The New Bailout

Wow..A Washington Times editorial writer who doesnt like the process to provide ARRA transparency, including making it relatively easy for anyone to find out more about funded programs.

What A surprise.

[classicman]

Way to see only what you want - you're transparency is showing Dux.

Originally Posted by classicman

Way to see only what you want - you're transparency is showing Dux.

In fact, what I saw about a week or so ago, was the full testimony of Devaney, the head of the ARRA accountability board....and not just the few sentences w/o context in the partisan editorial that you evidently find so meaningful.

But it is what you and Merc do best.....in your "gotcha" game. You two really are interchangeable.

You cut and past a partisan editorial.

You rarely, if ever offer your own opinion with your initial post/link - perhaps just a one-line snide comment.

And you never provide any context at all.

Its a bullshit way to encourage discussion and it just gets tiresome after awhile.

Carry on without me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Carry on without me.

Gladly.

Edit: Actually sorry to hear you have that attitude about people who disagree with you. I have learned some stuff from your contribution, not much, but it has been measurable. You might just want to take a break and try again later.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Gladly.

Edit: Actually sorry to hear you have that attitude about people who disagree with you. I have learned some stuff from your contribution, not much, but it has been measurable. You might just want to take a break and try again later.

It is not at all about people who disagree with me.

I learn from undertoad and lookout....I even learn from UG.....because they post and discuss their own opinions.

It is a matter of style.

As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.

I can read partisan editorials (on both sides) w/o coming here.

I'm done.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

It is not at all about people who disagree with me.

I learn from undertoad and lookout....I even learn from UG.....because they post and discuss their own opinions.

It is a matter of style.

As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.

I can read partisan editorials (on both sides) w/o coming here.

I'm done.

So be it. Your choice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Redux

As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.

Which is why wacko extremism works. Anybody can cherry pick a sound byte. Rush Limbaugh does it routinely AND teaches extremists how to do it. Reality requires much more work; takes longer to explain.

But then Hitler was an early master. Disparage the bourgeois and intelligencia. Once done, it becomes easy to prove Saddam has WMDs.

They continued doing it to you because that is what wacko extremist do. If even a moderate conservative, then he must be a flaming liberal. That soundbyte cheapshot proved itself.

Easy to post lies and half truths especially when others do not hold them to the required 1500 words of supporting facts, numbers, and reality.

classicman is particular good at subverting discussions with his soundbyte attacks masking as a question. Some call it 'stir the pot'. It really was, for example, outright attacks on Jill because she posted what the overwhelming majority of professionals have always said - with supporting facts and example. She posted what a political agenda fears.

Examples of cheapshots demonstrated by classicman's nefarious soundbyte attacks on Jill in Torture memos.

Notice: soundbyte attacks prove that professionals advocate torture. That is the wacko extremist propaganda; despite reality. Professional interrogators routinely show torture does not work. But to explain truth requires 1500 words in response to each cheapshot attack. What classicman does is also how the Nazis grabbed power in 1930s Germany. And so they have successfully driven you silent? Same extremist agenda was used even in 1930s Germany.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Carry on without me.
I'm done.

Sure.

Mr. Devaney, though, said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission:
"First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."

Those are direct quotes from him - His first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.

You choose to bring up some other bullshit and avoid the point again. Thats fine, I'm used to your deflections. You learned very well from the politicians you work with/for.

Originally Posted by classicman

Sure.

Those are direct quotes from him - His first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.

... as an afterthought ? and by his own admission ? WTF are you talking about?

Why not read his FULL opening statement (pdf) for yourself, as part of two hours of his testimony that goes into a bit more detail on the two distinct, but equally important roles of the board than you were led to believe in your partisan editorial - transparency (public website) and oversight (including meetings with federal/state officials w/oversight responsibility for the disbursement and use of the funds).

You choose to bring up some other bullshit and avoid the point again. Thats fine, I'm used to your deflections. You learned very well from the politicians you work with/for

Right...I guess it is bullshit to suggest that there might have been more to his testimony than the two quotes cherry-picked by a partisan editorial writer.

Fine with me. Your blind fealty to such partisan editorials is laughable if not ignorant.

TW may have it right....You're either just a wacko who believes whatever the wingnuts throw your way OR too fucking lazy to take the time to look beyond those spoon fed talking points before jumping on their bandwagon.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop
Do you understand my argument, or question rather?

No, apparently not. Whats the question?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by classicman

Those are direct quotes from him - His first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.

Look really closely at what is quoted, and what is provided by the editorial's author.

Mr. Devaney, though, said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission:
"First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."

The "Oh, and second" bit is a sarcastic snipe by the editoral author. For all we know, Mr. Devaney said, "First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site. Once that is completed, we will have the tools in place to proceed to step two, which will help minimize fraud, waste, or mismanagement."

[classicman]

The Members of the Board and I view the Board as having a dual mission. First, the Board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a website, the purpose of which is not only to foster historic levels of transparency of Recovery Act funds but to do so in a user-friendly manner. Second, the Board will coordinate and conduct oversight of Recovery Act funds to help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement. I am pleased to tell you that the Board continues to effect its mission of accountability and has recently taken several important steps to achieve its goal of unprecedented transparency of Recovery Act funds.

I stand 1/2 corrected - I still feel that the website should be a distant second.

[Happy Monkey]

The website should be first, if that can result in all of the info being available. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[TheMercenary]

The poorest and needy still lose out.

STIMULUS WATCH: Early road aid leaves out neediest
By MATT APUZZO and BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE –

WASHINGTON (AP) — Counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama's plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.

Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP's review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower.

One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn't receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with its 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse.

Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.

The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects, the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. The projects account for about half of the $38 billion set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan.

The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs.

The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.

"It's not fair," said Martin Schuller, the borough manager in the Elk County seat of Ridgway, who commiserates about the inequity in highway aid with colleagues in nearby towns. "It's a joke because we're not going to get it, because we don't have any projects ready to go."

The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs and plant closings. Transportation money, he said, would mean paychecks for "folks looking for work" and "folks who want to work."

"That's the core of my plan, putting people to work doing the work that America needs done," Obama said in a Feb. 11 speech promoting transportation spending as a way to expand employment.

Also, Congress required states to use some of the highway money for projects in economically distressed areas, but didn't impose sanctions if they didn't. States can lose money, however, if they don't spend fast enough.

The AP examined the earliest projects announced nationwide, the ones most likely to break ground and create jobs first. More projects are continually being announced, and some areas that received little or no help so far may benefit later. The Obama administration could also encourage states to change their plans.

To determine whether there was a disparity in where the money would go, the AP divided the nation's counties into four groups by unemployment levels. The analysis found that, no matter how the early money is measured, communities suffering most fare the worst:

_High-unemployment counties, those in the top quarter of jobless rates, are allotted about 16 percent of the money, compared with about 20 percent for areas least affected by joblessness.

_In low-unemployment counties nationwide, those in the bottom quarter of jobless rates, the federal government is spending about $89 a person compared with $59 a person in the worst-hit areas.

_In counties with the largest populations, the government is spending about $69 a person in areas with the lowest unemployment and $40 a person in places with the greatest job need.

The analysis also found that counties with the highest unemployment are most likely to have been passed over completely in the early spending.

Continues:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Iwh1wD983T6D00

[TheMercenary]

Holy crap. My great great great grand kids will be paying this off.

White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion, 4 times 2008's record

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-...9183.html?.v=8