$787 Billion and Only 38% Say Stimulus Plan Will Help Economy


Obama Travels to Denver to Sign Stimulus Into Law and to open the largest Pork Restaurant ever.

Barack Obama’s Pig Roast … isn’t it interesting that Obama had made the comment about lipsticking a pig. We had always wondered with Obama’s, where’s the beef, but we certainly know where the pork is.


Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Nothing more really needs to be said … $787 Billion and Only 38% Say Stimulus Plan Will Help Economy.

Could you imagine as a private individual forking out this type of money, sacrificing your grand children’s future for 38% chance of victory?

There is a reason why people should be protesting in the streets  when it comes to taxation without representation… “From the Boston Tea Party to your neighborhood pork protest.” Hell, some of us would even see the positive in a politician actually reading the bill first before voting as a form of representation.

No Stimulus … but we got pork. More from the Gateway Pundit.

Obama signs bill and stock market tanks another near 300 point loss.  But let’s blame the loss on automakers rather than this socialist spending bill

Stock market has lost 2000 points since Obama was elected. Change?

UPDATE I: People Rally Against the Porkulus Bill

More from the pork-fest from Hot Air as Michelle Malkin serves up some stimulus-pork barbecue.


The hell with our children’s future … spend now, spend often for Democrat Socialist Pork projects

UPDATE II: More reports and pics from Atlas Shrugs


Posted February 17, 2009 by
Barack Obama, Economy, Main, WTF | 54 comments

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • President Obama Touts New $50 Billion Stimulus While 55% Oppose Second Stimulus Plan
  • Obamacare … Obamanomics … A Catastrophe and Obamanation for America … USA/Gallup Poll Bad News for Stimulus
  • EPIC FAILURE … Only 6% of Americans Believe the $787 Billion Stimulus Bill Created Jobs
  • Because $787 Billion Wasn’t Enough, Now Obama Wants Another $50 Billion Bail Out for States & Local Aid
  • House & Senate Pass $798 Billion Stimulus Bill … WORKERS GET $13 MORE A WEEK!!!

  • Comments

    54 Responses to “$787 Billion and Only 38% Say Stimulus Plan Will Help Economy”

    1. Just Bearly on February 17th, 2009 11:42 am

      Lord have mercy on all the common folks, and young people, who voted for Obama wishing for miracles to happen….

      $650 million earmarked to help people hook up to digital television, I heard a local radio jockey say today.

      Congressmen trying to pass 19% tax increases on beer i heard too.

      Stop the nonsense…. Big government is not the fix. Government will not and can not fix our lives. IMO our government only serves itself. This stimulus plan is unlikely to hold much juice in the way of trickle down benefits that could spark the economy. It still looks like a bailout and a temporary amends that may look good in the short term, but could be a financial disaster in the long run.

    2. katablog.com on February 17th, 2009 12:02 pm

      Just Bearly: If the SF mouse gets $300 million that surely digital tv is worth $650 million!

      First day after the Pork = U Less is passed and look at that stimulated stock market! Down 259 and falling fast!

      Now they are talking about nationalizing the banks. Heck why not!

    3. orlando fit on February 17th, 2009 12:16 pm

      How much money has been spent in the two wars we are in right now? anyone? could there be some relationship with our trillion dollar deficit? just asking

    4. SenecaFalls on February 17th, 2009 12:34 pm

      And here’s another viewpoint. 59% approval of the stimulus plan.
      And that was printed February 11, 2009 when the plan was $800.00 billion.
      The State of Florida is slated to get $12 billion which will create 200,000 plus jobs. Seeing as our legislature is 2 billion in the hole and can’t figure out their a—- from their elbows, other than begging the Native Americans to set up casinos everywhere, the money will help. The nonsense is thinking that doing nothing right now will help.
      The economy is sinking like a stone and who do you think is going to pull it out of the 2 trillion dollar demand slump that it is in. Bank of America? Goldman Sachs? GM? GE ? Where is the other source of demand and revenue going to come from if not government? By the way considering you do not think government can fix our lives haveyou stopped using the roads, sending the kids to school, calling the police? Yes , I guess we can all become Ted Kazinskis and live in little plywood shacks so that we can get away from the big bad townfolk and so that we don’t have to deal with government anymore. Get real.

