I got an e-mail from Rep Tom McClintock

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Dems bitched and bitched about Bush's spending...and now we have massive additional spending and all of a sudden it's not a problem.

I don't get it.

And here I thought the Dems where the liberals? Anyway, most of the Dems bitched about where GWB spent money and his fuck all cowboy attitude with foreign policy. Oh, and starting a needless war.

The majority of the budget is non-discretionary spending. Was there a major debate about non-discretionary spending I missed? The largest portion of disctretionary spending is the military. Nothing has changed on that front has it? The stimulus package was mostly tax cuts and expansion of poorly performing social programs.

So outside of the stimulus package how has Obama changed where the money is going in a major way?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Dems bitched and bitched about Bush's spending...and now we have massive additional spending and all of a sudden it's not a problem.

I don't get it.

And here I thought the Dems where the liberals? Anyway, most of the Dems bitched about where GWB spent money and his fuck all cowboy attitude with foreign policy. Oh, and starting a needless war.

Let's keep this focused on exactly where GWB spent the money that Dems objected to and please tell me how this has changed under Obama.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Which countries have been rescued from the worldwide economic collapse by tax cuts and letting their companies fail?

I dont think that is the right question to be asking. The question should be what creates long term growth? A short term violent market correction including the shedding of inefficient deadweight industry? Or pumping the cancer patient full of drugs hoping to prolong its life another few qtrs and then it ultimately dies anyways while destroying wealth in the process?

Japans lost decade looks awfully close to what happened in this country. Real Estate bubble collapse, bad debt, speculation, and unfortunately stimulus packages. At the end they didnt see a return on investment and were left a gigantic bill.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Really? You dont think pushing deficit spending to 13% is a problem? Bush averaged right around 4-6% while funding a war. And that was high imo.

The right is obviously going to not get a clue to compare Bush's wasteful deficit spending in a non-crisi economy, and Obama's stimulus spending when the economy has shut down.

So, we can expect them in hundreds of posts at least to repeat the same out of context numbers simply listing the deficit under Bush and Obama as if the crisis did not exist.

Clueless. And we can respond each time - teach me macros, Harvey - with the context.

Yes, Obama is in a crisis... You do know what they say about crisis's. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"..

Compared to other crisis, how bad is this "crisis"? Did we ever spend this much money before? During the great depression, did FDR spend this much money? How about the 70's? The recession during the early 80's? How about the tech bust?

From a cursory google search, it sure doesn't look like it. Here we go!!! Set sail for fail...

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Really? You dont think pushing deficit spending to 13% is a problem? Bush averaged right around 4-6% while funding a war. And that was high imo.

The right is obviously going to not get a clue to compare Bush's wasteful deficit spending in a non-crisi economy, and Obama's stimulus spending when the economy has shut down.

So, we can expect them in hundreds of posts at least to repeat the same out of context numbers simply listing the deficit under Bush and Obama as if the crisis did not exist.

Clueless. And we can respond each time - teach me macros, Harvey - with the context.

Yes, Obama is in a crisis... You do know what they say about crisis's. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"..

Compared to other crisis, how bad is this "crisis"? Did we ever spend this much money before? During the great depression, did FDR spend this much money? How about the 70's? The recession during the early 80's? How about the tech bust?

From a cursory google search, it sure doesn't look like it. Here we go!!! Set sail for fail...

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

All aboard the failboat. Don't forget to bring your own homemade drinks, because this is ship might not be going where you want to go any time soon.

 

[ElFenix]

what costs more to service:
a $500,000 house with a 30 year mortgage at 5%
a $500,000 house with a 30 year mortgage at 6%

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Really? You dont think pushing deficit spending to 13% is a problem? Bush averaged right around 4-6% while funding a war. And that was high imo.

The right is obviously going to not get a clue to compare Bush's wasteful deficit spending in a non-crisi economy, and Obama's stimulus spending when the economy has shut down.

So, we can expect them in hundreds of posts at least to repeat the same out of context numbers simply listing the deficit under Bush and Obama as if the crisis did not exist.

