The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Vivre,

with my idea, there is no storage or expensive transmission line.  The Center pivot systems are sitting in the sun already hooked up to power lines.  So the farmers could sell the power to the electric companies.  When it is raining, they don't sell any.  Since this is in farming land, the only time the CPS will be using power is when it is hot sunny and dry.  So no need to store energy.  A CPS is say 1300 feet long, the panels could be say 6 feet wide... that would be almost 10000 sq feet of solar panels...Yeah a bunch of bright ideas and a bunch more dull ideas LOL

The problem with funding water parks, or hotels in cities that already have hotels, (yes, one mayor requested ...2 hotels) is that we have 2 trillion dollars worth of  infrastructure repairs to be done.  $2 trillion, and that's just infrastructure.  They have some nerve to be putting anything in this bill that is really useless, or will serve only a small amount of people surrounding a park when our bridges are falling down, or our levees are breaking.  

If this stimulus package won't create enough jobs, then fix our infrastructure and build schools that are worthy for our kids to walk into.  I would fund contraceptives in our own country only...considering the alternative.  

The job area with the highest unemployment is manufacturing. There is nothing in the stimulus bill for that sector.

Most of the money goes to government jobs, health care and education - all areas with the lowest unemployment.  Will the money go to where it is needed the most? We rebuilt some schools in Milwaukee about three years ago - some of the classrooms have never been used and now they are thinking about closing some of the schools! Total waste of taxpayer money.

Who is going to take the jobs at the water park? - here in Wisconsin we have Wisconsin Dells - a whole town of water parks and they have to go to Eastern Europe to find people to work there!!!!

This bill is supposed to be helping the economy - not funding for anything and everything. We can do some of those things (contraceptives) once the ecomony is back on track and we actually have some tax payers.

A gem of an opinion piece in the WSJ from one of my favorite Middle-East pundits Fouad Ajami

--------------------------------------------------

Obama Tells Arabia's Despots They're Safe
America's diplomacy of freedom is officially over.

    By FOUAD AJAMI

"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," President Barack Obama said in his inaugural. But in truth, the new way forward is a return to realpolitik and business as usual in America's encounter with that Greater Middle East. As the president told Al-Arabiya television Monday, he wants a return to "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Say what you will about the style -- and practice -- of the Bush years, the autocracies were on notice for the first five or six years of George. W. Bush's presidency. America had toppled Taliban rule and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein; it had frightened the Libyan ruler that a similar fate lay in store for him. It was not sweet persuasion that drove Syria out of Lebanon in 2005. That dominion of plunder and terror was given up under duress.

True, Mr. Bush's diplomacy of freedom fizzled out in the last two years of his presidency, and the autocracies in the Greater Middle East came to a conviction that the storm had passed them by and that they had been spared. But we are still too close to this history to see how the demonstration effect works its way through Arab political culture.

The argument that liberty springs from within and can't be given to distant peoples is more flawed than meets the eye. In the sweep of modern history, the fortunes of liberty have been dependent on the will of the dominant power -- or powers -- in the order of states. The late Samuel P. Huntington made this point with telling detail. In 15 of the 29 democratic countries in 1970, democratic regimes were midwifed by foreign rule or had come into being right after independence from foreign occupation.

In the ebb and flow of liberty, power always mattered, and liberty needed the protection of great powers. The appeal of the pamphlets of Mill and Locke and Paine relied on the guns of Pax Britannica, and on the might of America when British power gave way. In this vein, the assertive diplomacy of George W. Bush had given heart to Muslims long in the grip of tyrannies.

Take that image of Saddam Hussein, flushed out of his spider hole some five years ago: Americans may have edited it out of their memory, but it shall endure for a long time in Arab consciousness. Rulers can be toppled and brought to account. No wonder the neighboring dictatorships bristled at the sight of that capture, and at his execution three years later.

The irony now is obvious: George W. Bush as a force for emancipation in Muslim lands, and Barack Hussein Obama as a messenger of the old, settled ways. Thus the "parochial" man takes abroad a message that Muslims and Arabs did not have tyranny in their DNA, and the man with Muslim and Kenyan and Indonesian fragments in his very life and identity is signaling an acceptance of the established order. Mr. Obama could still acknowledge the revolutionary impact of his predecessor's diplomacy, but so far he has chosen not to do so.

