A message to Born-Again Conservatives

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: daniel49

You cannot spend your way out of a recession anymore then you can spend your way out of financial problems when you get laid off.

This is amazingly silly, when you get laid off is a perfect time to buy a new suit, get a fresh haircut, possibly spend some on getting help with a resume, possibly even take a class or two to retrain.

That is a bad analogy. And historically bunk.

 

[piasabird]

Excessive spending by the government had nothing to do with the current crisis. The Idiots on wall street are in charge of this mess.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Wow...just wow.

+100

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: dphantom
You won't find fiscal conservative republicans who were cheerleaders as you put it of Bush's budgets. We don't need to be born again, we've been there all along.

Really? None of your guys were cheerleading the Iraq war?

Really?

or TARP?

Really?

Hmm.....


Here's a short list of some more fakers in Congress, dripping in moral consternation:

? Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who complained that the ?federal government is spending money they don?t have,? told Rachel Maddow he would nevertheless accept funds for Minnesota: ?Our view is, if you buy the pizza, it?s OK if you have a slice.?

? Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who also campaigned ardently against the bill, said he would nevertheless gladly accept its funds for his state. ?You don?t want to be crazy here,? he said.

? Rep. John Mica (R-FL) gushed over the bill, which he, too, voted against. ?I applaud President Obama?s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America?s future,? he said in a press release.

? Rep. Don Young (R-AK) boasted that he ?won a victory for?Alaska small business owners? in the recovery bill he refused to vote for.


Yeah so anyways.....

Obama should just distribute the stimulus funds to states where the Congressional delegation voted for the bill. If they don't believe it is going to work so why would/should they participate? More for those of us willing to give it a chance.

 

[blackangst1]

Wait...is this for born again Christians who are conservatives or as you posted, born again conservatives? Either way, I didnt see your message...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Excessive spending by the government had nothing to do with the current crisis. The Idiots on wall street are in charge of this mess.

Wrong. Everyone played their part. No one was innocent.

BTW, Bush cutting taxes while increasing services and starting wars isn't exactly a smart thing to do. Tax cuts isn't a magical solution to all problems.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Wait...is this for born again Christians who are conservatives or as you posted, born again conservatives? Either way, I didnt see your message...

If you don't understand then there is no hope for you...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: daniel49

You cannot spend your way out of a recession anymore then you can spend your way out of financial problems when you get laid off.

This is amazingly silly, when you get laid off is a perfect time to buy a new suit, get a fresh haircut, possibly spend some on getting help with a resume, possibly even take a class or two to retrain.

That is a bad analogy. And historically bunk.

And your analogy is even worse. The US isn't buying a new suit. It's adding a bitchin' stereo and some 22" rims to the car it drives to work and hoping things turn out alright.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: dphantom
You won't find fiscal conservative republicans who were cheerleaders as you put it of Bush's budgets. We don't need to be born again, we've been there all along.

Really? None of your guys were cheerleading the Iraq war?

Really?

or TARP?

Really?

Hmm.....


Here's a short list of some more fakers in Congress, dripping in moral consternation:

? Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who complained that the ?federal government is spending money they don?t have,? told Rachel Maddow he would nevertheless accept funds for Minnesota: ?Our view is, if you buy the pizza, it?s OK if you have a slice.?

? Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who also campaigned ardently against the bill, said he would nevertheless gladly accept its funds for his state. ?You don?t want to be crazy here,? he said.

? Rep. John Mica (R-FL) gushed over the bill, which he, too, voted against. ?I applaud President Obama?s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America?s future,? he said in a press release.

? Rep. Don Young (R-AK) boasted that he ?won a victory for?Alaska small business owners? in the recovery bill he refused to vote for.


Yeah so anyways.....

Obama should just distribute the stimulus funds to states where the Congressional delegation voted for the bill. If they don't believe it is going to work so why would/should they participate? More for those of us willing to give it a chance.

Sounds good, as long as those states that get the funds also get the bill later.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: daniel49

You cannot spend your way out of a recession anymore then you can spend your way out of financial problems when you get laid off.

This is amazingly silly, when you get laid off is a perfect time to buy a new suit, get a fresh haircut, possibly spend some on getting help with a resume, possibly even take a class or two to retrain.

That is a bad analogy. And historically bunk.

And your analogy is even worse. The US isn't buying a new suit. It's adding a bitchin' stereo and some 22" rims to the car it drives to work and hoping things turn out alright.

