New pricetag on Obama's Bail Out America plan

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

I think it was more about how the money was being spent than anything else. If we're going to spend $1T, I'd rather it be on public works projects that directly stimulate the economy, as opposed to tax breaks for the rich and the hope that a fraction of that money trickles down to middle and lower class families.

How did the tax cuts for the so called 'rich' that were primarily passed and accelerated in 2003 contribute to previous years' deficits?

What? Less tax money means less that the government can use to pay off deficits. 😕

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

I think it was more about how the money was being spent than anything else. If we're going to spend $1T, I'd rather it be on public works projects that directly stimulate the economy, as opposed to tax breaks for the rich and the hope that a fraction of that money trickles down to middle and lower class families.

How did the tax cuts for the so called 'rich' that were primarily passed and accelerated in 2003 contribute to previous years' deficits?

What? Less tax money means less that the government can use to pay off deficits. 😕

If there was less tax money in 2002, it wasn't because of the Bush tax cuts. I don't know how people can cry about tax cuts for the rich that had not gone into effect.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

I think it was more about how the money was being spent than anything else. If we're going to spend $1T, I'd rather it be on public works projects that directly stimulate the economy, as opposed to tax breaks for the rich and the hope that a fraction of that money trickles down to middle and lower class families.

How did the tax cuts for the so called 'rich' that were primarily passed and accelerated in 2003 contribute to previous years' deficits?

What? Less tax money means less that the government can use to pay off deficits. 😕

If there was less tax money in 2002, it wasn't because of the Bush tax cuts. I don't know how people can cry about tax cuts for the rich that had not gone into effect.

Soin and divert, spin and divert that all we get from the anonymous cowards.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

I think it was more about how the money was being spent than anything else. If we're going to spend $1T, I'd rather it be on public works projects that directly stimulate the economy, as opposed to tax breaks for the rich and the hope that a fraction of that money trickles down to middle and lower class families.

How did the tax cuts for the so called 'rich' that were primarily passed and accelerated in 2003 contribute to previous years' deficits?

What? Less tax money means less that the government can use to pay off deficits. 😕

If there was less tax money in 2002, it wasn't because of the Bush tax cuts. I don't know how people can cry about tax cuts for the rich that had not gone into effect.

Soin and divert, spin and divert that all we get from the anonymous cowards.

You need to look in the mirror when you say that. Thats ALL you do.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

I think it was more about how the money was being spent than anything else. If we're going to spend $1T, I'd rather it be on public works projects that directly stimulate the economy, as opposed to tax breaks for the rich and the hope that a fraction of that money trickles down to middle and lower class families.

How did the tax cuts for the so called 'rich' that were primarily passed and accelerated in 2003 contribute to previous years' deficits?

What? Less tax money means less that the government can use to pay off deficits. 😕

If there was less tax money in 2002, it wasn't because of the Bush tax cuts. I don't know how people can cry about tax cuts for the rich that had not gone into effect.

Sorry for the confusion, after re-reading your post I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. 😱

I wasn't complaining about Bush's 2001-2002 deficit, but tax cuts in general vs public works type projects. Relevant to the topic, but not relevant to your post. 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: blackangst1
My God. Of course the heart of this plan is increasing social programs via tax dollars (typical Democrat plan) but My God...if you think the deficit is bad now...just wait 4 years.

Obama stimulus could reach $1 trillion: report

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama's team is considering a plan to boost the recession-hit U.S. economy that could be far larger than previous estimates and might reach $1 trillion over two years, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

Obama aides, who were considering a half-trillion dollar package two weeks ago, now consider $600 billion over two years "a very low-end estimate," the newspaper said, citing an unidentified person familiar with the matter.

The final size of the stimulus was expected to be significantly higher, possibly between $700 billion and $1 trillion over that period, it said, given the deteriorating state of the U.S. economy.

Officials with Obama's camp have declined to comment on media reports about the size of the boost his administration might seek to give the economy through increased public spending and tax cuts.

Obama is due to take office on January 20.

Battered stock market investors around the world have taken heart from previous indications of how Obama's administration may seek to kickstart growth in the world's largest economy.

Obama has promised he will launch a massive public works program to help lift the U.S. economy out of recession.

The president-elect is likely to be briefed by his aides on the outline of the stimulus plan next week with a view to getting it passed by Congress by the time he is sworn in next month, the Journal said.

Economists have previously said they expect Obama to quickly sign a multi-year spending package that could be worth up to $750 billion, or almost 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

The administration of President George W. Bush has been given authority by Congress to spend up to $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the nation's banking system.