The brief reference to Iraq in the inaugural could not have been icier or more clipped. "We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people," Mr. Obama said. Granted, Iraq was not his cause, but a project that has taken so much American toil and sacrifice, that has laid the foundations of a binational (Arab and Kurdish) state in the very heart of an Arab world otherwise given to a despotic political tradition, surely could have elicited a word or two of praise. In his desire to be the "un-Bush," the new president fell back on an austere view of freedom's possibilities. The foreign world would be kept at an emotional and cultural distance. Even Afghanistan -- the good war that the new administration has accepted as its burden -- evoked no soaring poetry, just the promise of forging "a hard-earned peace." The nation had cast a vote for a new way, and had gotten the foreign policy of Brent Scowcroft.

Where Mr. Bush had seen the connection between the autocratic ways in Muslim lands and the culture of terror that infected the young foot soldiers of radicalism, Mr. Obama seems ready to split the difference with their rulers. His embrace of the "peace process" is a return to the sterile diplomacy of the Clinton years, with its belief that the terror is rooted in the grievances of the Palestinians. Mr. Obama and his advisers have refrained from asserting that terrorism has passed from the scene, but there is an unmistakable message conveyed by them that we can return to our own affairs, that Wall Street is more deadly and dangerous than that fabled "Arab-Muslim Street."

Thus far the political genius of Mr. Obama has been his intuitive feel for the mood of this country. He bet that the country was ready for his brand of postracial politics, and he was vindicated. More timid souls counseled that he should wait and bide his time, but the electorate responded to him. I suspect that he is on the mark in his reading of America's fatigue and disillusionment with foreign causes and foreign places. That is why Osama bin Laden's recent call for a "financial jihad" against America seemed so beside the point; the work of destruction has been done by our own investment wizards and politicians.

But foreign challengers and rogue regimes are under no obligation to accommodate our mood and our needs. They are not hanging onto news of our financial crisis, they are not mesmerized by the fluctuations of the Dow. I know it is a cliché, but sooner or later, we shall be hearing from them. They will strip us of our illusions and our (new) parochialism.

A dispatch from the Arabian Peninsula bears this out. It was learned, right in the midst of the news cycle announcing that Mr. Obama has ordered that Guantanamo be shut down in a year's time, that a Saudi by the name of Said Ali al-Shihri -- who had been released from that prison in 2007 to his homeland -- had made his way to Yemen and had risen in the terror world of that anarchic country. It had been a brief stop in Saudi Arabia for Guantanamo detainee No. 372: He had gone through a "rehabilitation" program there, then slipped across the border to Yemen, where he may have been involved in a terror attack on the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital in September of last year.

This war was never a unilateral American war to be called off by an American calendar. The enemy, too, has a vote in how this struggle between American power and radical Islamism plays out in the years to come.

In another time, the fabled era of Bill Clinton's peace and prosperity, we were mesmerized by the Nasdaq. In the watering hole of Davos, in the heights of the Alps, gurus confident of a new age of commerce pronounced the end of ideology and politics. But in the forbidding mountains of the Afghan-Pakistan frontier, a breed of jihadists that paid no heed to that mood of economic triumphalism was plotting for us an entirely different future.

Here we are again, this time led by our economic distress, demanding that the world abide by our own reading of historical challenges. We have not discovered that "sweet spot" where our economic fortunes intersect with the demands and challenges of an uncertain world.

Mr. Ajami is professor of Middle East Studies at The Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies. He is also an adjunct research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

 

I'd love to see diplomacy over guns any day of the week.  It didn't work for Clinton.  Sometimes, you just can't talk with madmen.  They don't listen.  If they perceive us as weak, we pay.  We pay all around the world and also at home.  Starting another round of coddling might work this time.  We can only wait and see.

IBC "when I used to look at them in my rear view mirror of my  SS 396 chevelle"  very funny! ...dh had a 70 ss - back in the day. I still love the old/vintage cars...but I REALLY LOVE today's technology...who ever thought a Goat (weighing close to 4000 lbs) could do the 1/4 mile in under 11 seconds...