Wrong. There is a time for the government to spend and increase services and a time to save, increase taxes, and increase services. Now is the time to spend. Out of curiosity, what would you like the government to do?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Dari
The people that are against the stimulus package argue that it's wasteful and too expensive. These are the same idiots that were cheerleaders of wasteful spending by the previous Bush Administration and state planning by Alan Greenspan when he set the interest rates artificially low in order to generate growth. Well, let's remember that times like these is when government is supposed to step in and spend money, independent of whether or not we have a current account deficit. To make my point even more clear, the recession we're going through now is global and everyone has to spend in order for us to get out of it. Worse, quickly trying to balance the budget in the face of a nasty recession will only make it worse, deepening the deficit and recession. Don't believe me? Just ask the Hashimoto government of 1997.

A new economic order is sorely needed and it will be a global effort. But considering how our central bank has exhausted monetary policy, fiscal policy is all we have left.

Your mostly wrong but partially right that the government needs to spend money in order to save industries or the economy. But this administration has already made grave errors in their spending. For Example, trying to save all the car companies is a waste of money. They should be giving the money to the companies that actually make good cars, not to the companies that make bad cars. Watching honda/toyota fail would be much worse than GM failing.

States that can't balance their budgets should get no money. Financial stimulis is only good if you apply it to companies/industries that will provide growth and stability to the economy. That means you give it to the well run and efficient operations and not the chronic losers.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Standard gov't SOP in times of economic recession - cut taxes and raise spending.

The Fundies are only interested in gov't intervention in high school science classes, a woman's womb, gay bedrooms and hospital rooms where family members lay in a persistent vegetative state.

$300 billion of the legislation is tax breaks. Obama and the Congress will raid the rest from Social Security as has been done $3 trillion times. Bush used it to go to war - Obama and the Congress have around $618 billion of SS surplus in the next 2 fiscal years plus whatever the Fed will print to salvage the banks ...

Originally posted by: dyna

....States that can't balance their budgets should get no money....

Every state is the US requires a balanced budget.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Standard gov't SOP in times of economic recession - cut taxes and raise spending.

The Fundies are only interested in gov't intervention in high school science classes, a woman's womb, gay bedrooms and hospital rooms where family members lay in a persistent vegetative state.

$300 billion of the legislation is tax breaks. Obama and the Congress will raid the rest from Social Security as has been done $3 trillion times. Bush used it to go to war - Obama and the Congress have around $618 billion of SS surplus in the next 2 fiscal years plus whatever the Fed will print to salvage the banks ...

Originally posted by: dyna

....States that can't balance their budgets should get no money....

Every state is the US requires a balanced budget.

:laugh:

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Standard gov't SOP in times of economic recession - cut taxes and raise spending.

The Fundies are only interested in gov't intervention in high school science classes, a woman's womb, gay bedrooms and hospital rooms where family members lay in a persistent vegetative state.

$300 billion of the legislation is tax breaks. Obama and the Congress will raid the rest from Social Security as has been done $3 trillion times. Bush used it to go to war - Obama and the Congress have around $618 billion of SS surplus in the next 2 fiscal years plus whatever the Fed will print to salvage the banks ...

Originally posted by: dyna

....States that can't balance their budgets should get no money....

Every state is the US requires a balanced budget.

:laugh:

California sure is doing a great job of that right now and my point was that federal bailout money should not be provided for the states so that they can balance their budgets.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

The states are asking for money to balance their budgets, they want a bailout.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

The states are asking for money to balance their budgets, they want a bailout.

You're not paying attention.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

The states are asking for money to balance their budgets, they want a bailout.

You're not paying attention.

And apparently you love stereotypes. Maybe liberal Obama supporters espouse cheating on their women because it's natural. Perhaps supporters of Obama's backers on this have the moral principles of a dog in heat.

Don't you love generalizations?

The problem with this package is that it's an almost trillion dollar pig in a poke. It's being rammed down peoples throats and they are asked to vote on it without significant review. If it's so important, it's important enough to give some time and discussion of it in detail, something that apparently isn't wanted. We're to take it on faith. How religious.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

The states are asking for money to balance their budgets, they want a bailout.

You're not paying attention.

And apparently you love stereotypes. Maybe liberal Obama supporters espouse cheating on their women because it's natural. Perhaps supporters of Obama's backers on this have the moral principles of a dog in heat.

Don't you love generalizations?

The problem with this package is that it's an almost trillion dollar pig in a poke. It's being rammed down peoples throats and they are asked to vote on it without significant review. If it's so important, it's important enough to give some time and discussion of it in detail, something that apparently isn't wanted. We're to take it on faith. How religious.

Republicans mainly want tax cuts, which is the wrong way of going about stimulating an economy. One reason is because people will mainly save the difference and another is because it is politically difficult to reverse. The only other option would be to reduce services. Spending is better. Anything else?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

The states are asking for money to balance their budgets, they want a bailout.

You're not paying attention.