The money was originally set aside to buy up toxic mortgage-backed securities but is now being used to recapitalize banks and induce them to lend more freely.

New roads and bridges aren't "social programs".

You're right - they are largely a way for the D's to pay off a Union segment that hasn't gotten it's bailout $ yet...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yeah, blame the guy getting stuck with the check that Bush ran up. At least this money should have tangible returns on the investment vs. all the money Bush just pissed away.

 

[venkman]

so, um, a little less than what we threw into Iraq. Look how well that has benefited everyday American people.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: blackangst1
My God. Of course the heart of this plan is increasing social programs via tax dollars (typical Democrat plan) but My God...if you think the deficit is bad now...just wait 4 years.

Obama stimulus could reach $1 trillion: report

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama's team is considering a plan to boost the recession-hit U.S. economy that could be far larger than previous estimates and might reach $1 trillion over two years, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

Obama aides, who were considering a half-trillion dollar package two weeks ago, now consider $600 billion over two years "a very low-end estimate," the newspaper said, citing an unidentified person familiar with the matter.

The final size of the stimulus was expected to be significantly higher, possibly between $700 billion and $1 trillion over that period, it said, given the deteriorating state of the U.S. economy.

Officials with Obama's camp have declined to comment on media reports about the size of the boost his administration might seek to give the economy through increased public spending and tax cuts.

Obama is due to take office on January 20.

Battered stock market investors around the world have taken heart from previous indications of how Obama's administration may seek to kickstart growth in the world's largest economy.

Obama has promised he will launch a massive public works program to help lift the U.S. economy out of recession.

The president-elect is likely to be briefed by his aides on the outline of the stimulus plan next week with a view to getting it passed by Congress by the time he is sworn in next month, the Journal said.

Economists have previously said they expect Obama to quickly sign a multi-year spending package that could be worth up to $750 billion, or almost 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

The administration of President George W. Bush has been given authority by Congress to spend up to $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the nation's banking system.

The money was originally set aside to buy up toxic mortgage-backed securities but is now being used to recapitalize banks and induce them to lend more freely.

New roads and bridges aren't "social programs".

You're right - they are largely a way for the D's to pay off a Union segment that hasn't gotten it's bailout $ yet...

Yes because the big corporations who have stuck us with their debts won't be using the improved infrastructure produced by public works projects to benefit themselves. You truly are a class act.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: venkman
so, um, a little less than what we threw into Iraq. Look how well that has benefited everyday American people.

Not everything the government does has to benefit "everyday American people" to be of benefit to the country as a whole. Just FYI.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Yeah, blame the guy getting stuck with the check that Bush ran up. At least this money should have tangible returns on the investment vs. all the money Bush just pissed away.

First. Im assuming youre replying to the OP in general, as you didnt include anyone's quotes. I, nor the article, are "blaming" anyone for anything. Just stating a fact. Second, Your second statement is very apologetic. It's OK to deficit spend depending on circumstances? So if Bush does it for the war, its bankrupting our country, but if Obama does it for domestic reasons, it's not? I dont get it.

Im not railing any point other than it's business as usual. AFA the economy goes, our debt is a HUGE issue that, yes, Bush contributed to; however, our new savior Obama isnt going to fix it. In fact, he plans on continuing into the quagmire of debt...which seems to be OK for alot of people. Well, as long as you feeeel good about getting ass fucked, good for you 🙂 Must be a good lube job as far as Im concerned.

Id like to know how burying ourselves deeper into debt is in any way good for the economy. Where do I find ANY politician who will net reduce government spending? THAT is a guy/lady I would campaign for. I dont give a shit if they were D or R. Alas, America doesnt want that. They want the same ass-fuck with a new giver.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: venkman
so, um, a little less than what we threw into Iraq. Look how well that has benefited everyday American people.

Not everything the government does has to benefit "everyday American people" to be of benefit to the country as a whole. Just FYI.

and not everything the government does has to benefit the top "wealth holders" in this country to benefit the country as a whole. Just FYI.

No doubt though I am pretty sure that these wealthy individuals and these mega debt ridden corporations will benefit from the increased spending on our infrastructure. Certainly many will be more then likely contracted to help in this endeavor and many will benefit from the "trickle up" effect of average folks spending money rather then living in homeless shelters.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Yes because the big corporations who have stuck us with their debts won't be using the improved infrastructure produced by public works projects to benefit themselves. You truly are a class act.

