The company Weatherproof Garment Company has put up a billboard in Times Square featuring a photograph of the President wearing one of their jackets while on a recent trip to the Great Wall in China from November.  Beneath the photo it says, “A Leader In Style.”

The White House says they do not approve of Mr. Obama’s image being used without permission.

“The White House has a longstanding policy disapproving of the use of the President’s name and likeness for commercial purposes,” White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton says in a statement.

The White House says they will be contacting the company and asking them to take the billboard down – as they feel the ad is clearly misleading because the company suggests the approval or endorsement of the President or the White House that it does not have.

But Weatherproof feels that they have done nothing wrong, and are not taking down the advertisement. In fact Weatherproof president Freddie Stollmack says they will are looking for additional places to display the ad since it has gotten so much attention so far.

“We are very proud of the ad and we have no intention of taking it down,” Stollmack tells ABC News, “we’re not demonstrating that Obama is endorsing our product. We are just basically very happy to see that after 100 years we finally got a stylish president.”

The company attained the photograph through the Associate Press’ photo service, and say they have not been contacted by the White House yet about the advertisement.

This of course follows First Lady Michelle Obama’s photograph being used this week, also without White House consent, in a fur-free campaign by PETA.

There are three problems with this. First, why is the White House making such a big deal out of this. A presidents picture used for a advertisement? Really what harm can there be in this. Its more business for the company. Second, is our president so good that he is being used for a advertisement. What great things has he done to be used for a advertisement. It says, “the president has great style” and that’s their reason for putting him on a poster to advertise a jacket. And third, why wont the company just take the advertisement down. They were asked because they were not given permission. They can always make another advertisement. But instead they refuse, and say they have done nothing wrong. Which in a way they haven’t, but they needed Obama’s consent to use him for a advertisement. But why does something like this make the news. And yet other more important things don’t?

SEOUL, South Korea – A senior U.S. envoy said Thursday his talks with North Korea were “very useful,” a report said, as he wrapped up a rare trip to the communist nation aimed at prodding it back to international nuclear negotiations.

Envoy Stephen Bosworth made the remark at an airport in Pyongyang as he headed to South Korea after a three-day trip, according to China’s Xinhua news agency. “It’s a very useful meeting,” he was quoted as saying.

Still, it was unclear if the comment means there has been progress on his mission to win North Korea’s commitment to return to the nuclear negotiations that Pyongyang walked away from earlier this year, angered by criticism of its nuclear and missile programs. A nuclear test soon followed.

Pyongyang’s official Korean Central News Agency said in a one-sentence dispatch that Bosworth’s delegation left.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said he has no information on how the talks went or whom the envoy met. “I think that there will be a lot more information flowing once he hits the ground in Seoul,” he said.

Bosworth’s three-day visit to Pyongyang is the first by a U.S. official since President Barack Obama took office.

There had been speculation that North Korea would demand that the U.S. sign a peace treaty with it in return for rejoining the six-party talks, which involve the two Koreas, China, Russia, Japan and the U.S.

The two Koreas have been locked in a truce, without a peace treaty, since the close of the 1950-53 Korean War. Wary of the 28,500 troops Washington has stationed in South Korea, North Korea has long sought a peace treaty with the U.S.

North Korea says the lack of a treaty is evidence that the U.S. has a “hostile” attitude toward it, and that it needs to develop atomic bombs to defend itself in case the U.S. attacks.

“North Korea cannot help but talk about a peace treaty because that’s the fundamental reason that they say pushed them to build nuclear weapons,” said Chang Yong-seok, an analyst at the Institute for Peace Affairs, an independent think tank in Seoul.

U.S. officials say a peace treaty is not on the agenda for Bosworth’s trip to the North. However, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tuesday that it “would not surprise us” if the North raised other issues.

“We will make clear to them that should they return to the six-party process and should they reaffirm their commitments” under a 2005 disarmament pact, then an avenue for bilateral talks will be available to them, he said.

This week’s talks come after a year of threatening rhetoric and rising tensions on the Korean peninsula. North Korea expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors, restarted its atomic facilities, test-fired a long-range rocket and ballistic missiles and conducted the nuclear test.

But in recent months, the North has reached out to the U.S. and South Korea in an about-face that analysts and officials say shows it is feeling the pain of U.N. sanctions imposed to punish the North for its nuclear test in May. Since August, the North has freed detained U.S. and South Korean citizens and taken other conciliatory steps, including inviting Bosworth for direct talks.