    5. super dave on February 17th, 2009 2:21 pm

      i guess barry doesn’t realize that lincoln was actually a racist .

    6. katablog.com on February 17th, 2009 2:41 pm

      orlando fit: boy do you have a couple of disappointments coming! You think O is going to end the war in Iraq. Did he tell you why? He wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan!

      Next my pal, you are talking about spending $1 trillion over 6 years and that figure can only be reached if you add in the regular cost of the military personnel whether they are in Iraq or not. We actually saved thousands of lives too.

      So your argument is: if your guy can spend $1 trillion in 6 years, my guy can spend $3 trillion (yes, that’s what the real figure will be) in 3 weeks! For your spending you are going to save a little mouse and totally bring down the entire US Economy while a government official decides if your doctor’s treatment plan is worth the expense! Harry’s going to get his rail from LA to Nevada (now that will save a lot of jobs) which can only be constructed by unionized construction companies (read: gonna cost a whole lot more than it should) so who cares if thousands of Americans add themselves to the public dole because it’s simply easier that way.

      Watch for Tarp II, Automaker bailout II and Mortgage revisions I – coming to a government office near you soon – while the stock market continues to tank!

    7. Just Bearly on February 17th, 2009 3:42 pm

      Q: DO YOU KNOW HOW TO MAKE A SMALL FORTUNE???????????????????….

      A: Start with a large fortune.

    8. Rob in Ca on February 17th, 2009 2:59 pm

      Talk to an economist. The government has to spend to get us out of the Bush recession. Spending = Stimulus. We won’t all agree on what to spend it on, but to call it all pork solves nothing. We could hire someone to dig holes, then fill them in, and the economy would benefit. Tax cuts, on the other hand, create much less stimulative effect. Again, ask an economist (not a talk show host!)

    9. nurturer on February 17th, 2009 3:36 pm

      Obambi, Nancy Pelosi’s sock puppet, just signed us that much closer to the next Great Depression.

    10. caesu on February 17th, 2009 3:59 pm

      WASHINGTON — President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.

      Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.

      Mr. Crist even campaigned last week with Mr. Obama in Florida for the recovery package.


      i remember during the campaign a big deal was made about Palin who had more executive experience than Obama and McCain.

      well, 22 Republican state EXECUTIVE support the stimulus plan…

    11. super dave on February 17th, 2009 4:28 pm

      that’s 62% disapproval. ratings will plummet even further as we get to see obama start crawfishing on his promises as he already has.
      the stimulus is not designed to save the country, it is designed to save liberalism and obama’s dream. the government will eventually spend most of this money and leave the country broken. look at africa. the our country will follow suit if obama is allowed to continue his little power grab.

    12. Richard on February 17th, 2009 5:05 pm

      The signing of the ‘stimulus’ package certainly failed to give the stock market a boost.

      Meanwhile, I believe a headline said that President Obama has authorized sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I may be wrong on the figure. Whether this action is right or wrong, it is likely to provoke some caustic media commentary.

    13. Richard on February 17th, 2009 5:06 pm

      By the way, Chrysler says today it needs another $5 billion … and GM is supposed to make a similar plea. Surprise, surprise, they want more bailout cash!

    14. Richard on February 17th, 2009 5:25 pm

      I was right on the Afghanistan troop figure:

      Obama OKs about 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan
      Feb. 17, 2009

      WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama approved adding some 17,000 U.S. troops for the flagging war in Afghanistan, his first significant move to change the course of a conflict that his closest military advisers have warned the United States is not winning. “This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires,” Obama said in a statement.

      That was an implicit slap at his predecessor, George W. Bush, whom Obama has accused of slighting urgent national security needs in Afghanistan in favor of war in Iraq.

      The White House said the new commander in chief would send a Marine brigade and one additional Army brigade to Afghanistan this spring and summer. About 8,000 Marines are expected to go first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops. The United States has slightly more than 30,000 troops in the country now.