Life's a gamble, cad is right, this will just be a way to keep the unions happy and making money hand over fist again, one big machine rolling money right back into big government.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Yeah but the difference is if Obama does it, it's ok 😉

Well that works the other way around too, I suspect most critics of Obama's spending are the same folks who jumped to Bush's defense for doing the same thing. And needless to say, Obama hasn't done ANYTHING yet...we don't know about how deficit inducing his programs really will be.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Yes because the big corporations who have stuck us with their debts won't be using the improved infrastructure produced by public works projects to benefit themselves. You truly are a class act.

Life's a gamble, cad is right, this will just be a way to keep the unions happy and making money hand over fist again, one big machine rolling money right back into big government.

I got to say...whatever your position on WHAT we should be spending money on, you righties sound like complete idiots complaining about "big government". If there are conservatives out there who REALLY want small government, they are such a small group as to be totally insignificant.

Republicans and modern conservatives want at LEAST as much big government as liberals and Democrats do...the only real difference is where the government has authority and spends money. Debating that difference is fine, but I really wish you guys would stop trying to hide behind the fiction that you're in favor of small government. You're not, as you prove every time you get in power. Republicans talk a good game, but that's about it.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Yes because the big corporations who have stuck us with their debts won't be using the improved infrastructure produced by public works projects to benefit themselves. You truly are a class act.

Life's a gamble, cad is right, this will just be a way to keep the unions happy and making money hand over fist again, one big machine rolling money right back into big government.

No cad is just making a appeal to ridicule at the expense of unions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
No doubt though I am pretty sure that these wealthy individuals and these mega debt ridden corporations will benefit from the increased spending on our infrastructure.

Certainly many will be more then likely contracted to help in this endeavor and many will benefit from the "trickle up" effect of average folks spending money rather then living in homeless shelters.

What makes yo so sure of that?

I see nothing stopping the bleeding of job losses and foreclosures.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I got to say...whatever your position on WHAT we should be spending money on, you righties sound like complete idiots complaining about "big government". If there are conservatives out there who REALLY want small government, they are such a small group as to be totally insignificant.

Republicans and modern conservatives want at LEAST as much big government as liberals and Democrats do...the only real difference is where the government has authority and spends money. Debating that difference is fine, but I really wish you guys would stop trying to hide behind the fiction that you're in favor of small government. You're not, as you prove every time you get in power. Republicans talk a good game, but that's about it.

Rainsford, please, so because the party tend to deviate from the wishes of the usually supporters then we all must truly be for big govt?

My example would be Massachusetts, a state that spends a massive amount on big goverment programs, has a new mandated healthcare system that sucks, a mass transit authority that is near bankruptcy, panders to unions on every occasion, and is now considering hitting the people with both income tax hikes, toll hikes, and whatever other fees to sustain itself.

I have nothing against govt programs provided they are efficient, but I have yet to see that happen....then again maybe I should go for a govt job, sit on my ass all day and just live off the system and my viewpoint might be different.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I got to say...whatever your position on WHAT we should be spending money on, you righties sound like complete idiots complaining about "big government". If there are conservatives out there who REALLY want small government, they are such a small group as to be totally insignificant.

Republicans and modern conservatives want at LEAST as much big government as liberals and Democrats do...the only real difference is where the government has authority and spends money. Debating that difference is fine, but I really wish you guys would stop trying to hide behind the fiction that you're in favor of small government. You're not, as you prove every time you get in power. Republicans talk a good game, but that's about it.

Rainsford, please, so because the party tend to deviate from the wishes of the usually supporters then we all must truly be for big govt?

My example would be Massachusetts, a state that spends a massive amount on big goverment programs, has a new mandated healthcare system that sucks, a mass transit authority that is near bankruptcy, panders to unions on every occasion, and is now considering hitting the people with both income tax hikes, toll hikes, and whatever other fees to sustain itself.

I have nothing against govt programs provided they are efficient, but I have yet to see that happen....then again maybe I should go for a govt job, sit on my ass all day and just live off the system and my viewpoint might be different.

Massachusetts has taxes that are right around the national average.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Drift3r
No doubt though I am pretty sure that these wealthy individuals and these mega debt ridden corporations will benefit from the increased spending on our infrastructure.

Certainly many will be more then likely contracted to help in this endeavor and many will benefit from the "trickle up" effect of average folks spending money rather then living in homeless shelters.

What makes yo so sure of that?

I see nothing stopping the bleeding of job losses and foreclosures.

Hmmm......I think it would very hard to ship a job for a public works project in the US overseas. What benefit would there be to do so at all if the work needs to be completed and done in the US?

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: sandorski
This should not be a surprise. The last few months were clear indicators as to what was going to happen. Just be glad it's only $1Trillion.

