Can someone explain why this is called a "stimulus"

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I just hate the fact that I can't buy land with the mineral rights because someone has held the rights for eons because, as I have been told -- why give them up?

They might make something years from now worth more than all the land is worth right now. I'll never sell the mineral rights on the land where I live ...several generations down will have them -- regardless of what happens to the land (unless they start taxing the possible value yearly, in which case they'd have to give them up)

IMO, any land with non-producing wells, mineral rights should go back to the landowner after 10 years of non-production. All mineral rights separated from the land should be taxed heavily every year (if you are going to tax the land). Right now land owners are taxed more than mineral rights are "unless" they are producing.

you can purchase mineral rights, of course. As a matter of fact, most of the energy companies in the US actively look to buy mineral rights as they find the opportunity. Generally, the selling price is roughly the value of royalties received for three years. So, beynond three years you start to turn a profit. It is a good business investment plan if you can buy those rights. Generally, those mineral rights have been handed down in inheritance to each progressive generation with heavy dilution of the value. Millions of people have a 0.0015 share in this well or that well and they get around 30 dollars per month for it if it is producing. If you want to buy mineral rights, then what you do is find people (like me) with mineral rights that are so watered down that the royalty is 30 dollars per month. The paperwork including the division orders and the tax filing is much more trouble than the royalty is worth. But, if you can find a lot of people like me, then you can buy a lot of mineral rights and make it worth your time and investment. I get emails and letters all the time from people wanting to buy mineral rights. Actually, most of them come from the company paying me (such as Chesapeake).

You are right that the owner of the mineral rights is not taxed directly for that mineral right in the same fashion that the land owner pays property tax. It would be terribly complicated to come up with some way to tax the mineral right. All land has a mineral right attached to it. So, does all land have a mineral right "property tax"? Most land does not produce anything to be sold with that mineral right. It, to me, makes more sense to tax the royalty as a method to tax mineral rights that produce and leave the others alone.

Anyway, the royalty is taxed heavily.

And, you would also probably be appalled to find out how royalty goes to the state instead of persons. A lot of people with minimal royalty checks just quit filing the division orders, and the companies are legally obligated to send the royalty money to the state. But, am I going to hand my 30 dollars per month boondoggle to my three children such that they have to fight all the same paperwork for ten dollars per month? Of course not. It would be cruel.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

From the Union Leader. I think the bloom may be falling from this stinkbomb.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...c-4a5976b88449

Nice article. Even if the bill were 850 billion dollars in actual simulus, I'd have heartburn over it. But, the bill as passed in the House (and authored by Nazi Pelosi, not Obama) is not even a stimulus bill. It is nothing more than the largest pork spending bill ever, showering money on various constituents and favored groups but doing next to nothing to:
1)make jobs or protect jobs
2)stimulate the economy

The only thing I can say in the defense of Obama is that he didn't write that crappy bill. But, I do blame Obama for supporting this crappy bill and pushing it.

[wmbwinn]

Even Obama knows that this bill is not going to work:

"At the end of a week that saw hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, Obama also used his Saturday radio and Internet address to tell that nation that "no one bill, no matter how comprehensive, can cure what ails our economy." "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/.../obama_economy

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Nice article. Even if the bill were 850 billion dollars in actual simulus, I'd have heartburn over it. But, the bill as passed in the House (and authored by Nazi Pelosi, not Obama) is not even a stimulus bill. It is nothing more than the largest pork spending bill ever, showering money on various constituents and favored groups but doing next to nothing to:
1)make jobs or protect jobs
2)stimulate the economy

The only thing I can say in the defense of Obama is that he didn't write that crappy bill. But, I do blame Obama for supporting this crappy bill and pushing it.

This is Obama's bill, period. He's out there promoting it, he's calling out republicans for not supporting this because they are "just too political". He was rated the most liberal congressman in this country...there is nothing in this bill that he's not for.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is Obama's bill, period. He's out there promoting it, he's calling out republicans for not supporting this because they are "just too political". He was rated the most liberal congressman in this country...there is nothing in this bill that he's not for.