Clueless. And we can respond each time - teach me macros, Harvey - with the context.

Yes, Obama is in a crisis... You do know what they say about crisis's. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"..

Compared to other crisis, how bad is this "crisis"? Did we ever spend this much money before? During the great depression, did FDR spend this much money? How about the 70's? The recession during the early 80's? How about the tech bust?

From a cursory google search, it sure doesn't look like it. Here we go!!! Set sail for fail...

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

Oh im sorry, i also forgot you have to adjust for 137,000,000 people to 310,000,000 people.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Really? You dont think pushing deficit spending to 13% is a problem? Bush averaged right around 4-6% while funding a war. And that was high imo.

The right is obviously going to not get a clue to compare Bush's wasteful deficit spending in a non-crisi economy, and Obama's stimulus spending when the economy has shut down.

So, we can expect them in hundreds of posts at least to repeat the same out of context numbers simply listing the deficit under Bush and Obama as if the crisis did not exist.

Clueless. And we can respond each time - teach me macros, Harvey - with the context.

Yes, Obama is in a crisis... You do know what they say about crisis's. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"..

Compared to other crisis, how bad is this "crisis"? Did we ever spend this much money before? During the great depression, did FDR spend this much money? How about the 70's? The recession during the early 80's? How about the tech bust?

From a cursory google search, it sure doesn't look like it. Here we go!!! Set sail for fail...

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

All aboard the failboat. Don't forget to bring your own homemade drinks, because this is ship might not be going where you want to go any time soon.

From you own link (bottom)...

The views expressed in this article are subject to change at any time based on market and other conditions and should not be construed as a recommendation. This article contains forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they were made and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed herein. Readers are cautioned not to rely on our forward-looking statements.

Your 'set sail for fail' act is tired.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

And the US GDP in 1933 was about $1.1 trillion, while the US economy today is somewhere around $14 trillion. The New Deal's entire cost over its scope was about $500 billion, and now we're spending about $750 billion. That's about 50% more spending for an economy that is 1,400% larger.

So, you were saying?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

And the US GDP in 1933 was about $1.1 trillion, while the US economy today is somewhere around $14 trillion. The New Deal's entire cost over its scope was about $500 billion, and now we're spending about $750 billion. That's about 50% more spending for an economy that is 1,400% larger.

So, you were saying?

First you are assuming that the stimulus package will work. Second, you assume we are in a 2nd depression to warrant such an action. FDR created the "new deal" because of the 1st depression which had, IIRC 25-30%% unemployment -- are we at that level yet? Also, you aren't including other government spending like bailouts which is expected to be in the trillions.

Yes, while the stimulus package haven't hit the streets yet, if we can take the result of the most recent government spending, the bailouts as an indicator, it doesn't bode well. After all, most of the architects and champions of these bailouts are still in congress and now are championing the stimulus package... Because of this, the taxes and run away spending; this truly is deserving of failboat status.

Hey, people have said that that bailouts for the automakers aren't going to work and they were proven correct. These same people are saying the government is spending too much money. Is the government listening. No.. welcome to the fail boat!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

And the US GDP in 1933 was about $1.1 trillion, while the US economy today is somewhere around $14 trillion. The New Deal's entire cost over its scope was about $500 billion, and now we're spending about $750 billion. That's about 50% more spending for an economy that is 1,400% larger.

So, you were saying?

First you are assuming that the stimulus package will work. Second, you assume we are in a 2nd depression to warrant such an action. FDR created the "new deal" because of the 1st depression which had, IIRC 25-30%% unemployment -- are we at that level yet? Also, you aren't including other government spending like bailouts which is expected to be in the trillions.

Yes, while the stimulus package haven't hit the streets yet, if we can take the result of the most recent government spending, the bailouts as an indicator, it doesn't bode well. After all, most of the architects and champions of these bailouts are still in congress and now are championing the stimulus package... Because of this, the taxes and run away spending; this truly is deserving of failboat status.

Hey, people have said that that bailouts for the automakers aren't going to work and they were proven correct. These same people are saying the government is spending too much money. Is the government listening. No.. welcome to the fail boat!!!

