$145 billion "economic stimulus package"

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Like Hurricane Katrina, give a guy with nothing $2000 and watch him by a plasma TV instead of food.

Are you saying the government knows how to spend the $2000 better than the citizen?

Just referencing that old bit of hyperbole from the Republicans - sometimes, the government does know better how to spend some money, for things like aid for the hungry.

What a bit of nonsense that phrase is - it's used to oppose almost any taxes, but is about as logical as saying that people who want iPods shouldn't pay Apple to make them.

For things that are suited to government programs, taxes paying for them make sense.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Given how much the Bush tax cuts did previously to stimulate growth/economy this is probably another really good idea. If we could only make the cuts permanent.

Also everything I've read states both dems and republicans support this.

The bush tax cuts had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. If you have been paying attention to anything since August you might have realized that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Like Hurricane Katrina, give a guy with nothing $2000 and watch him by a plasma TV instead of food.

Are you saying the government knows how to spend the $2000 better than the citizen?

Just referencing that old bit of hyperbole from the Republicans - sometimes, the government does know better how to spend some money, for things like aid for the hungry.

What a bit of nonsense that phrase is - it's used to oppose almost any taxes, but is about as logical as saying that people who want iPods shouldn't pay Apple to make them.

For things that are suited to government programs, taxes paying for them make sense.

The government didn't give the person $2,000, our kids did.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: loki8481
leave is to Republicans to propose a bill that outspends Hillary and Obama's proposals combined.

that's not entirely true. Both Hillary and Obama's plans involved huge "reserve" funds that make their proposals total well over 100 billion each. I believe Obama's reserve was 45 billion on top of the initial 75 billion.

just sayin'....

Originally posted by: senseamp
How is he planning to pay for it?

When did you start caring about how we're going to pay for handouts?!

We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

:laugh: A Democratic Congress hasn't passed a balanced budget in my lifetime (and I'm getting dangerously close to 40), so keep dreaming. And don't give me this "Clinton balanced the budget" garbage - Congress spends the money, not the president.

 

[piasabird]

The stimulus the country needs is for idiots in Washington DC to quit spending money and make some cuts in the budget.

 

[rpanic]

To bad we the people don?t form a tax revolt in mass to stop this type of stuff. There is no limit to how far into the future they will barrow from.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: loki8481
leave is to Republicans to propose a bill that outspends Hillary and Obama's proposals combined.

that's not entirely true. Both Hillary and Obama's plans involved huge "reserve" funds that make their proposals total well over 100 billion each. I believe Obama's reserve was 45 billion on top of the initial 75 billion.

just sayin'....

Originally posted by: senseamp
How is he planning to pay for it?

When did you start caring about how we're going to pay for handouts?!

We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

Oh bullsh*t. The Dems and Republicans have become equally irresponsible when it comes to spending and taxation. The only truly conservative candidate, fiscally, is Ron Paul -- and he's a frickin loon!

So now what?! We're stuck choosing from a list of fiscally irresponsible douchebags. The only remaining question is in which way each of us prefers to be irresponsible.

 

[dullard]

Case 1: US government keeps spending as it does, borrows $145B, gives $145B to US to spend, and yes total spending in the US went up. It is the same exact thing as if you went to a bank and got a loan and then spent the money. Sure your spending that year went up. But, are you any better off? If you blew it on fast food and other junk, no. In that case, you'd have wasted the money, you'd have nothing to show for it, except well, you'd have a number of high spending (good economy) to brag about. If instead you spent it on investments, then maybe you are better off and maybe not, we just don't know.

Case 2: US government pays for this $145B by cutting spending. In this sitation, no additional government debt is needed. Government gives $145B to people to spend. Guess what? Total spending in the US is constant because the increase in consumer spending is offset by the decrease in government spending. Everything is all a wash.

So your three possiblities are:
A) The money is blown and we are left with a large loan and nothing to show for it.
B) It is all a wash.
C) Unclear. Possibly good, possibly bad.

Looking at those three outcomes, I don't like our chances on this. But Bush will get his higher consumer spending number to wave around claiming it was all good.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: rpanic
Too bad we the people don?t form a tax revolt in mass to stop this type of stuff.

That's funny, in a sad sort of way. "We the People" put those politicians in power. Deficit spending isn't really an issue with the general population, so we only have ourselves to blame for the burden we're leaving future generations. Most of the dumb sheeple just want the gov't to "do something!" because they're too stupid to manage their own fiscal situations.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Most of the dumb sheeple just want the gov't to "do something!" because they're too stupid to manage their own fiscal situations.

QFT... sadly.

