 40, “Joe Walsh” is not the first thing one thinks of when one sees that headline, especially in conjunction with the photo. You are, at best, being really tone-deaf and historically obtuse here.

  120. Posted by guest | February 18, 2009 at 10:52 PM

    @118: 1. Many people ARE offended all of the time. 2. So you’re agreeing the headline is racist.

  121. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM

    @121- Not agreeing or disagreeing with this title. I am pointing out that there is racism all over our culture all the time and it ocmes in differnet forms: bias film footage on the news, news stories, internet photos even Family Guy’s 60 min Nazi episode this season! I dont think we see enough people offended about racism in all its forms and its direction at multiple or rather ALL cultures. The outrage is usually about a comment as pertians to the black community. I question why no one has pushed Obama on his life in Wright’s church over 20 years. He is half white, was he not offended as a white American at the things Wright says? As a Jewish New Yorker the hypocracy offends me. Given what the Jews have endured, I dont see enough outrage about Hamas and Iran’s stance on Israel. If you want to pick out certian items in the press to get your panties in a bumch about thats fine but I am not listening until I hear those same outraged voices when its my tribe or any other group on the receiving end of the racial statment. So long as Al Sharpton remains the voice of a community, you are screaming into the wind.

  122. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM

    @121- Not agreeing or disagreeing with this title. I am pointing out that there is racism all over our culture all the time and it ocmes in differnet forms: bias film footage on the news, news stories, internet photos even Family Guy’s 60 min Nazi episode this season! I dont think we see enough people offended about racism in all its forms and its direction at multiple or rather ALL cultures. The outrage is usually about a comment as pertians to the black community. I question why no one has pushed Obama on his life in Wright’s church over 20 years. He is half white, was he not offended as a white American at the things Wright says? As a Jewish New Yorker the hypocracy offends me. Given what the Jews have endured, I dont see enough outrage about Hamas and Iran’s stance on Israel. If you want to pick out certian items in the press to get your panties in a bumch about thats fine but I am not listening until I hear those same outraged voices when its my tribe or any other group on the receiving end of the racial statment. So long as Al Sharpton remains the voice of a community, you are screaming into the wind.

  123. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM

    @121- Not agreeing or disagreeing with this title. I am pointing out that there is racism all over our culture all the time and it comes in differnet forms: bias film footage on the news, news stories, internet photos even Family Guy’s 60 min Nazi episode this season! I dont think we see enough people offended about racism in all its forms and its direction at multiple or rather ALL cultures. The outrage is usually about a comment as pertians to the black community. I question why no one has pushed Obama on his life in Wright’s church over 20 years. He is half white, was he not offended as a white American at the things Wright says? As a Jewish New Yorker the hypocracy offends me. Given what the Jews have endured, I dont see enough outrage about Hamas and Iran’s stance on Israel. If you want to pick out certian items in the press to get your panties in a bumch about thats fine but I am not listening until I hear those same outraged voices when its my tribe or any other group on the receiving end of the racial statment. So long as Al Sharpton remains the voice of a community, you are screaming into the wind.

  124. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:48 AM

    @124, 3, 2
    woops, it went through too many times. my apologies guys…

  125. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM

    why isn’t this thread dead yet?

  126. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM

    @122 – I’m pretty sure that if we had a Jewish president, and there was a picture of him signing a bill with a caption saying “Final Solution?” or some such, and then EP countered that she was merely referencing the classic single by Pere Ubu, a number of readers here would call her out.

  127. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM

    @122 – I’m pretty sure that if we had a Jewish president, and there was a picture of him signing a bill with a caption saying “Final Solution?” or some such, and then EP countered that she was merely referencing the classic single by Pere Ubu, a number of readers here would call her out.

  128. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM

    @128- we had the Family Guy episode and I didnt see and thread on it. does it have to be an insult to the POTUS to bring the “outrage”?
    lame…
    and you missed my point entirely.

  129. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM

    @128- we had the Family Guy episode and I didnt see any thread on it. does it have to be an insult to the POTUS to bring the “outrage”?
    lame…
    and you missed my point entirely.

  130. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM

    @118/128
    You mad doggie? What are you talking about? Israel? Palestine? Family Guy?
    Seriously?
    I gave a focused explanation regarding why I was offended. Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I think Jesse Jackson should get a job.
    I am as far from PC as you can get in this business.
    You need to back up off of the coffee and relax.

  131. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM

    That should be @122 not @128.
    Sorry.
    - 112

  132. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM

    787,000,000,000/250,000,000 = 3,148 per tax payer.
    I am not sure if there are 250,000,000 tax payers in this country but it looks plausible. I say fuck it, cut a check to everyone and let them spend before $3,148 becomes what it costs for a gallon of milk.
    I for one would have a great 2 hours at the titty bar with it.

  133. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 10:04 PM

    “This battle is lost. Thankfully, we have time to fight another.”

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.