When our spending on this exceeds $7 trillion or so, then we will have reached the level of spending relevant to our GDP of the New Deal.

Nothing in my post assumed that the stimulus would work, it was simply correcting the characterization that this current spending 'blows away' the New Deal when this is obviously incorrect. You said that I didn't include 'other spending', but you stated 'Today's stimulus alone' blew away the New Deal. If you wanted to include other spending you should have mentioned it. (not that it would have changed my conclusions)

It is also interesting that you attack me for 'assuming' things, but then complain that I'm not including other spending that is 'expected to be in the trillions'.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Adjust the new deals cost for 70 years of inflation.

And? Today's stimulus alone blows away the New Deal even after you adjust for inflation. Throw the bailout in also and you have an explosion. There's also the difference that during the New Deal, we were on the Gold Standard, so while it pushed us more in debt, we couldn't just print more money. What do we do today though? PRINT MORE MONEY. Hyper-inflation is certainly a fear, but let's hope the Fed does a decent job in making sure we never run into that.

And the US GDP in 1933 was about $1.1 trillion, while the US economy today is somewhere around $14 trillion. The New Deal's entire cost over its scope was about $500 billion, and now we're spending about $750 billion. That's about 50% more spending for an economy that is 1,400% larger.

So, you were saying?

First you are assuming that the stimulus package will work. Second, you assume we are in a 2nd depression to warrant such an action. FDR created the "new deal" because of the 1st depression which had, IIRC 25-30%% unemployment -- are we at that level yet? Also, you aren't including other government spending like bailouts which is expected to be in the trillions.

Yes, while the stimulus package haven't hit the streets yet, if we can take the result of the most recent government spending, the bailouts as an indicator, it doesn't bode well. After all, most of the architects and champions of these bailouts are still in congress and now are championing the stimulus package... Because of this, the taxes and run away spending; this truly is deserving of failboat status.

Hey, people have said that that bailouts for the automakers aren't going to work and they were proven correct. These same people are saying the government is spending too much money. Is the government listening. No.. welcome to the fail boat!!!

When our spending on this exceeds $7 trillion or so, then we will have reached the level of spending relevant to our GDP of the New Deal.

Nothing in my post assumed that the stimulus would work, it was simply correcting the characterization that this current spending 'blows away' the New Deal when this is obviously incorrect. You said that I didn't include 'other spending', but you stated 'Today's stimulus alone' blew away the New Deal. If you wanted to include other spending you should have mentioned it. (not that it would have changed my conclusions)

It is also interesting that you attack me for 'assuming' things, but then complain that I'm not including other spending that is 'expected to be in the trillions'.

I misspoke.. lets include them, shall we... After all, at the end of the day, its not about semantics.. .its about...... if you're going to board on the failboat or not.. hahahaha (I didn't "linkify" the word "failboat" because I know some people get upset about it).

Let me tell you a little story of a guy named Eleison. He lived in the great liberal city of chicago. He mostly had liberal friends..because... well, Eleison lived in chicago.. One day, he was talking politics with his friends.. they berated poor Eleison.. Called him a misinformed "conservative" and uninformed in the ways of the world... Well, its been a while since then.. Nov, turned to Dec.. Dec.. turned to Jan.. and so on... As summer crept forward, some of Eleison liberal friends are now laided of or fired. Eleison didn't know how to feel about it all. They were his friends.. but then they did belittle him.. oh, well.. Maybe the great Obama will give Eleison's friends hard hats and shovels to build roads.. to keep them employed so Eleison wouldn't feel so conflicted and sad. As he thought about it, Eleison felt a little better.. Eleison thought: Liberals are still people, even if deep down inside, they really just want to be ditch diggers and construction workers..


Whats the point of the story.. not sure.. whatever.... Are you ready to get on board the failboat??? Obama's the captain, and he's a rockstar!!!

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

We didn't "wake up" 8 years ago because unemployment was low and the stock market was doing great -- I.e., we were too busy working and creating wealth. Now that there's more unemployment and business are going bankrupt (not to mention states going bankrupt), people have more time to "wake up".