Bosworth is accompanied by the lead U.S. nuclear negotiator, Sung Kim, as well as atomic and Asia specialists from the Defense Department and the White House. The delegation was to return to Seoul on Thursday and then visit China, Japan and Russia to brief them on the talks before returning to Washington.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_taxes

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades.

The government is losing more than $30 billion on lifelines extended to insurance giant American International Group Inc., according to Treasury data released Wednesday in an audit by the Government Accountability Office. It also is losing more than $30 billion on rescues of struggling automakers Chrysler and General Motors.

Treasury says the losses are offset in part by profits earned from bank bailouts. It says the bank bailouts will net taxpayers $19.5 billion.

Over all, the bailouts are projected to cost taxpayers $41.5 billion.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has extended the $700 billion financial bailout program until October, setting up a struggle between Democrats who favor using some of the leftover money to help generate jobs and Republicans who say it should be used to shrink soaring budget deficits.

The administration insists the bailout fund is still needed to prevent further turmoil in the banking system. In announcing the decision Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said extending the program also will help homeowners struggling to avoid losing homes to foreclosures and small businesses having trouble getting loans.

The administration is now projecting the losses to the government from the bailout program will be around $141 billion — $200 billion less than it estimated two months ago.

President Barack Obama said the freed-up money can help reduce the record-high federal budget deficit and “invest in job creation on Main Street rather than Wall Street.”

Obama spoke to reporters after a meeting with congressional leaders aimed at providing momentum for a new jobs program he outlined Tuesday. That effort seeks to combat the nation’s 10 percent unemployment rate by providing tax breaks to encourage companies to hire new workers, increase bank lending to small businesses and provide a fresh round of infrastructure spending.

The administration has not provided details on the size of the new spending package. But Democratic leaders suggested it could cost between $75 billion and $150 billion.

Democrats initially hoped to pass Obama’s proposals this month. But the proposals likely will slip until early January, given opposition from Republicans and the to-do list already facing Congress as it struggles to finish business before Christmas.

Both the administration and Democratic leaders have indicated they want to divert some of the unspent bailout funds to a jobs program. Their goal is to refashion a hugely unpopular program viewed by voters as a taxpayer-funded bailout for big Wall Street firms that then reaped millions of dollars in lavish bonuses.

Republicans vowed to keep trying to close down the rescue program by the end of this month. They said any leftover funds should be devoted exclusively to curbing the country’s soaring budget deficits.

“The Obama administration just can’t seem to let go of the $700 billion in ‘walking around money’ taxpayers were forced to put on the line to bailout Wall Street last year,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

Republicans also criticized Treasury for using the Troubled Asset Relief Program as a slush fund to support programs that Congress never intended — including bailouts of automakers and failing insurance giant American International Group Inc.

“American taxpayers have had enough of open-ended bailouts that have left them stuck with trillions of dollars in new debt,” House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday. “TARP should be shut down by the end of the year. It’s time to get the government out of the bailout business.”

Geithner contended that the bailout program helped avert a worse financial outcome. Financial conditions have improved, and the economy has finally pulled out of a deep tailspin and is starting to grow again.

Repayments from banks who received TARP support will soon total $116 billion, including $45 billion from Bank of America Corp.

The government expects up to $175 billion in repayments from rescued companies by the end of next year, he said.

The TARP was passed during the height of the financial crisis in October 2008 and was scheduled to expire at the end of this year. In his notification to Congress, Geithner said it will be extended until Oct. 3, 2010, “to respond to an immediate and substantial threat to the economy stemming from financial instability.”

Geithner said the administration planned only limited use of the TARP over the next year. He expects $550 billion of the $700 billion will be spent. There was $364 billion committed in the 2009 budget year that ended on Sept. 30. Of that, Geithner estimated the government would not recover $42 billion.

The new commitments would be limited to three areas: support to avert mortgage foreclosures, boosting capital for small and community banks that are principal lenders to small businesses, and a potential increase to a joint program with the Federal Reserve designed to bolster consumer and small business lending.

Geithner said of the $141 billion in expected losses, about $25 billion should be incurred in the current budget year. “The vast majority of these potential costs” would come from efforts to prevent mortgage foreclosures.

In a report Wednesday, a TARP watchdog panel said the fund helped ease last fall’s financial panic but was less successful in meeting other goals Congress set. These include reducing foreclosures and unfreezing credit for consumers and businesses.

“Congress set goals for the TARP that went well beyond short-term financial stability, and by that measure problems remain,” said panel chair Elizabeth Warren.