I agree that he is in favor of everything in that crappy bill. I wonder if he would have included things that actually stimulated the economy or actually produced and/or protected jobs had he written it.

The bill, as currently constructed, is nothing more than a far left Christmas shopping list. It is all about left wing agenda and not at all about
1)stimulating the economy
2)producing and/or protecting jobs

It is sadly misleading to call it a stimulus bill. I agree with you that he will hang on this bill if it passes. It will fail. It cannot succeed on its own merits. If the economy recovers despite this bill, this bill cannot be logically supported as the cause of recovery.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you can purchase mineral rights, of course. As a matter of fact, most of the energy companies in the US actively look to buy mineral rights as they find the opportunity. Generally, the selling price is roughly the value of royalties received for three years. So, beynond three years you start to turn a profit. It is a good business investment plan if you can buy those rights. Generally, those mineral rights have been handed down in inheritance to each progressive generation with heavy dilution of the value. Millions of people have a 0.0015 share in this well or that well and they get around 30 dollars per month for it if it is producing. If you want to buy mineral rights, then what you do is find people (like me) with mineral rights that are so watered down that the royalty is 30 dollars per month. The paperwork including the division orders and the tax filing is much more trouble than the royalty is worth. But, if you can find a lot of people like me, then you can buy a lot of mineral rights and make it worth your time and investment. I get emails and letters all the time from people wanting to buy mineral rights. Actually, most of them come from the company paying me (such as Chesapeake).

You are right that the owner of the mineral rights is not taxed directly for that mineral right in the same fashion that the land owner pays property tax. It would be terribly complicated to come up with some way to tax the mineral right. All land has a mineral right attached to it. So, does all land have a mineral right "property tax"? Most land does not produce anything to be sold with that mineral right. It, to me, makes more sense to tax the royalty as a method to tax mineral rights that produce and leave the others alone.

Anyway, the royalty is taxed heavily.

And, you would also probably be appalled to find out how royalty goes to the state instead of persons. A lot of people with minimal royalty checks just quit filing the division orders, and the companies are legally obligated to send the royalty money to the state. But, am I going to hand my 30 dollars per month boondoggle to my three children such that they have to fight all the same paperwork for ten dollars per month? Of course not. It would be cruel.

This is how I understood it as well.

With that said, if you taxed the mineral rights, on non-producing stuff, then it wouldn't get so demolished, and land owners would have more rights with it.

As it is, there is no reason to give up mineral rights. They only cost me "if" it has something producing on it. It might pay off "if" they find something in the future. But, leasing the oil rights, and other issues which cause only the lawyers to profit happen, when it gets split drastically.

If the mineral rights stayed with the landholder, then large oil companies would own all the land. I understand that one.

If the mineral rights went back to the landholder, IF it had been 10 years without production, or you are taxed for them, then people wouldn't keep them just to keep them.

As it sits on my land, if I didn't have controlling interest of the mineral rights, the controlling interest mineral person could lease my land, and them put a well on it -- without my OK. Now I could sue for damages, but only surface damages and not for the loss of value based on the fact that no one wants to live right next to an oil/gas rig. I would also only get surface % of the minerals.

Plus the laws allowing horizontal drilling are just as horrendous.

In fact, this last year, the last 22 acres that we bought -- we could only get 50% of the mineral rights from the guy -- he kept the other 50%. Then he died, and his daughter in law signed a lease agreement on our land @ much less money than we signed the rest of the land for. PO'd me because we were landholder and had 50% minerals, but she signed the lease. That was ignorant how that worked.

Back to my point. If you could send mineral rights back to the land owner -- when it isn't producing -- and tax the mineral right (which would keep people from just diluting them farther and farther) -- then you could add taxes, and value.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

www.texasconstitutionorsomethingsimilar.com

There are counties in W. Texas (Andrews, Yoakum, ...) that have multi-billion dollar property values and it's not because of the 70 or 80 shotgun houses and arid cotton patches in those counties. Ira-ann School District in Pecos Co. has (last I checked) the most property value per student of any school district in Texas because of the assessment on the Yates field.