Just $1 trillion... who wants to take a bet after everything is said and done its going to cost over $3 trillion. I remember how much they said the Iraq War was going to cost.... Never trust any government spending estimations.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I got to say...whatever your position on WHAT we should be spending money on, you righties sound like complete idiots complaining about "big government". If there are conservatives out there who REALLY want small government, they are such a small group as to be totally insignificant.

Republicans and modern conservatives want at LEAST as much big government as liberals and Democrats do...the only real difference is where the government has authority and spends money. Debating that difference is fine, but I really wish you guys would stop trying to hide behind the fiction that you're in favor of small government. You're not, as you prove every time you get in power. Republicans talk a good game, but that's about it.

Rainsford, please, so because the party tend to deviate from the wishes of the usually supporters then we all must truly be for big govt?

My example would be Massachusetts, a state that spends a massive amount on big goverment programs, has a new mandated healthcare system that sucks, a mass transit authority that is near bankruptcy, panders to unions on every occasion, and is now considering hitting the people with both income tax hikes, toll hikes, and whatever other fees to sustain itself.

I have nothing against govt programs provided they are efficient, but I have yet to see that happen....then again maybe I should go for a govt job, sit on my ass all day and just live off the system and my viewpoint might be different.

You example doesn't prove government is bad, it proves that badly run government is bad.

In any case, the party has tended to deviate from the alleged wishes of its supporters so strongly, and for so long, that it's hard for me to believe that Republicans are really all about small government. I listen to Republicans TALK about small government all the time, usually when it comes to attacking social programs and/or Democratic supported programs, but every time I turn around Republicans are electing politicians who want to greatly expand government in some way or another. And instead of saying that's not what the party stands for and voting the bums out...Republicans support their ideas. This is especially true when it comes to government authority issues like dramatically expanding the power of the President to "fight terrorism"...that's big government too, even if it didn't cost a dime (which it does). Passing judgement on gay marriage is "big government" too...just because not everything is spending, although a lot of it is, doesn't mean it's not big government. And don't forget that deficit spending is such a big part of Republican politics that it's actually become a strongly defended idea among conservative economists.

I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt...but I have seen NO evidence that Republicans use the idea of "small government" as anything but a politically convenient label to attack programs they just don't like. Instead of being against public school funding, they're against big government. Instead of opposing welfare, they're against big government. Instead of supporting tax cuts for the rich, they're in favor of small government. But when it comes to programs they LIKE...then it seems like nobody on the right has a problem at all with big government. Military spending, executive authority, gay marriage, school prayer, sex education, abortion, corporate support, etc, etc, is all big government...and all mostly supported for decades by Republican politicians and voters alike.

At a certain point you have to stop looking at what people SAY and look at what they do. And while every Republican since Goldwater has talked about small government, their actions don't seem to support it. That's a long time for the party to deviate from the true path...to the point where I don't think small government is really what the party stands for any more.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Yes because the big corporations who have stuck us with their debts won't be using the improved infrastructure produced by public works projects to benefit themselves. You truly are a class act.

Life's a gamble, cad is right, this will just be a way to keep the unions happy and making money hand over fist again, one big machine rolling money right back into big government.

Right; that's great comfort to the families of the 13 people killed when the I-35W bridge crashed into the Mississippi River.


I guess our infrastructure is in really great shape, so what-me-worry?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
My God. Of course the heart of this plan is increasing social programs via tax dollars (typical Democrat plan) but My God...if you think the deficit is bad now...just wait 4 years.

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Nothing but blaming Clinton and Obama from the Republican hacks, big surprise :roll:

I hope he spends more and more and more and more and more and more...

You guys till here? :laugh:

At least your signature is more accurate now. 😛

Was it Bush's fault the dot-com bubble burst? Was it Bush's fault that Enron flourished before he gained office? Was 9/11 Bush's fault? Was it Bush's fault New Orleans was destroyed? Was it Bush's fault Houston was pummeled? Was it Bush's fault much of the midwest was destroyed by floods this past summer & the previous summer?

People like your sorry ass make it out to be that everything wrong with the world is the direct result of Republicans merely existing.

Much of what happened over the past 8 years would have happened whether Bush or Gore were in office. :roll:

At least Bush's bailout is supposed to be repaid. Obama's "stimulus" will not be repaid, it will be covered 100% by the taxpayers.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush's Deficit was largely caused by his own actions that didn't help the Economy much at all.

Funny, because tax revenue was reduced before the Bush tax cuts went into effect...

Care to back that up Sparky? While your unwavering devotion to right-wing dogma is touching, somewhere along the line you need to wake up to reality.