The report found the program’s effects have been uneven. A $75 billion initiative to stem the wave of foreclosures has “failed,” and Treasury’s actions had granted big banks an “implicit guarantee” that the government would bail them out, Warren said.

The government still is guaranteeing billions of dollars in bank assets, which along with debt guarantees from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., amount to ongoing subsidies that may mask the condition of the financial markets, the report said.

Treasury responded that the TARP has “by every measure … succeeded in achieving its primary goal of economic stabilization.”

But the TARP panel, established by Congress to provide independent oversight, noted that bank failures continue and access to credit remains tight. It said the program’s progress toward goals necessary for financial stability and economic growth “is less clear.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailout_extension

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama It seems we as the United States are stirring up things with other countries.

We are just asking for a war. I agree that Iran needs to slow down on their nuclear weapons. And Iran needs to understand that we are worried because of recent events. But Obama needs to do some reconsidering on the punishment and think hard about it. He needs to have another chat with Iran’s leaders, and try to do this the most peaceful way. Right now this is stirring up anger with Iran.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study.

The analysis produced by two Harvard medical researchers estimates that 2,266 US military veterans under the age of 65 died in 2008 because they lacked health coverage and had reduced access to medical care.

That figure is more than 14 times higher than the 155 US troop deaths in Afghanistan in 2008, the study says.

Released as the United States commemorates fallen soldiers on Veterans Day, the study warns that even health care provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VA) leaves many veterans without coverage.

The analysis uses census data to isolate the number of US veterans who lack both private health coverage and care offered by the VA.

“That’s a group that’s about 1.5 million people,” said David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program who co-authored the study.

Himmelstein and co-author Stephanie Woolhandler, also a Harvard medical professor, overlaid that figure with another study examining the mortality rate associated with lack of health insurance.

“The uninsured have about a 40 percent higher risk of dying each year than otherwise comparable insured individuals,” Himmelstein told AFP.

“Putting that all together you get an estimate of almost 2,300 — 2,266 veterans who die each year from lack of health insurance.”

Only some US veterans have access to medical care through the VA and coverage is apportioned on the basis of eight “priority groups.”

“They range from things like people who were prisoners of war, who have coverage for life, or who have battle injuries and therefore have coverage for their injuries for life,” said Himmelstein.

Veterans who fall below an income threshold that is determined on a county-by-county basis can qualify for care, but many veterans are “working poor” and fall just above the bracket.

“The priority eight group, the lowest priority, are veterans above the very poor group who have no other reason to be eligible and that group is essentially shut out of the VA,” according to Himmelstein.

The study comes as the US Senate weighs health care reform legislation and whether to offer government health insurance.

Himmelstein warns that congressional proposals could still leave veterans uncovered and favors a national health care program similar to those in Britain and Canada.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091111/pl_afp/healthusinsurancemilitary

Does this seem like it is supposed to help support the healthcare bill? It seems as if they are promoting the healthcare bill in this. But why isn’t our military getting the proper healthcare in the first place? Our military serves our country to keep it safe and risk their lives for our freedom. And our government can’t even pay to keep them healthy? When our money is going to places such as building museums for the veterans, and not to the veterans themselves. This seems as a odd concept. Does the government not care for them that much, that they would risk their lives for us, and we don’t give very much back?

WASHINGTON – Recognizing that a weak economy still needs a government boost, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to provide the jobless with up to 20 weeks in additional unemployment benefits and expand a first-time homebuyer tax credit to include a far larger pool of people entering the dormant housing market.

The $24 billion bill, passed 98-0, also provides tax relief for struggling businesses. It comes to the rescue of more than 1 million out-of-work people who will run out of benefits by the end of the year. Everyone will receive 14 weeks of additional benefits, while those in states with unemployment rates of 8.5 percent and above get six weeks on top of that.

With enactment, the jobless in the hardest-hit states could receive up to 99 weeks of benefits, which average about $300 a week. That would well exceed the previous record of 65 weeks during the 1970s.

The $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, enacted as part of the stimulus package last February and set to expire this month, would be extended and expanded to include a $6,500 credit for people who have lived in their current residences at least five years.

Congress has no choice but to act when there are 15 million jobless chasing 3 million jobs and 7,000 people run out of benefits every day, said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. Economists talk about the end of the recession, he said, but “for most Americans, it will still be some time before things start getting better.”