      The new troops represent the first installment on a larger influx of U.S. forces widely expected this year. Obama’s move would put several thousand troops in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually occurs with warmer weather and ahead of national elections in August.

      The additional forces partly answer a standing request from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, who has sought as many as 30,000 additional U.S. troops to counter the resurgence of the Taliban militants and protect Afghan civilians.

      “There is no more solemn duty as president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way,” Obama said. “I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action.”

      The new units are a Marine Expeditionary Brigade unit from Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, an Army Stryker brigade from Fort Lewis in Washington state.

      Defense officials said they are still working out final numbers of Marines who will deploy with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. A Marine Expeditionary Brigade can vary in size and makeup.

      Among the forces recently notified of deployment is a Marine unit of infantry and ground troops from Camp Pendleton in southern California, said Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican who represents the congressional district where the base is located. He said a full Marine brigade that also includes air assault forces, electronic warfare and reconnaissance will leave for Afghanistan on May 30.

      The withdrawal of troops from Iraq allows Obama to increase the numbers in Afghanistan. Last fall, the Pentagon announced that the Fort Lewis brigade was being ordered to go to Iraq.

      Ahead of his first foreign trip this week, Obama told a Canadian news organization that the United States will seek a more comprehensive, diplomatic approach to Afghanistan, where the U.S. has been engaged in war since 2001.

      “I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means,” the president said in a White House interview with Toronto-based Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

      Obama is scheduled to make a quick day trip to Ottawa on Thursday.

      Obama agreed to a troop recommendation from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the lone holdover from the Bush administration. Pentagon officials had been expecting a similar announcement for weeks, but the new Obama team took about a month choosing how and when to add forces to a war that has been sliding backward.

      The president made his decision Tuesday, a senior White House official said. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement, said Obama informed congressional leaders and Afghan President Hamid Karzai by phone.

      The planned troop deployment does not preclude sending more forces in the future, the official said. Any others, however, would come as part of a broader strategic review of the entire policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not as a stand-alone troop decision, the official said.

      That review should be completed sometime around the end of March, which coincides with a NATO summit in Europe.

      The strategy review for the Iraq war is expected to be completed in about two weeks or so, with announcements expected then on troop drawdowns, the White House official said.

      U.S. commanders have said they want to beef up the expeditionary units and trainers in Afghanistan’s southern region with enough new troops to stem the violence without becoming an occupying force that would alienate the population.

      McKiernan has asked for more mobile forces and believes having a Stryker brigade will allow soldiers to move more easily along the rugged trails to the widely dispersed tribal enclaves.

      Stryker brigades come outfitted with several hundred eight-wheeled, 19-ton Stryker vehicles, which offer greater protection than a Humvee and are more maneuverable than the heavily armored mine-resistant vehicles that are being used across Iraq.

    15. Richard on February 17th, 2009 5:43 pm

      Even MORE good news … for somebody … GM is asking for up to $30 billion in new federal money … even as it says it will lay off 47,000!

      Those pikers at Chrysler only wanted $5 billion.
      And they didn’t mention layoffs, as I recall.

      You just have to think BIG these days ….

      GM seeks up to $30B in aid, to cut 47,000 jobs
      Associated Press
      9 mins ago

      DETROIT – General Motors Corp., presenting a dire outlook for the future, said Tuesday it may need $30 billion in total government financing to weather the economic downturn and would cut 47,000 jobs worldwide and shutter five more U.S. factories in a massive restructuring plan.

      The automaker is already surviving on $13.4 billion in federal loans and said in a plan submitted to the Treasury Department that it would seek an additional $16.6 billion if economic conditions worsen, but it could achieve profitability in two years and fully repay its loans by 2017.

      The U.S. automaker presented its turnaround plan to the Obama administration as it worked to win concessions from the United Auto Workers union and bondholders to dramatically resize the company. The UAW said it reached a tentative deal with GM, Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. on contract changes but discussions were still under way about how the companies would fund union-run trust funds that will take over the companies’ retiree health care obligations starting next year.