Not too mention, at this rate, we are going spend a lot more now than when Bush was president. Welcome to the failboat for the next 4 years...

No, it's because they are ideologically biased. If Bush crapped on their plate they'd call it steak (until 2006 anyway), and if Obama served a steak they'd call it crap.

And what, pray tell, do you call it when Obama serves you crap?

*Smacks head* Oh, wait! He doesn't serve any crap! :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

We didn't "wake up" 8 years ago because unemployment was low and the stock market was doing great -- I.e., we were too busy working and creating wealth. Now that there's more unemployment and business are going bankrupt (not to mention states going bankrupt), people have more time to "wake up".

Not too mention, at this rate, we are going spend a lot more now than when Bush was president. Welcome to the failboat for the next 4 years...

No, it's because they are ideologically biased. If Bush crapped on their plate they'd call it steak (until 2006 anyway), and if Obama served a steak they'd call it crap.

And what, pray tell, do you call it when Obama serves you crap?

*Smacks head* Oh, wait! He doesn't serve any crap! :roll:

Well, the two plates of crap I've seen him serve, I called crap. But thanks for the predictably parroting, useless response.

Your sophisticated argument of "I'm not but you are" is pretty easily disproven with easy to provide lists of 10 plates of crap served by Bush, and 10 steaks served by Obama.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

We didn't "wake up" 8 years ago because unemployment was low and the stock market was doing great -- I.e., we were too busy working and creating wealth. Now that there's more unemployment and business are going bankrupt (not to mention states going bankrupt), people have more time to "wake up".

Not too mention, at this rate, we are going spend a lot more now than when Bush was president. Welcome to the failboat for the next 4 years...

No, it's because they are ideologically biased. If Bush crapped on their plate they'd call it steak (until 2006 anyway), and if Obama served a steak they'd call it crap.

And what, pray tell, do you call it when Obama serves you crap?

*Smacks head* Oh, wait! He doesn't serve any crap! :roll:

Well, the two plates of crap I've seen him serve, I called crap. But thanks for the predictably parroting, useless response.

Your sophisticated argument of "I'm not but you are" is pretty easily disproven with easy to provide lists of 10 plates of crap served by Bush, and 10 steaks served by Obama.

Wow - if that's how you saw my response, you've just proven yourself to be a hack with blinders on. I hope being in your own little world of brownnosery is enjoyable!

BTW, what was the crap you called, eh?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

We are here because we, as a people, are awakening to the danger of a government that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because we know what that means.

We know that you can't spend your way rich.

We know that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

And we know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

Personally, I'd like to know how the current administration is any different than the Bush administration was. Yet now all of a sudden massive spending is a problem? Why didn?t we ?wake up? 8 years ago?

I don?t get it.

Really? You dont think pushing deficit spending to 13% is a problem? Bush averaged right around 4-6% while funding a war. And that was high imo.

The right is obviously going to not get a clue to compare Bush's wasteful deficit spending in a non-crisi economy, and Obama's stimulus spending when the economy has shut down.

So, we can expect them in hundreds of posts at least to repeat the same out of context numbers simply listing the deficit under Bush and Obama as if the crisis did not exist.

Clueless. And we can respond each time - teach me macros, Harvey - with the context.

Yes, Obama is in a crisis... You do know what they say about crisis's. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"..

Compared to other crisis, how bad is this "crisis"? Did we ever spend this much money before? During the great depression, did FDR spend this much money? How about the 70's? The recession during the early 80's? How about the tech bust?

From a cursory google search, it sure doesn't look like it. Here we go!!! Set sail for fail...

Here's the rub...the typical leftist doesn't bother with things such as research and facts! They act on pure emotion, and whatever is being spouted on CNN or MSNBC is what they believe! No questions asked!

Troll++

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Here's the rub...the typical leftist doesn't bother with things such as research and facts! They act on pure emotion, and whatever is being spouted on CNN or MSNBC is what they believe! No questions asked!

Mirror, mirror on the wall, .............