The richness of property taxes in some of these counties in W. Texas was part of the reason we got Robin Hooded...to get these counties paying more in property taxes that could then be shipped to the State for re-doling.

I've googled it, and searched, and I find royalty taxes, but not taxes on mineral rights.

The difference being one is when you are profitting, and one is an all-time thing.

I have to have mineral rights in order to get a royalty check. If no royalty check coming in -- then they cost nothing -- unlike the landowner who is taxed every year.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I've googled it, and searched, and I find royalty taxes, but not taxes on mineral rights.

The difference being one is when you are profitting, and one is an all-time thing.

I have to have mineral rights in order to get a royalty check. If no royalty check coming in -- then they cost nothing -- unlike the landowner who is taxed every year.

If I understand Alex, he just said that the land itself and the corresponding property tax were higher in lands with known mineral right resources for sale or otherwise available. So, the property tax issue was correspondingly higher for those lands. And, the money was carried off to spread around Texas.

I could have understood wrong.

But, I'm sure that mineral rights are not taxed at all like a property tax. I'm sure you are correct on that issue.

I'm just not sure that there is a problem with that for the reasons I explained before.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

This is how I understood it as well.

With that said, if you taxed the mineral rights, on non-producing stuff, then it wouldn't get so demolished, and land owners would have more rights with it.

As it is, there is no reason to give up mineral rights. They only cost me "if" it has something producing on it. It might pay off "if" they find something in the future. But, leasing the oil rights, and other issues which cause only the lawyers to profit happen, when it gets split drastically.

If the mineral rights stayed with the landholder, then large oil companies would own all the land. I understand that one.

If the mineral rights went back to the landholder, IF it had been 10 years without production, or you are taxed for them, then people wouldn't keep them just to keep them.

As it sits on my land, if I didn't have controlling interest of the mineral rights, the controlling interest mineral person could lease my land, and them put a well on it -- without my OK. Now I could sue for damages, but only surface damages and not for the loss of value based on the fact that no one wants to live right next to an oil/gas rig. I would also only get surface % of the minerals.

Plus the laws allowing horizontal drilling are just as horrendous.

In fact, this last year, the last 22 acres that we bought -- we could only get 50% of the mineral rights from the guy -- he kept the other 50%. Then he died, and his daughter in law signed a lease agreement on our land @ much less money than we signed the rest of the land for. PO'd me because we were landholder and had 50% minerals, but she signed the lease. That was ignorant how that worked.

Back to my point. If you could send mineral rights back to the land owner -- when it isn't producing -- and tax the mineral right (which would keep people from just diluting them farther and farther) -- then you could add taxes, and value.

In the situation above, do you get 50% of the royalties for the well placed on your property since you own 50% of the mineral rights? Or did the other person somehow manage to get all of it? What exactly is your legal position now?

Anyway, I understand everything you said.

In the current system, those tiny fragmented mineral rights usually end up getting bought out by the oil/gas companies drilling them. Chesapeake sends me an offer to buy out the mineral rights every year. I will probably sell it to them at some point just to be done with it.

So, that could be even worse for a land owner. Now, it is Chesapeake (or a similar company) who actually owns the mineral right and is also drilling it (double profit). And, certainly, they are going to build wells and do whatever else fits their business model with no regard for your concerns.

But, if you did what you want to do, then people with tiny mineral rights would sell out to the oil/gas companies even faster. And, those with mineral rights that aren't worth anything would also potentially sell those mineral rights more readily also.

I don't know how that idea would actually result in the landowner getting the mineral right back. And, would the landowner even want that mineral right back if wasn't worth anything and would cause a higher tax to be placed?

I'm just not sure how the idea would help you.

Are you wanting the mineral right (and its tax you proposed) just to prevent the mineral right owner from signing leases for wells and similar construction? Is it worth that?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If I understand Alex, he just said that the land itself and the corresponding property tax were higher in lands with known mineral right resources for sale or otherwise available. So, the property tax issue was correspondingly higher for those lands. And, the money was carried off to spread around Texas.