      GM said it was making progress but had not yet achieved all the concessions from union workers, debt holders, dealers and suppliers that the Bush administration sough in the loan terms provided last December.

      President Barack Obama’s administration will review the plans from GM and Chrysler LLC but could pull the loans if they don’t approve the turnaround plans by March 31. The review could be extended into April, but if the government demands the money back it would force the companies into bankruptcy.

      GM predicted it could run out of money before the March deadline and said it is seeking the additional funding under a worst-case-scenario projection, as U.S. sales have plummeted to a 26-year low and auto sales have fallen in other parts of the world.

      In December, GM said it might need a total of $18 billion in government financing but only got a commitment of $13.4 billion, including $4 billion that the automaker received Tuesday.

      GM wants to receive an additional $2 billion in March and $2.6 billion in April. The company has a $4.5 billion revolving line of credit that must be refinanced in 2011 but now believes that private funding won’t be available, so the automaker is asking the government to lend the money.

      If market conditions deteriorate, GM says it may also need an additional $7.5 billion revolving line of credit to stay afloat, for a total potential request of $30 billion.

      GM said it reviewed the potential costs of a bankruptcy filing, but said it was a poor option. If GM was forced into Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, the company said the only credit available would be from the government, and the cost could reach as much as $100 billion.

      GM’s plan details extensive cuts. The automaker would reduce its U.S. manpower from 92,000 salaried and hourly workers at the end of 2008 to 72,000 employees by the end of 2012. Worldwide, it envisions slashing 47,000 workers, including 37,000 hourly workers and 10,000 salaried employees.

      In its Dec. 2 plan to the Bush administration, GM said it would cut the number of plants from 47 in 2008 to 38 by 2012. But the new approach goes further, cutting an additional five plants by 2012 to a total of 33 facilities.

      GM’s brands would be reduced from eight to four — Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC — as the automaker said in December.

      The company is considering a sale of the Hummer brand and a decision could be made by the end of March. The Saturn brand could be phased out by the end of 2011. The company is also considering its options for the Pontiac and Saab brands.

      GM said all of its major U.S. vehicle launches from 2009 to 2014 would be high-mileage cars and crossovers.

    16. yoyo muffintop on February 17th, 2009 7:23 pm

      #10 – haha….hypocrisy at it’s finest or sheeple. hmmmm.

      Bible Spice actually lobbied to get her cash for Alaska placed into stimulus bill.

    17. katablog.com on February 17th, 2009 7:55 pm

      yo yo, stop reading rumors and go to sites that actually report the news. Palin spoke out against the Pork = U Less package.

      And Richard is right, 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Chrysler wants $5 billion (with a b) and GM wants $16 billion (with a b) but of course no union concessions and yes both promise huge layoffs even if they get the money! Oh yea, feds poured more money into banks today too. But worry not, OBambi is in charge.

    18. yoyo muffintop on February 17th, 2009 9:30 pm

      Your comment holds no weight given the fact that you source out news from African Press International among many others.
      Spare me your BS.

      As far as the economy goes…wasn’t it YOU who believed we were not in a recession or headed for one last year – you thought it was allllll made up by the liberal media. LOL.
      Stick with what you’re good at – illegal immigration. Stay away from most everything else.

      “With guaranteed spending on the table, I am arguing for needed construction projects and tax breaks that will truly stimulate the economy and create jobs, and against increased federal programs that will become a state’s unfunded mandate to continue funding for generations.”
      Bible Spice

      First, there IS construction spending and tax cuts in the bill as it stands.

      Second, how does spending on building while simultaneously cutting taxes NOT burden future generations? She makes it sound like borrowing for the stimulus SHE “would have proposed” would somehow magically not increase the deficit.

    19. Pat in Alabama on February 17th, 2009 10:44 pm

      #7 Rob

      It really depends on which economist you want to listen to. We can always find a group who thinks the way we do to point to for support. Meanwhile, Japan and a number of other countries have been down this road in the last 10 – 15 years with disasterous results for their economies.

      Maybe we can do better. We just have to use the “think system” like The Music Man!