Saluki - Great article...dang...just when I was falling for BHO'S opinion that we should mind our own business! NOT!

As for guns...I believe in the second amendmant right... although I do believe that assault weapons should be banned. I liken it to the fact that we don't drive tanks through city streets...

Hmmmmmmmmm...contraceptives being a part of the stimulis...not sure about that one. I am leaning toward YES... because child abuse/neglect/welfare IS a national crisis - and is sure to be considered a problem with epidemic proportions, especially as the economic problems worsen.

Let the contraceptives get voted for or against on their own merits.  If enough legislators believe that they are an effective use of public funding, then fine, but if they aren't willing to pay for them, then perhaps some other group might step up to provide that service for low income men and women.  Remember, the diaper industry, the child care industry, the baby food, baby clothing and baby furniture industries all need to keep functioning through this economy as well, so government provided contraceptives are a double edged sword.  We should also consider the potential risk of lawsuits if the birth control methods financed by the government fail, or are later shown to have health consequences for the women who used them (think IUD's)

The issue that I have with a 600+ page bill is that things (pork projects) get thrown in unnoticed that would never have been able to win passage on their own merits. 

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/01/29/world/1231546524611/iraqi-women-vie-for-votes-and-power.html?exprod=myyahoo

I hope this link doesn't mess up the size of the page!

This is awesome...I think we know who we can thank for these women to have this opportunity! 

Susie, great article. If only this spending package, would be cut down to what is really stimulus for now. Then they can come up with the spending budget later, and have a separate debate. But of course, there is no logic in DC. The dems will soon find out that most Americans are for smarter gov.  When Obama fails to make this change and if he continues to allow congress to act like idiots, he will be another one term Carteresque failure.

Paulette, loved the video. I have been saying from day 1 of the Iraq debate, that the plight of women in the middle east is reason enough to get rid of Sadaam.

Marsha, thanks for giving us the Fla. perspective on the water park. I agree that putting all this money into projects that promote more minimum wage jobs is not going to help the economy.

Condi on the View. I hate the show, but I am sure she will hold her own against the shecats.

What annoys me the most,  the Mayors.  They didn't take this seriously.  They sent in 18,000 requests for money, and that's where the water parks, hotels, and whatall is coming from.

From the bottom up, we need to elect responsible people.  Obviously we aren't doing it.  Imagine trying to go through 18,000 requests to find the worthy ones.  Was this some sort of game to them?  A joke?  Billions will be spent to mortgage out our grandchildrens future, and they sent in garbage.  They need to be named also.

Has anyone seen this?

New Bank Bailout Could Cost $2 Trillion

By DEBORAH SOLOMON, DAVID ENRICH and JON HILSENRATH

WASHINGTON -- Government officials seeking to revamp the U.S. financial bailout have discussed spending another $1 trillion to $2 trillion to help restore banks to health, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Barack Obama's new administration is wrestling with how to stem the continuing loss of confidence in the financial system, as it divides up the remaining $350 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program launched last fall. The potential size of rescue efforts being discussed suggests the administration may need to ask Congress for more funds. Some of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds has already been earmarked for other efforts, including aid to auto makers and to homeowners facing foreclosure.

TARP Participants

See how TARP funds break down by state, plus review details on participating institutions.

The administration, which could announce its plans within days, hasn't yet made a determination on the final shape of its new proposal, and the exact details could change. Among the issues officials are wrestling with: How to fix damaged financial institutions without ending up owning them.

The aim is to encourage banks to begin lending again and investors to put private capital back into financial institutions. The administration is expected to take a series of steps, including relieving banks of bad loans and distressed securities. The so-called "bad bank" that would buy these assets could be seeded with $100 billion to $200 billion from the TARP funds, with the rest of the money -- as much as $1 trillion to $2 trillion -- raised by selling government-backed debt or borrowing from the Federal Reserve.

The administration is also seeking more effective ways to pump money into banks, and is considering buying common shares in the banks. Government purchases so far have been of preferred shares, in an effort to both protect taxpayers and avoid diluting existing shareholders' stakes.