I could have understood wrong.

But, I'm sure that mineral rights are not taxed at all like a property tax. I'm sure you are correct on that issue.

I'm just not sure that there is a problem with that for the reasons I explained before.

Fair enough. I just don't like the boondoggle. Landowner pays because the land is worth more because of mineral rights that they don't own.

The person most likely to profit vastly on the land, is not the landowner, but the landowner is the one taxed yearly.

It is just kind of screwed up, IMO.

[Mavdog]

GOP governors press Congress to pass stimulus bill
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer
39 mins ago

NEW YORK – Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state's congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.

"As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans," said Douglas' deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.

Not a single Republican voted with the majority last week when the House approved Obama's $819 billion combination of tax cuts and new spending. The president's goal is to create or preserve 3 million to 4 million jobs.

Republicans led by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained that the plan is laden with pet projects and will not yield the jobs or stimulate the economy in the way Obama has promised.

The measure faces GOP opposition in the Senate, where it will be up for a vote in the week ahead.

But states are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.

This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.

"States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression — anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion," the NGA statement said. "Governors ... support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation's infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment."

Clyde Frazier, a professor of political science at Meredith College in North Carolina, said it wasn't politically inconsistent for Republican governors and members of Congress to part ways on the stimulus plan.

"For governors, it's free money — they get the benefits and they don't have to pay the costs of raising the revenues," Frazier said. "Senators and representatives get only some credit for the expenditures, and they have to pay the bill."

That's not to say Republican governors are entirely enthusiastic about the plan. Some worry about the debt incurred through so much federal borrowing.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of the House, said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he wasn't sure whether he would accept the approximately $3 billion his state would be in line for.

"Yes, we need some help and we appreciate the help," Barbour said in an interview. "But I don't know about the details and the strings attached to tell you if I'll take all of it or not."

The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.

"It's incumbent on me as one of the nation's governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar," Sanford said in an interview. "This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession."

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama's plan.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. "States have to balance their budgets," he said. "So if we're going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money."

But Pawlenty expressed reservations about the cost of the plan and its impact on the federal deficit, which has already grown to over $1 trillion.

"I'm quite concerned about the federal government spending money it doesn't have," Pawlenty said. "We're on an unsustainable path of deficit spending and borrowing."

[wmbwinn]

yes, I read that article before I re-found it here.

Republicans are not opposed to the entire bill, just most of it.

1)State funding is a problem
2)real economic stimulus is ok if it makes sense. most of the bill has nothing to do with economic stimulus and is just a huge pork party
3)job production/protection which is the same thing as economic stimulus

if the bill were just about the three points above (which many/most Republicans would support), then the bill would cost forty percent of its current most minimal estimate.

The States do need funding help. That is not so much a partisan issue. Now, there may be some deep partisan divide about how to prevent that from happening again next year....

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

In the situation above, do you get 50% of the royalties for the well placed on your property since you own 50% of the mineral rights? Or did the other person somehow manage to get all of it? What exactly is your legal position now?

Yes, we would, if there was a well on it. Unfortunately, we don't get the lease money -- at least not at the rate we sold the rest of it at. She leased it at $175 an acre for 5 years, we leased at $325 for a 3/2 split. Pay us for the first 3 then pay us again for a guarantee for the next 2. We are about a year from it ending, without a drill put on the place because the gas line didn't come through but got re-routed. We lost lots of money on her deal, that we didn't have a choice about, even though we own both the land and 50% of the mineral rights.

Anyway, I understand everything you said.

In the current system, those tiny fragmented mineral rights usually end up getting bought out by the oil/gas companies drilling them. Chesapeake sends me an offer to buy out the mineral rights every year. I will probably sell it to them at some point just to be done with it.

So, that could be even worse for a land owner. Now, it is Chesapeake (or a similar company) who actually owns the mineral right and is also drilling it (double profit). And, certainly, they are going to build wells and do whatever else fits their business model with no regard for your concerns.