    20. Richard on February 17th, 2009 10:56 pm

      “you source out news from African Press International”

      Is that forbidden?

    21. Pat in Alabama on February 17th, 2009 10:58 pm

      18 Yoyo,

      I’m not sure it matters much what we spend the money on. In every case it winds up in someones pocket, they spend it, and the effect cascades on. Tax cuts really do the same thing, by infusing money straight into your pocket. So it seems we are embroiled with the politicians in an academic arguement that are two sides of the same coin. Spending by governemnt or tax cuts for individuals still lay the burden on future generations.

      So how is it that we have touched the tar baby? By over-expansion and over-consumption for many years. We are all guilty, as a society. And as Wall Street would say, we are just going to go through an “adjustment” – only this is going to be deep and wide!

    22. super dave on February 18th, 2009 8:02 am

      now barry obama wants to bail out the banks so they can start lending again to who ?
      surely he is not expecting the average citizen to borrow money when they can’t afford to pay back what they have already borrowed. ant the 8.00 per week he is being so generous with is just a slap in the face to the taxpayer.
      obama is undoubtedly the dumbest ass i have ever seen.

    23. scott on February 18th, 2009 8:05 am

      Talk to an economist? You twit..the NON-partisan CBO even said that in the long run this will drive the GDP lower then if they had done nothing at all. The CBO said this will NOT stimulate the economy at ALL.

      Its funny people blame Bush but the recession really started when the Dems took control of Congress in 2006. It’s funny, these same Dems voted for all the bills for the wars. The housing bubble started ALL of this and you can shoot that blame directly at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

    24. Richard on February 18th, 2009 8:11 am

      Pat in Alabama, while all spending helps put money in people’s pockets, it makes a difference whether money is used for productive purposes or other.

      Someone could pay me, for example, to stand in the public square and sing “Polly Wolly Doodle” all day, but it wouldn’t be much help to anyone or anything.

      The flip side to this argument, of course, is that defining “productive” can be done in all sorts of ways. My suspicion is that a lot of the money lavished on, e.g., education programs is not “productive,” but society has been brainwashed to accept the idea that anything called “education” must be good.

    25. yoyo muffintop on February 18th, 2009 8:43 am

      “stop reading rumors and go to sites that actually report the news.”

      When you make a statement such as above yet the person that made that statement uses African Press International as a frequent source for american politics (in particular false stories about the President of the United States)…well you figure it out.

    26. katablog.com on February 18th, 2009 9:04 am

      yo yo and others: it’s impossible to talk to people who not only drank the kool-aid but keep drinking and won’t put it down long enough to listen to the facts.

      Richard is right: the CBO (known to be liberal and hired to protect the President’s butt) says that this disastrous bill say that this spending will not stimulate the economy. Ask yourself what jobs will be created for you and me (and at what cost) when the government controls the purse strings. We know that government (at its best) can only manage to get $0.25 of every dollar it spends into the hands of the people for whom the dollar was intended.

      We know that O signed a bill that says only unionized construction companies can bid on government building projects.

      We know that “unionized” means higher wages and costs than just putting people to work who want to work.

      We know that saying a mouse in the SF bay area creates few jobs.

      We know that enhancing and building new government buildings and filling them with furniture adds very little value to the US economy but does place fat cats’ butts in nice diggs.

      We know that electronic medical records and an agency to oversee your doctor’s plans for your healthcare only creates a new government agency that will place the value of your life on $$$$ alone.

      We know that when government makes itself bigger, the government gets bigger and the taxpayer gets poorer.

      All these things are facts that have been proven throughout history over and over. Those who refuse to face the facts are simply playing politics.

    27. yoyo muffintop on February 18th, 2009 10:54 am

      Here’s is what the CBO said:

      btw #23 – the Republicans had a majority in both the House and Senate for all of 2006.
      You ain’t the brightest.

    28. super dave on February 18th, 2009 11:17 am

      barry is giving these construction jobs to the union because they are one of the major reasons he was elected. now the union is is calling in their mark and if he doesn’t pay he might be getting a visit in the form of a leg breaker.
      this money is just fun money for the government to waste. we as the taxpayers will see little if any going to our benefit.
      this boy does not belong in the white house.