The legislation now goes to the House, which is expected to quickly send it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Wednesday that the bill was “vital to Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the deepest recession in over three-quarters of a century” and he planned to bring it to the floor for a vote as early as Thursday.

The House acted in late September to extend unemployment benefits, but only to the jobless in the 27 states where the unemployment rate is above 8.5 percent.

The bill bogged down in the Senate, first when senators from states with lower jobless rates demanded that the extension apply to all people exhausting their benefits, then with negotiations over adding the homebuyer and business tax credits. Then, Republicans held up floor action when Democrats blocked them from offering amendments on matters unrelated to the base bill.

“Opponents have put up obstacles at every turn to delay the passage of this bill, and as a result of these delaying tactics approximately 200,000 workers have lost their benefits in this last month,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a chief proponent of the more expansive benefit extension.

Judy Conti of the National Employment Law Project said it was “shameful” that the Senate procrastinated while an estimated 1.3 million face a loss of benefits by the end of the year. “We are in the middle of a national catastrophe as far as unemployment is concerned,” she said. “This bill would provide a lifeline for those who are desperate, who are unemployed for no fault of their own.”

The current unemployment rate is 9.8 percent and is expected to move into double digits before companies start rehiring despite a recent improvement in gross domestic product. The benefit extension would be the fourth since June of last year and the first since passage of the $787 billion stimulus package last February.

“You can’t feed your family GDP,” said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, where the unemployment rate is 13 percent. “you need a job. you need to be able to work.”

The legislation would extend the $8,000 tax credit through June of next year as long as the buyer enters into a binding contract before April 30. It doubles the income ceiling for qualification to $125,000 for individuals. The credit is available for homes purchased at under $800,000.

The measure also strengthens the ability of the IRS to stop people who are not eligible for the program from filing fraudulent claims.

The new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners, said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., a cosponsor of the measure, “is going to help us boost what is the problem in the U.S. housing market today and that is what is called the move-up market.”

The third leg of the bill extends to all businesses that have incurred losses in 2008 and 2009 to seek refunds for taxes paid on profits over the past five years.

The two tax credits, each costing more than $10 billion over 10 years, are paid for by delaying enactment of a law giving international companies more leeway in how they allocate interest expenses between U.S. and foreign sources in determining tax liabilities.

The $2.4 billion cost of extending unemployment benefits is offset by extending through June, 2011, the federal unemployment tax that employers pay for each employee.

___

The bill is H.R. 3548

___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

This would seem like a good idea, but again, who is paying for this 24 billion. It seems that the U.S. is getting itself into debt. All this money from us, the taxpayers, to save our jobs and to keep us fed. But this still doesn’t seem like the correct math. More money is going out than going in. And so we are falling into debt. These plans to save jobs are just things to make us think that the government really is trying to help. But are they really trying to help us? The 14 weeks of additional benefits may or may not help. But there has to be exclusions for people. Not everyone can get these benefits.

Car bomb in crowded Pakistan market kills 105

// <![CDATA[
if(!YAHOO){var YAHOO = {};}

YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries = 0;

(function(){
if(YAHOO && YAHOO.util && YAHOO.util.Event && YAHOO.Media && YAHOO.Media.Buzz){
(function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-top",{"sync":"buzz-bottom","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":false,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })();(function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-bottom",{"sync":"buzz-top","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })();
} else if(YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries

• Buzz up!
• Send
  • Email
  • IM
• Share
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
• Print

Play Video Reuters – Scores dead in Pakistan market blast

• Slideshow:Pakistan
• Play Video Video:Clinton: Fighting extremism can’t be avoided AP
• Play Video Video:Pakistan bomb as Clinton visits Reuters

AP – People rush an injured person to a hospital after an explosion in Peshawar, Pakistan on Wednesday Oct. …

By RIAZ KHAN and ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writers Riaz Khan And Robert Burns, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 44 mins ago

PESHAWAR, Pakistan – Suspected militants exploded a car bomb in a market crowded with women and children Wednesday, killing 105 people and turning shops selling wedding dresses, toys and jewelry into a mass of burning debris and bodies.

The attack in the northwestern city of Peshawar was Pakistan’s deadliest since 2007 and came as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the country to offer support for its fight against a strengthening al-Qaida and Taliban-led insurgency based along the Afghan border.

Clinton was three hours’ drive away in the capital meeting Pakistani government leaders when the bomb went off in Peshawar. Her trip was not announced in advance in Pakistan for security reasons.