And apparently you love stereotypes. Maybe liberal Obama supporters espouse cheating on their women because it's natural. Perhaps supporters of Obama's backers on this have the moral principles of a dog in heat.

Don't you love generalizations?

The problem with this package is that it's an almost trillion dollar pig in a poke. It's being rammed down peoples throats and they are asked to vote on it without significant review. If it's so important, it's important enough to give some time and discussion of it in detail, something that apparently isn't wanted. We're to take it on faith. How religious.

Republicans mainly want tax cuts, which is the wrong way of going about stimulating an economy. One reason is because people will mainly save the difference and another is because it is politically difficult to reverse. The only other option would be to reduce services. Spending is better. Anything else?

And again you go with stereotypes.

Here are two for you.

Republican church goers who want war, tax cuts and who can't possibly do anything other than want to teach Creationism in schools

and

Democrats who want to force children to be "educated" to only their standards, don't care if a fetus is aborted seconds before birth, and want to burn churches to the ground while creating a Stalinist state.

Oh, blacks are criminals, and gays are child molesters maybe?


The whole premise is that you've decided how people MUST think, then attack the straw man. I didn't like it when people who were against Iraq were "terrorist supporters" and I don't like it now when people are likewise pigeonholed because they aren't supportive of this bail out.


All the above stereotypes are ridiculous. People are more complex than you give them credit for.

 

[XZeroII]

Aren't callouts against forum rules? The title of this thread is definitely a callout.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dyna

California is doing a great job of that right now.

And they will operate under a balanced budget by cutting services, laying off 15k employees, furloughing others through a 4-day work, raising revenues, using accounting tricks and borrowing money they don't have - but the state budget will be balanced.

So you are arguing against yourself on state balanced budgets.

The states are asking for money to balance their budgets, they want a bailout.

You're not paying attention.

And apparently you love stereotypes. Maybe liberal Obama supporters espouse cheating on their women because it's natural. Perhaps supporters of Obama's backers on this have the moral principles of a dog in heat.

Don't you love generalizations?

The problem with this package is that it's an almost trillion dollar pig in a poke. It's being rammed down peoples throats and they are asked to vote on it without significant review. If it's so important, it's important enough to give some time and discussion of it in detail, something that apparently isn't wanted. We're to take it on faith. How religious.

Republicans mainly want tax cuts, which is the wrong way of going about stimulating an economy. One reason is because people will mainly save the difference and another is because it is politically difficult to reverse. The only other option would be to reduce services. Spending is better. Anything else?

And again you go with stereotypes.

Here are two for you.

Republican church goers who want war, tax cuts and who can't possibly do anything other than want to teach Creationism in schools

and

Democrats who want to force children to be "educated" to only their standards, don't care if a fetus is aborted seconds before birth, and want to burn churches to the ground while creating a Stalinist state.

Oh, blacks are criminals, and gays are child molesters maybe?


The whole premise is that you've decided how people MUST think, then attack the straw man. I didn't like it when people who were against Iraq were "terrorist supporters" and I don't like it now when people are likewise pigeonholed because they aren't supportive of this bail out.


All the above stereotypes are ridiculous. People are more complex than you give them credit for.

You're a bit sensitive here. You keep repeating your concerns even after I addressed them.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider


The problem with this package is that it's an almost trillion dollar pig in a poke. It's being rammed down peoples throats and they are asked to vote on it without significant review. If it's so important, it's important enough to give some time and discussion of it in detail, something that apparently isn't wanted. We're to take it on faith. How religious.

Sez you.

It's funny how $787 billion legislation with $300 billion in tax relief becomes ""an almost trillion dollar pig in a poke"". Embellish, much?

Back in the real world the Obama Administration will release their FY 2010 budget blueprint next week. It might be important to have the legislation behind them before releasing their budget outline.

In case you weren't paying attention state budget deficits are approaching $145 billion. As states are currently dealing with their annual budgets it might be important to know what federal support will be available to help offset those deficits.

Getting a better grasp on the Big Picture, now?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
One does not need to be a religious nut, as you suggest, to oppose the government and its waste. Spending is not the only way to put money into the hands of people, you fail to understand how taxed we are and how a reduction in taxation is all the money people would need to revive a healthy economy.

Government spending is inherently flawed because you place the market under control of political whim instead of the free market. It is capitalism that drove us to being the greatest nation on earth, and now when it is time to make use of that strength you spit on it.

You are embracing something that will drive us deeper into poverty. Perhaps you do this on purpose.

Your argument is based upon the premise that the freer a market is, the better it is.

Exactly. Capitalism may have "drove us to being the greatest nation on earth", but it also drove us head first into the great depression. Not all regulation is bad. Badly executed regulation is bad, and most of it is badly executed (the first couple times, until it is fine-tuned, just like everything else).