    29. katablog.com on February 18th, 2009 12:07 pm

      #27 yo yo: Your still short on facts. From the “revised” CBO report

      In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other
      similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance
      private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive capital. In economic parlance, the debt would “crowd out” private investment.

      Do you get that? Do you understand it? Government grows bigger, private investment grows smaller; public debt is HUGE

    30. scott on February 18th, 2009 1:17 pm

      Ahhh, aren’t elections held every two years for Congress? Thought so….so in 2006, the Dems won back control of Congress…ESAD yoyo!

      katablog…no talking to a stiff liberal such as yoyo, I mean, our tax dollars are paying his welfare checks, he has no idea what he is talking about.

      yoyo – you going to try and save your $52 a month so you can get all the crack you want?

    31. Pat in Alabama on February 18th, 2009 1:25 pm

      #24 richard,

      I agree, it does matter what the money is used for, and I would rather be able to make that choice myself. But all this money circulation wont take the burden off of our grandchildren, or erase the fact that our collective greed has created this situation.

      Much of what our schools are doing amounts to little more than “Polly Wolly Doodle”. My kids are in high school doing what I consider college level science and math (in fact my oldest is getting college credit), yet they struggle with spelling and grammar… and every time you turn around they have been watching a movie at school or went bowling, etc.

      #26 Katablog,

      “We know that O signed a bill that says only unionized construction companies can bid on government building projects. ”

      In any other world that would be called “discrimination”!

      Thank you SM for eliminating the math test! If you took too long to compose your thoughts, it used to give an error and you lost your text. Now I can work on my manefesto!

    32. Richard on February 18th, 2009 1:29 pm

      Buckle your seat belts, folks … it’s gettin’ bad:

      Fed downgrades economic forecast for this year

      By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
      4 mins ago

      WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve on Wednesday sharply downgraded its projections for the country’s economic performance this year, predicting the economy will actually shrink and unemployment will rise higher.

      Under the new projections, the unemployment rate will rise to between 8.5 and 8.8 percent this year. The old forecasts, issued in mid-November, predicted the jobless rate would rise to between 7.1 and 7.6 percent.

      The Fed also believes the economy will contract this year between 0.5 and 1.3 percent. The old forecast said the economy could shrink by 0.2 percent or expand by 1.1 percent.

      The bleaker outlook represents the growing toll of the worst housing, credit and financial crises since the 1930s. All of those negative forces have plunged the nation into a recession, now in its second year.

      “Given the strength of the forces currently weighing on the economy,” Fed officials “generally expected that the recovery would be unusually gradual and prolonged,” according to documents on the Fed’s updated economic outlook.

      Against that backdrop, unemployment — now at 7.6 percent, the highest in more than 16 years — will keep climbing and stay elevated for quite some time, the Fed predicted.

      Fed officials anticipated that unemployment would remain “substantially” higher than normal at the end of 2011 “even absent further economic shocks.”

    33. ANewGirl on February 18th, 2009 5:30 pm

      #30- Says:

      yoyo – you going to try and save your $52 a month so you can get all the crack you want?

      ….Suggestion to YoYo……..

      Make sure you set aside about $6.00 from that $52.00 for the Jumbo Sized package of Angel Soft Toilet Paper your’e going to need since you are so full of shizz !!!!!! For real, I can smell you all the way from here in Boston.

    34. yoyo muffintop on February 18th, 2009 9:06 pm

      #30 – I guess when you wrote this “Dems took control of Congress in 2006.” you actually meant “the Dems won back control of Congress”.

      “Took control” vs “won back”. Big difference. Nice attempt to back peddle.
      You still are clearly not the brightest if you do not know the difference.

      #33 – How’s the Old 8 from scott’s chalise? Hahaha.

    35. Richard on February 18th, 2009 9:24 pm

      Okay, here’s something I can’t fathom: according to the lead article in today’s Wall Street Journal, GM and Chrysler told the federal government that they might need up to, say $22 billion more in bailout funds.