The bomb was directed squarely at civilians, unlike many previous blasts that have targeted security forces or government or Western interests. While no one claimed responsibility, the bomb appeared aimed at undercutting public and political support for an ongoing army offensive against militants close to the frontier and showing that the government was unable to keep its people safe.

The shaky, U.S.-backed government said the bombing — the latest in a series this month — had strengthened its resolve to press ahead with the assault in the South Waziristan border region, a militant stronghold and a global training and operations hub for al-Qaida.

At least 60 of the dead were women and children. Most security analysts said the attack could backfire on the insurgents and lead more people to inform on them.

“He who kills a Muslim has no place but hell,” said Mumtaz Ali, a wounded 19-year-old who was studying in a Muslim school attached to a mosque that was damaged in the attack. “We are taught the way of the prophet. We are not taught to kill innocent people.”

The U.S. believes fighting the insurgents on the frontier is vital to defeating extremism in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan, where Taliban militants with links to those in Pakistan are waging an ever more violent campaign against American and NATO troops.

Underlining the threat in both nations, Taliban militants in suicide vests stormed a guest house used by U.N. staff in the heart of the Afghan capital on Wednesday, killing 11 people — six of them U.N. staff, including one American.

The bombing just before 1:15 p.m. destroyed much of the Mina Bazaar in Peshawar’s old town, a warren of narrow alleys clogged with stalls, shops and food sellers. The district drew mostly poor female shoppers and their children in this conservative city.

Fire swept through the area after the blast, sending a cloud of gray smoke into the air.

The wounded sat amid burning debris and parts of bodies. Men tried to pull survivors from beneath wreckage. One carried away a baby with a bloody face and a group of men rescued a young boy covered in dust, but others found only bodies of the dead.

“My son died here,” one man cried.

A two-story building collapsed as firefighters doused it with water, causing more panic. Several hours later, people were still searching the debris for loved ones.

“There was a deafening sound, and I was like a blind man for a few minutes,” said Mohammad Usman, who was wounded in the shoulder. “I heard women and children crying and started to help others. There was the smell of human flesh in the air.”

Police officer Khan Abbas said the death toll rose to 105 after three bodies were recovered from the debris and two of the more than 200 wounded died overnight.

Clinton was a few hours into her first visit to Pakistan as secretary of state when the bomb exploded.

“I want you to know this fight is not Pakistan’s alone,” she said at a news conference that many Pakistani TV stations broadcast alongside images of burning buildings and wounded victims. “These extremists are committed to destroying what is dear to us as much as they are committed to destroying that which is dear to you and to all people. So this is our struggle as well.”

Standing beside her, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said the attack would not break the government’s will.

“The resolve and determination will not be shaken,” Qureshi said. “People are carrying out such heinous crimes. They want to shake our resolve. I want to address them: We will not buckle. We will fight you.”

Clinton’s three-day visit is designed to get maximum public exposure to improve America’s image in a country where many people dislike and distrust the United States. She plans to meet with students, business leaders and opposition figures, as well as government and military leaders.

“It is fair to say there have been a lot of misconceptions about what the United States intends for our relationship with Pakistan,” Clinton told reporters flying with her. “It is unfortunate there are those who question our motives. I want to clear the air.”

Peshawar, the economic hub of the northwest and the seat of the provincial government, has long been a favorite target of militants who control large parts of nearby tribal regions near the Afghan border.

Extremism has flourished there since it was used as a staging ground in the 1980s for U.S.-funded fighters preparing to battle the Soviet-installed regime in Afghanistan.

The attack brought the death toll from militant bombings or commando-style raids to more than 300 in October alone.

Three blasts have taken place in Peshawar, including another attack in a nearby market that killed 50. The Taliban have claimed the attacks on government, army or Western targets in calls to media organizations, but not ones killing civilians.

It was the deadliest bombing in Pakistan since a suicide bomber hit the homecoming festivities for former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in the southern city of Karachi in October 2007, killing around 150 people. Bhutto was later killed slain in a separate attack.

Hussain blamed the militants based in South Waziristan for Wednesday’s attack.

“We are hitting them at their center of terrorism, and they are hitting back targeting Peshawar,” he said. “This is a tough time for us. We are picking up the bodies of our women and children, but we will follow these terrorists and eliminate them.”

___

Khan reported from Peshawar and Burns from Islamabad.