But, if you did what you want to do, then people with tiny mineral rights would sell out to the oil/gas companies even faster. And, those with mineral rights that aren't worth anything would also potentially sell those mineral rights more readily also.

I don't know how that idea would actually result in the landowner getting the mineral right back. And, would the landowner even want that mineral right back if wasn't worth anything and would cause a higher tax to be placed?

I'm just not sure how the idea would help you.

Are you wanting the mineral right (and its tax you proposed) just to prevent the mineral right owner from signing leases for wells and similar construction? Is it worth that?

The landowner is already taxed. I agree with royalty taxes as well. I just don't agree with the splintered mineral rights that can be kept indefinitely when the landowner is paying the bill, but the mineral rights owner is the one that can hit the jackpot.

[wmbwinn]

Dalmation:

The landowner is already taxed. I agree with royality taxes as well. I just don't agree with the splintered mineral rights that can be kept indefinately when the landowner is paying the bill, but the mineral rights owner is the one that can hit the jackpot.

I don't know that the issue of legally dividing land ownership from mineral rights can be resolved other than by national legislation. And, generally, that is always a bad idea.

Agree that the issue of dividing mineral rights endlessly through generations of a family that can't even remember what the land looks like or even where it is strange. In my family, with my generation the mineral rights are too tiny and fragmented to amount to anything. But, my father's generation do well enough that the income is certainly better than Social Security. My grandparents lived very well on nothing but royalties and some "hobby ranching" and scheming. That generation went around actively buying mineral rights all over the place from poor farmers/ranchers. Most of those efforts did not produce anything but it was like buying lottery tickets. The generation of my great grandparents was where the lottery ticket hit. That generation was fabulously wealthy for their time. But, four generations of mineral right divisions combined with a diminishment in what comes out of the ground means that it is no big deal to me and my generation. But, by now, the mineral rights are divided across relatives I don't even know. The tiny rights are miniscule.

I don't know what the "answer" is, but I prefer free market principles and private contracts to any government solution.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I don't know what the "answer" is, but I prefer free market principles and private contracts to any government solution.

Exactly

[dude1394]

If someone's giving away money...someone's going to be asking for their share. It doesn't mean mommy and daddy need to give it to them.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I have to have mineral rights in order to get a royalty check. If no royalty check coming in -- then they cost nothing -- unlike the landowner who is taxed every year.

If you own mineral rights but don't have any production coming in, then odds are the value of your mineral rights is pretty close to zero....close enough that the cost to appraise and assess non-producing mineral rights across a county would probably exceed the amount of tax generated off of said rights.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

If you own mineral rights but don't have any production coming in, then odds are the value of your mineral rights is pretty close to zero....close enough that the cost to appraise and assess non-producing mineral rights across a county would probably exceed the amount of tax generated off of said rights.

I guess, except that we haven't had production in about 15 years on the place, and in the last 5 it has scored about 240K in lease rights. (Should have been more.) Yes, we pay taxes on the 240K. We won't pay more until we lease the rights out again.

I'd like to get the rest of them, but why would they sell when it costs them nothing to keep them?

[alexamenos]

white guys in suits probably shouldn't rap

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I guess, except that we haven't had production in about 15 years on the place, and in the last 5 it has scored about 240K in lease rights. (Should have been more.) Yes, we pay taxes on the 240K. We won't pay more until we lease the rights out again.

I'd like to get the rest of them, but why would they sell when it costs them nothing to keep them?

I have never been anywhere near a situation where I was involved with a lease. I know that in the early 1940's, my great grandparents received 346 million dollars in the initial lease agreement...

But, divided out over time (the first generation lottery winner had 9 children) and with declining output, it isn't worth much now.

The lease issue is a big deal. Sorry you got screwed on that deal.