      But if they declare bankruptcy, GM says it might need $100 billion in financing and Chrysler might need $24 billion.

      Can you understand why and how bankruptcy would require five times as much cash, and why it would require any government money at all? I can’t believe this….

    36. yoyo muffintop on February 18th, 2009 11:28 pm

      Can we let GM/Chrysler fail? A bankruptcy by 1 would more than likely cause the other 2 to fail as well. That would be about 3+ million jobs lost in a very short time.
      The ripple effect would be devastating to the economy.

      If we knew then what we know now about the systemic shock to our economy, would we have allowed Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt?
      Absolutely not.
      If we let any of the Big Three go bankrupt, will we set in motion a chain of events that will cause us, in 6 months, to ask again – How did we let this happen?

      The US economy is so multi-faceted and complex…yet it seems a few on here would rather take opinions of 2 college drop outs (one an admitted drug addict) in Hannity/Rush and regurgitate it.

    37. yoyo muffintop on February 19th, 2009 12:08 am

      #23: “Its funny people blame Bush but the recession really started when the Dems took control of Congress in 2006.”
      (shhh…don’t tell anyone but…they actually “took control” when they were sworn into office in 2007. they “won” it in 2006, they “took” in in 2007)

      Maybe you could for once back up your empty partisan rhetoric?

      Doubt you will though.

    38. yoyo muffintop on February 19th, 2009 12:34 am

      Pat in Alabama – I smell what you’re steppin’ in. Good stuff and I agree with most.

      The US economy is so deep and so complex that anyone professing they know exactly what should be done at this current time to fix the economy should not be taken seriously, imo.
      Crazy times.

    39. ANewGirl on February 19th, 2009 9:14 am

      #34-Yoyo….glad you can amuse yourself so easily.

      Whatever! Seriously, you have issues but then we already know that. Aahhhhhh…ignorance is such bliss…isn’t it?

      Peace =)

    40. More Government Spending: Obama Unveils $275 Billion Plan to Shore Up Housing/Mortgages … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bail Out | Scared Monkeys on February 19th, 2009 2:25 pm

      [...] just got through passing a 787 billion stimulus “pork” spending plan and now he unveils a $275 billion mortgage payment bail out.  Is anyone adding all this up as I [...]

    41. katablog.com on February 19th, 2009 7:11 pm

      yo yo: Think about it. It takes (according to you) $22 billion to save 3 million jobs. By my calculations we’d be better off to give those 3 million people $100,000.00 each. Plus, don’t forget that we already gave them billions and that saved jobs for all of 4 months.

    42. Julie on February 19th, 2009 10:29 pm

      you know what katablog, (yoyo) i am going to quit my 70k a year job , becuz i aam sick of working, ya know what i mean? why is everyone else having fun (getting crunk) while i am working my ass off?I do not have much sympathy for poor people, i grew up on welfare, free lunches at school, adc, and i had a child at 17, and was on welfare for 2 yrs, then i did something with my life. This President wants to give everyone everything, so that he is re-elected. The populace is stupid. This country is going to go into a huge depression. You cannot just keep printing worthless money. I dont know about you all, but I am planning on stocking up on bottled water, canned food, taking my money out of the unstable banks, and purchasing weapons and ammo to protect my “shit”. You better believe it , change is coming, not the messiaistic hope.
      And if anyone comes in to take my “shit” they will get a cap in their ass

    43. Julie on February 19th, 2009 10:34 pm

      The other thing, i work in a social services industry, and am very successful. (civil servant of the year). Yet this “hopeful change” makes me puke everyday. I cannot keep working for this administration. Maybe I should just go on the dole, like many others. WHy should i pay for my mortgage, health insurance, food, etc,when the messiah is going to provide it for everyone? How is this country going to remain strong if the actual workers and taxpayers check out? Anyone? Because I am ready to go on disability benefits , with depression and anxiety, I am that upset about the future of the us.