 

I find it interesting that we are in Middle Eastern Countries to stop things like this from happening, but it keeps going on. Did our soldiers going to Iraq help the situation there at all? I believe we needed to go there in attempt to help them get on the right track. But we are there trying to fight for them and against them at the same time. Them referring to the terrorists. We captured who we thought we needed to. And we thought it might be over or close to it after. But ever since we got there it seems to have become worse. And even after we captured who we needed too we are still there. Events like this happen every week. Why not pull out and see what happens. If chaos arrives, then maybe we can help again. But we do not rule over Their countrys, but we are acting like we do. They need to work it out themselves, we helped, but often, the best way is for them to find out for themselves.

Speaking before reporters and other members of Congress, Pelosi called upon the thinking of several economists, including Decision Economics chief Allen Sinai and Economy.com’s Mark Zandi, to vouch for the need for more spending. This time, some of them have affirmed, federal dollars would be best directed toward states—especially broke ones like California and New York—to keep them from raising taxes or laying off public employees. Pelosi’s main talking point, and her reasoning for considering a second round of spending, has been that the recession has caused employers to think about ways to do more with less, and with fewer people. So even when the economy rebounds, it might not bring people’s jobs back, at least not for a while.

But Pelosi knows that what might be a reasonable-sounding argument won’t sit terribly well with critics of big government spending, especially ones who have labeled Congress’s and President Obama’s policies as socialist, even fascist. When asked if a stimulus redux was in order, she demurred. “That’s not what we’re doing,” she said. Instead, reports Roll Call, she pointed to “an array” of housing, infrastructure, and transportation programs.

Calling it a second stimulus, as The Hill points out, would seem to suggest that the first stimulus didn’t work. So when someone pressed Pelosi on what she and Democratic colleagues were planning in terms of additional spending, she walked a semantic line. “We do not have a plan for an additional stimulus package, but we do have plans to stimulate the economy.” Glad we got that cleared up.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/21/a-stimulus-by-any-other-name-would-probably-smell-the-same.aspx

I believe this seems quite odd. As it said above, did the first stimulus package not work. And what makes us think this one will be better? To increase government spending to avoid job losses. I doubt this would happen. We have tried this before but to no avail it has not worked. And more government spending would mean more money out of our pockets for a long time. Not just us paying, but maybe people paying for this 100 years from now. They say it would go to states to avoid tax raises, but then who is going to pay for it? Money doesnt grow on trees as we know. The money to save our jobs is coming from ourselves. And we are paying for it in taxes. They would have to raise taxes, because the government needs money, and they wont give it away freely to us.

Nancy Pelosi proved again today that members of Congress are no strangers to euphemizing. At a meeting this morning on Capitol Hill, Pelosi discussed a second round of stimulus spending that could soon be in order. But cognizant of growing aversion to additional federal spending, the speaker tiptoed around what it would be called.

Speaking before reporters and other members of Congress, Pelosi called upon the thinking of several economists, including Decision Economics chief Allen Sinai and Economy.com’s Mark Zandi, to vouch for the need for more spending. This time, some of them have affirmed, federal dollars would be best directed toward states—especially broke ones like California and New York—to keep them from raising taxes or laying off public employees. Pelosi’s main talking point, and her reasoning for considering a second round of spending, has been that the recession has caused employers to think about ways to do more with less, and with fewer people. So even when the economy rebounds, it might not bring people’s jobs back, at least not for a while.

But Pelosi knows that what might be a reasonable-sounding argument won’t sit terribly well with critics of big government spending, especially ones who have labeled Congress’s and President Obama’s policies as socialist, even fascist. When asked if a stimulus redux was in order, she demurred. “That’s not what we’re doing,” she said. Instead, reports Roll Call, she pointed to “an array” of housing, infrastructure, and transportation programs.

Calling it a second stimulus, as The Hill points out, would seem to suggest that the first stimulus didn’t work. So when someone pressed Pelosi on what she and Democratic colleagues were planning in terms of additional spending, she walked a semantic line. “We do not have a plan for an additional stimulus package, but we do have plans to stimulate the economy.” Glad we got that cleared up.

I believe this seems quite odd. As it said above, did the first stimulus package not work. And what makes us think this one will be better?  To increase government spending to avoid job losses. I doubt this would happen. We have tried this before but to no avail it has not worked. And more government spending would mean more money out of our pockets for a long time. Not just us paying, but maybe people paying for this 100 years from now. They say it would go to states to avoid tax raises, but then who is going to pay for it? Money doesnt grow on trees as we know. The money to save our jobs is coming from ourselves. And we are paying for it in taxes. They would have to raise taxes, because the government needs money, and they wont give it away freely to us.