[alexamenos]

reliably, politicians are more principled and more sensible when they're out of power. dick army get's jiggy with it....

link

...no one spends someone else's money better than they spend their own. The charade of the current stimulus package, chockablock with earmarks to favored pet constituencies and virtually devoid of national policy considerations, is the logical consequence of Keynesianism in action. It is about politics and power, not sound economics...

[alexamenos]

geezus....this recession thingy is worse than I imagined:

vid

[dude1394]

Ruh Oh...

Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Related survey data shows that half the nation’s voters say the plan that finally emerges from Congress may end up doing more harm than good.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

geezus....this recession thingy is worse than I imagined:

vid

OH THANK THE LORD! Obviously, Congress has been accidentally adding 3-6 zeros to every number in their stimulus plan.

[GermanDunk]

Where does USA get the money for the stimulous plan from when Obama promised tax relief I mean 800 bn. is a lot of money.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

OH THANK THE LORD! Obviously, Congress has been accidentally adding 3-6 zeros to every number in their stimulus plan.

i really hope this is what's been happening.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

Where does USA get the money for the stimulous plan from when Obama promised tax relief I mean 800 bn. is a lot of money.

the money comes from the same place the trillion dollars for war came from...

it is borrowed from China and others around the world...

[FINtastic]

Guys it's time to stop bickering and start acting because we don't have anymore time to waste. The oracle known as Nancy Pelosi just released these startling figures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiyjmDaS0Tg

Soon all my imaginary friends are going to be out of jobs too!

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Guys it's time to stop bickering and start acting because we don't have anymore time to waste. The oracle known as Nancy Pelosi just released these startling figures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiyjmDaS0Tg

Soon all my imaginary friends are going to be out of jobs too!

Fin, the problem is that the bill as composed by Nazi Pelosi is not going to help your real friends or your imaginary friends. Scaring us with the facts of jobs lost doesn't change the fact that Pelosi wrote a bill that doesn't help anything and makes things worse.

[alby]

So can we all agree the real name of this thing is called The Socialism Act of 2009?

[alexamenos]

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarr...es/001540.html

A Crisis of Political Economy

Oy, what a mess...

ct'd

What he said^^^.

[DirkFTW]

"Jesus, Allah, Buddah. I love you all! Now give me 60 votes!"

[dude1394]

We may NEVER recover!!!

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly.

If we don't have massive guvment spending we are all DOOMED!! It will be worse than 9/11 times a thousand!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alby

So can we all agree the real name of this thing is called The Socialism Act of 2009?

I don't think so. I think it's more like the Democrat Purchasing Vote Act of 2009.

[dude1394]

Got to make sure that white construction workers AND christian construction workers don't get any jobs in the stimulsu package.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...U3ZWRhYmMzMGM=

For Immediate Release: February 5, 2009
Office of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)

Democrats Vote to Discriminate Against Students of Faith

Stimulus bans universities and colleges from using funds to renovate buildings where students engage in “religious worship”

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike language from the economic stimulus bill that discriminates against students of faith. Senator DeMint’s amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving funds to renovate buildings, from allowing “sectarian instruction” or “religious worship” within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel, and other religious organizations.

[alby]

How about End of Capitalism Act 2009

[wmbwinn]

Maybe we'll find it easier to negotiate with Russia and China as we become more like them...

Change...

I Hope I have some change left....

Hope and Change...

[chumdawg]

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike language from the economic stimulus bill that discriminates against students of faith. Senator DeMint’s amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving funds to renovate buildings, from allowing “sectarian instruction” or “religious worship” within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel, and other religious organizations.

There's no place for something like "Campus Crusade for Christ" on a university campus, if it's being sponsored by the university.

The students are free to do whatever they choose, of course.

[Mavdog]

isn't the church or seminary the best place for "sectarian instruction" and "religious worship"? these are the primary reasons for them to exist.

doesn't fit in a non-sectarian educational institution....also doesn't mean these organizations mentioned are banned from a university.

[DirkFTW]

Is it that they can't use the campus or that they can't use a renovated building?

One is a ban from the university. The other is retarded.

In the broader sense, doesn't sectarian instruction include political organizations?