A Treasury spokeswoman said that "while lots of options are on the table, there are no final decisions" on what she described as a "comprehensive plan." She added: "The president has made it clear that he'll do whatever it takes to stabilize our financial system so that we can get credit flowing again to families and businesses."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday that he wants to avoid nationalizing banks if possible. "We'd like to do our best to preserve that system," Mr. Geithner said. But given the weakened state of the banking industry, with bank share prices low and their capital needs high, economists say the government probably can't avoid owning at least some banks for a temporary period.

Stock-market investors have grown confident that the bailout plan will help the banks without wiping out their investments. Just over a week ago, investors dumped bank stocks, sending shares of some of the most vulnerable down to their lowest levels of the financial crisis. But as fears faded that the banks would be nationalized, financial stocks have rallied, and soared nearly 13% on Wednesday.

More

• Lawmakers Weigh Bad-Bank Plan
  01/28/2009

In one of the steps under discussion, the government may shift how it injects money into banks, choosing to buy common shares. Bolstering banks' common equity is important because when a bank takes a loss, it has to subtract that amount from the value of its common equity. As losses mount, investors increasingly believe banks need to find ways to bolster this first line of defense on their balance sheets.

But buying common shares raises the likelihood that weaker banks will become largely government-owned. Bank share prices are so low that any sizable government investment in a bank would give the U.S. effective control of it.

The best approach is to have banks "under pretty heavy government control as briefly as possible -- basically long enough to take off the bad assets and recapitalize -- and sell the back to full private control as quickly as possible," said Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

Another way being considered for the government to inject money into banks is the purchase of convertible bonds -- in which the government would be paid interest now but have the option to get common equity later. That would give banks a chance to pay back the bonds as they recover, and avoid government control. Some critics of this approach say it would do little to solve the banks' current shortage of common equity.

The government is also likely to create a "bad bank" that would buy distressed assets from firms, helping them to avoid more damaging write-offs. The tricky question is figuring out how much the government should pay for these assets. That issue helped scuttle the Bush administration's plan to buy distressed assets. If the U.S. pays too high a price for the assets, it would essentially be shortchanging taxpayers. But if it pays too little, banks would have to take further losses.

Another option under discussion is insuring some of the assets against further losses. That is the route the U.S. has taken in its rescues of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. Insuring the assets would limit the amount the banks could lose but wouldn't remove the securities and loans from their books. The government would cover any losses in the assets' value beyond agreed-upon levels.

Charles Calomiris, the Henry Kaufman Professor of Financial Institutions at Columbia University, said that approach is preferable since it leaves the assets in private hands while giving investors confidence to put money into the institution.

"You have to eliminate prospective stockholders' concern that there's a bottomless hole at the banks," Mr. Calomiris said. "Getting them off the books solves that problem, but insuring against the downside would have a huge positive effect and might end up costing nothing."

Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com, David Enrich at david.enrich@wsj.com and Jon Hilsenrath at jon.hilsenrath@wsj.com

You could never limit the number of children a person has - the ACLU would be all over it. Here in Wisconsin, you can't sit home and collect a check - you have to work or prove that you are unable to work. If you can't find a job they help find one for you. Even if you don't find a job, you have to show that you spent a certain number of hours looking for one and there is a five year limit. For mothers, they will pay for childcare while you work. We have high taxes and the governor said yesterday they may be getting higher - even with the stimulus funds!

Rosemary - the mayors are acting like this is trick-or-treating on Halloween. They all have their sacks open. They are not thinking about the long-term consequences.

This is money we do not have - we will be either borrowing from China (who we are already indebted to) or the Fed will go on a printing frenzy. What happens if China doesn't want to lend us any more money - or if they attach strings to it? The more money the Fed prints the less value each dollar has - we will end up like Zimbabwe and have to take a truck to the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread - if there is any to be bought.

I've listened to some of his testimony but from the outside looking in and not being familiar with IL state politics, how is it a bad thing that he found a way to get prescription drugs from Canada at 40% of the cost and saved people money on their drugs?  Or the flu vaccine thing.  Also, as he pointed out, these things were done in his first term of office. Why didn't they impeach him back when this happened?

Sherri, that is why he has a Federal investigation.  The impeachment articles don't even list the senate seat scandal.  It looks like he is being impeached for buying drugs from Canada and other things not even related to that.   

Did anyone post this link?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20641/