    44. Pat in Alabama on February 19th, 2009 11:38 pm

      #41 Katablog,

      Sad to think of how much of that money will be eaten up by beaurocracy. The only jobs that are going to be created out of this are gong to be deskjobs for those who decide who should get the money and those who track the results. they will eat up 75% of it before it ever gets to “those in need”.

      Oh look, I forgot to capitalize the first letter of that sentance! Where are the grammar police?

    45. Dolf on February 20th, 2009 1:24 am

      btw. here in Holland you won’t get the unemployment benefits if you quit your job or got fired because of stealing, fraud etc.

      you get welfare money, and thats just enough to keep you alive and insured

    46. ANewGirl on February 20th, 2009 8:12 am

      #42 & #43— Julie:

      I hear you! So many of us here feel exactly as you do. So keep coming back and posting….if anything, at least it’s a good place to rant & every once in awhile feed the trolls like YoYo.

      Every word of what you say is true, though and totally understand your frustration…yet! This is the BS this new Administration wants us to digest and be responsible for?!? Makes you want to scream.

    47. scott on February 20th, 2009 10:36 am

      yoyo- semantics my dear liberal tree screwing scum bucket. Typical liberal tactic that never works. You are the tool box that don’t look so bright posting archaic articles when newer articles proved otherwise. Even when presented with facts you and liberals like you continue to blab your fabricated talking points.

      I hope you drown in socialist tidal wave that is coming… toilet bowl lickers as such as yourself do not deserve my tax dollars!

      There is reason why CAPITALISM is the best economic ISM out there. SOCIALISM has NEVER worked and there are clear and present FACTS that support it no matter what you half brained idiots say…..

    48. scott on February 20th, 2009 10:40 am

      people…..yoyo is one of those that Obama is targeting, the so-called “middle-class” when in reality its the lower class of people that ACORN targeted. He is probably a member of ACORN, the same people who are telling people to SQUAT in houses where they have not paid their mortgages when they are a MAIN reason the housing bubble burst. They were the ones pressuring the banks into giving out loans that couldn’t be paid.

      yoyo and people like him should immediately be sent to GITMO because in my mind people like yoyo are terrorists.

    49. scott on February 20th, 2009 2:21 pm

      dolf – unamerican c*ck sucker!

      you don’t understand that under OUR constitution we as individuals do not have to pay for those on welfare. That’s why socialism does NOT work and has NEVER worked in any country.

    50. Dolf on February 24th, 2009 3:34 am


      again, swearing is in real life a sign of failure.

      btw. socialism does work, look at us (Holland), sure we pay higher taxes, but here we do leave no child behind, unemployment is 2% (climbing though), literacy 99%, healthcare 99% (better and cheaper).

      And if you get fired (other then fraud, theft) you get 70% of you last wage for 1 year. After theat you get welfare, which is enough to keep you alive.

      we can see how pure capitalism works…that ruined our economies…..

      Capitalism and communism are the 2 opposites and extrems don’t work.
      Thats why we have sociocapitalism.

      But all this is problaly lost on you.

      Maybe if I start name calling as well……..

    51. Dolf on February 25th, 2009 9:44 am

      but i guess its difficult for you to be social

    52. The Obama Get a First Dog Bo … Exclusive Pics of Less Publicized Pork Barrel Spending White House Pig | Scared Monkeys on April 12th, 2009 12:21 pm

      [...] $787 Billion and Only 38% Say Stimulus Plan Will Help Economy [...]

    53. VP Biden Admits Obama Stimulus Plan a Failure on Meet the Press … “”everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the stimulus” … Not Everyone Joe | Scared Monkeys on June 14th, 2009 8:35 pm

      [...] Biden stated that “everyone guessed wrong;” however that is not the case. Everyone did not get it wrong, the Obama Administration got it wrong. The fact of the matter is that Obama’s minions have [...]

    54. Consumer Confidense Takes Unexpected Slide on Obama’s Watch … Drunken Sailor Spending and Taxes is Economies Undoing | Scared Monkeys on June 30th, 2009 10:52 pm

      [...] in Obama dealing with the economy is becoming an issue. Stimulus plan was not only pork, it was a turkey. The honeymoon is [...]

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It