What's even more sad, to me, is the high number of sheeple who are willing to encourage and support that type of behavoir, through handouts paid for by everyone else, indefinitely. It's one big gigantic self-defeating cycle of debt... WOOT!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Another brilliant idea from dumbya et al. Fine, give me 1600.00, just add that to what my children and their children are going to inherit as debt. He so smart, he's a fiscal genius!

 

[nageov3t]

I've had this song stuck in my head all day thanks to this thread. heh.

:music:They offered us Al Smith and Hoover
We paid attention and we chose
Not only did we pay attention
We paid through the nose.

In ev'ry pt he said "a chicken"
But Herbert Hoover he forgot
Not only don't we have the chicken
We ain't got the pot! :music:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: loki8481
leave is to Republicans to propose a bill that outspends Hillary and Obama's proposals combined.

that's not entirely true. Both Hillary and Obama's plans involved huge "reserve" funds that make their proposals total well over 100 billion each. I believe Obama's reserve was 45 billion on top of the initial 75 billion.

just sayin'....

Originally posted by: senseamp
How is he planning to pay for it?

When did you start caring about how we're going to pay for handouts?!

We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

Oh bullsh*t. The Dems and Republicans have become equally irresponsible when it comes to spending and taxation. The only truly conservative candidate, fiscally, is Ron Paul -- and he's a frickin loon!

So now what?! We're stuck choosing from a list of fiscally irresponsible douchebags. The only remaining question is in which way each of us prefers to be irresponsible.

The only bullsh*t is your claim that they're equal.

The graph here shows how wrong you are.

You fail to understand as well that it's not about how 'each of us' prefers to be irresponsible.

Palehorse, while you and I are not for the same party, you and I are in the same huge economic group targetted by the Republican policymakers who are for the super wealthy.

The issue has a lot more to do with the super rich dominating the political system and exploiting it for their gain than about the average voter's financial choices.

As long as you keep not noticing the fact that that's the case, you will waste your time (and ours to the extent we read your posts on the wrong issue).

We do agree on two things, though - that Ron Paul is 'a loon' in important ways, and on at least one presidential candidate, who I'll leave unnamed as it was in a PM.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: loki8481
leave is to Republicans to propose a bill that outspends Hillary and Obama's proposals combined.

How do you figure? Hillary's proposal was $75 billion. Obama's was 130 billion. This is 145 billion. I think your math is way off... :laugh:

According to the below Hillary has a 70B + 40B plan, and Obama has a 75B plan.

Clinton/Obama respond: http://afp.google.com/article/...gY2IC3i9AbIPMwqpIIVcVA

Clinton did not even wait for President George W. Bush to unveil his plans for fiscal stimulus, before condemning them, campaigning in the vast, arid Nevada, a western state among the worst hit by the US mortgage crisis.

"The Bush approach would fail to fully help the millions of lower income senior citizens who live on fixed incomes and are under enormous financial stress," Clinton said in a statement.

"It would disproportionately leave out African-American and Hispanic families who have, on average, lower incomes than white families."

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
According to the below Hillary has a 70B + 40B plan, and Obama has a 75B plan.

Clinton/Obama respond: http://afp.google.com/article/...gY2IC3i9AbIPMwqpIIVcVA

Clinton did not even wait for President George W. Bush to unveil his plans for fiscal stimulus, before condemning them, campaigning in the vast, arid Nevada, a western state among the worst hit by the US mortgage crisis.

"The Bush approach would fail to fully help the millions of lower income senior citizens who live on fixed incomes and are under enormous financial stress," Clinton said in a statement.

"It would disproportionately leave out African-American and Hispanic families who have, on average, lower incomes than white families."

Obama Proposes $120 Billion Economic Stimulus Plan

And yes, Hillary's plan calls for $70 billion immediately and an additional $40 billion waiting in the wings if called for.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Palehorse, while you and I are not for the same party, you and I are in the same huge economic group targetted by the Republican policymakers who are for the super wealthy.

I don't vote for either party, I vote for candidates. In fact, as I've said many times, my current plan is to vote for Obama if the Dems are smart enough to nominate him.

The issue has a lot more to do with the super rich dominating the political system and exploiting it for their gain than about the average voter's financial choices.

How does that negate the irresponsible spending being done by both parties?! Your chart above depicts debt vs. GDP, per President; but everyone -- even me -- knows that spending is directed by Congress, not the President.

Therefore, it's our entire Congressional body who has been remiss in their spending and taxation habits during the last 50 years, not the Presidents.

Exhibit A: Our current Democratically controlled Congress that is just as fiscally irresponsible as every other Republican-controled Congress.

Conclusion: they're ALL for bigger government, and they are ALL fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

What flavor is the Kool Aid today, Craig? :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

What flavor is the Kool Aid today, Craig? :laugh:

Mushroom?

 

[BeauJangles]

Paying down the national debt should be one of our highest fiscal goals. Handing out money to people so they can buy ipods, cell phones, and big-screen TVs will do nothing for our economy in the long-term.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Not that I agree with any of it. I think it's a terrible idea. Might as well just hand out debit cards with the Treasury logo and watch it sink.

This is a terrible idea. Of course, when the Dems in Washington agree with the President (immigration, stimulus package) you know a major screw up is on its way out the door.

Tip: If keeping money out of government hands is a good idea, then government should have NEVER had that money in the first place.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

there is nothing liberal about left wing authoritarianism.

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Paying down the national debt should be one of our highest fiscal goals. Handing out money to people so they can buy ipods, cell phones, and big-screen TVs will do nothing for our economy in the long-term.

is there such a thing as too little national debt?

 

[piasabird]

So this 120 Billion will go to targeted few? How does that work? Do you target those big companies that financed your campaign? Do you target only people stupid enough to get a fixed rate loan? Why do we want to give money to stupid people or rich people who made money off of stupid people? Are we trying to teach these people to keep being stupid and keep taking advantage of stupid people because that will just reward more of the same stupid activity?

For the past two years I have been listening to commercials about how the interest rates are low and how it is such a good idea to refinance your variable rate loans to a new low fixed rate. Where were these people for the last few years and how come they were too stupid to hear these commercials? I need to open a bank and find these dumb people so I can give them a variable rate loan and reposess their house and get some free money from the goverment.

How exactly does this reinforce capitalism and free trade? Mortgage comapnies should be free to fail like everyone else.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234

We liberals are the fiscally responsible party, the lies of the Republicans notwithstanding. You might disagree with us on our spending choices, but we're not the big debt increasers.

there is nothing liberal about left wing authoritarianism.

I agree, and I'm against left-wing authoritarianism.

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Paying down the national debt should be one of our highest fiscal goals. Handing out money to people so they can buy ipods, cell phones, and big-screen TVs will do nothing for our economy in the long-term.

is there such a thing as too little national debt?

There may be - as I understand, Keynesian economics, as pursued by JFK, can make small to moderate debt constructive for the economy, when used as a tool for the right policy.

I'm against the larger debts, and would like to see our deficit not only eliminated, but turned into a surplus to pay down our debt.

Admittedly, the topic of global power regarding debt is complex, but still.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234
Palehorse, while you and I are not for the same party, you and I are in the same huge economic group targetted by the Republican policymakers who are for the super wealthy.

I don't vote for either party, I vote for candidates. In fact, as I've said many times, my current plan is to vote for Obama if the Dems are smart enough to nominate him.

The issue isn't your being tied to one party, it's your not recognizing the larger issue of the super wealthy versus everyone else, regarding power and wealth in the country.

You and I are in the same group on that issue.

The issue has a lot more to do with the super rich dominating the political system and exploiting it for their gain than about the average voter's financial choices.

How does that negate the irresponsible spending being done by both parties?! Your chart above depicts debt vs. GDP, per President; but everyone -- even me -- knows that spending is directed by Congress, not the President.

Therefore, it's our entire Congressional body who has been remiss in their spending and taxation habits during the last 50 years, not the Presidents.

Exhibit A: Our current Democratically controlled Congress that is just as fiscally irresponsible as every other Republican-controled Congress.
[/quote]

I disagree. You're quoting, in effect, from high school textbooks on how things work, but the facts suggest otherwise. You can find a far higher correlation on spending policy with the party of the president than the party of Congress, IMO, from my reading of the history comparing them.

Take for example the current Republican and previous Democratic presidents, and the party of Congress.

The budget *consistently* reversed 12 years of Reagan/Bush debt and lowered the deficit under Clinton, both under his first two years with a democratic congress, and during his later years with a republican congress. The party of congress had no noticable effect on the deficit reduction in the budgets.

Then look at Bush - the party of the president changed, but the congress (except for a brief period) remained republican in both houses, largely the same people - and yet the deficit and budget completely reversed direction and skyrocketed - and you can't blame 9/11, as only a third of the increase was related to any security/war spending, they say.

Look at the graph I posted, and see if the correlation is with the party of the president - or the party of congress.

The president writes the budget that Congress uses as a starting point for its budget, and the White House clearly has a huge influence on the spending.

Conclusion: they're ALL for bigger government, and they are ALL fiscally irresponsible.

The picture shows how wrong you are. Can you deal with the facts, which show the Republicans are far worse on debt?

 

[MustISO]

Where can I find the details of the plan, I'd like to know if I need to be really pissed off or not.