Government spending

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 7:15 AM GMT
    Oh, JPRichva- where to start?

    War gets the economy going? Like WWII and Roosevelt? Then, why when we are in a war that libs love to point to, why are we in a recession? depression? Why are we not in a boom right now? We are fighting two wars, according to liberals. Why are we in a recession? Wars do nothing for economics. That is the mistake that every Roosevelt?Kensyesian makes. As have you. We are in a war and we are in a recession. Explain?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 7:30 AM GMT
    JPRichva-

    That is what we need. A revival of unionism. Where people get paid more than the market, and jobs get protected no matter what. It has worked well in California. Where the unions has gotten pay increases that triple the rate of inflation. Prison guards now make as much as high school principals. And our state is going bankrupt, which I hope it does, because unions are killing it because they had the money to corrupt politicians into giving them all they want.

    I am hoping we drive California into bankruptcy so that we can break the stupid union contracts. Some idiot that barely graduated high school should not make more than a teacher. But in CA, they do. Thanks to their union money corrupting our government. Yes, they can. It is legal. The rest of us can do our best to force our state into bankruptcy so that we can re-do the stupid contracts. People are finally waking up to the fact that unions are driving us into the ground.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 7:49 AM GMT
    I know zilch about the economy. Personally, I do not understand those who go into business, economics, or the stocks.... I don't understand how someone could be happy with a job that solely revolves around money.

    Anyways, I was always taught in history class that WWII got us out of the Depression. I'm sure it is much more complicated though.

    Trigger,
    Your statement is a matter of perspective: go to Fox News and you will hear, Bush's spending = good; Obama's spending = bad.

    As for the war in Iraq... I heard someone on tv who once said, "Only America would spend billions blowing up two countries and then spend billions rebuilding them.

    I also read somewhere that military equipment is extremley expensive... several companies have a monopoly over what the US DoD purchases. Can someone back this up?

    Plus, I do not think we are much safer now than before the wars started. Have things quieted down? Sure. But our enemy knows how/when to fight. Guns cannot win this war... it is an ideological war with extremist. We kill one terrorist, two more pop up in anger--possibly. Radicalism is spreading across the globe. What are we going to do... invade every nation to destroy terrorists? So I feel we wasted a lot of time, money, and more importantly--lives trying to win an impossible war. We need more diplomacy with various countries... so they can see the dangers of extremists and help to stop terrorists in their own countries.

    Finally, I saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day:

    "Why is there always enough money for war, yet never enough money for education?"

    Does that seriously bother anyone else? Both my mother and sister are teachers. Every month I seem to hear them talking about how new cut backs have forced them to do things differently. At high schools across the country, programs, sports, after school activities, extra are all being cut.

    People in my home town complain about taxes all the time--well the republicans at least.

    So republicans:

    What is "wasteful spending."

    And, if taxes were cut by x% how much money would you see back? Is it money you can do without?


    I think the big key is spending money more wisely... but that is a matter of perspective, no? After all, McCain complained about the money spent on a new telescope. What he doesn't realize is that space is kinda big... and monitoring it for near-Earth objects is a huge task--especailly since we can only monitor about 15% of space... io something like that. I see that as a kinda important tool.... Armaggedon wasn't that far off in some of the basic terms and information concerning near-Earth objects.

    So, in McCain's eyes, spending money on:

    War = good and Telescopes = bad
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 7:54 AM GMT
    There is a really interesting graphic animation video at this link on the cost of war in Iraq .. it breaks it all down

    http://www.good.is/?p=12104
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 8:40 AM GMT
    cjc-

    Trigger,
    Your statement is a matter of perspective: go to Fox News and you will hear, Bush's spending = good; Obama's spending = bad.

    I go mostly to MSNBC. I love seeing people trip over themselves to show how much they love Obama. I know what FOX says. I do not need to go there. I know they prefer Rebublicans. Unlike you, and so many liberals, I would rather listen to the other side to see what they think. That is why I do not listen to Rush. I KNOW what he thinks. I learn nothing from listening to him. I listen to liberal Democrats. I have yet to get an argument why Bush's huge spending lead to a recession but Obama's is going to lead us out. Shouldn't Bush's spending stimulated the economy?

    We are in the middle of one of the biggest mistakes the US has been in. Obama's people think that they know the way out. Huge stimulus, meaning huge spending, will get us out of the position we are in. I think it is a huge mistake. We have seen some of that. The stimulus packages have done nothing so far. We have wasted money on AIG, ect. with nothing to show. Obama and Biden want to do more of the same. OK. Fine. They were elected to make those decisions. I think they are idiots. But we will see. If this huge government spending works, I will be wrong. I hope I am. But I seriously doubt it. History supports me. But so what? Let Obama do what he was elected to do. I have my money. I paid off my mortgage a few years ago. I can sit tight. I have the funds to buy up the distressed properties and the foreclosed homes. I will be fine. I did not have my money in the stock market. I got out in 2007.

    So, Obama and Biden, run the table and see what happens? I have no problem with that at all. It does not effect me. If they are wrong, I will be sitting very pretty.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 9:20 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidcjc-
    So, Obama and Biden, run the table and see what happens? I have no problem with that at all. It does not effect me. If they are wrong, I will be sitting very pretty.



    Three Things:

    1. You will most definatly find a liberal viewpoint on MSNBC... I agree.
    2. I too listen to the other side... actually more thatn I listen to those who agree with me (though, I am a centrist so that is hard to find in the Media).
    3. You went on a rank about Obama's package... I hope that wasn't directed towards me... cause i have no idea what you're talking about lol..... the economyis something I don't know much about... I was just posing hypothetical questions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:18 AM GMT
    Hey JP- If that is the story you want to stand by, awesome. I hope it does not become more. Because you know I will call you on it, same as you try to call me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:30 AM GMT
    cjc-

    I said what I said and I stand behind it. I think Obama is in way over his head because he is a speech maker not a politician in the sense that he hasn't a clue on how to get things done in a two party system. He hasn't so far. He keeps running around the country making speeches. He should stay in Washington and try to work with people that do not think he is God's Gift. He does not do that well. The cracks are showing. Not everyone is blown away by his teleprompter skills. He is facing serious problems and so far he has shown nothing but indecisiveness. He has signed off on bailouts that will come back to bite him because he did not understand them. He has been superficial. He is a lightweight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 11:09 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidcjc-

    I said what I said and I stand behind it. I think Obama is in way over his head because he is a speech maker not a politician in the sense that he hasn't a clue on how to get things done in a two party system. He hasn't so far. He keeps running around the country making speeches. He should stay in Washington and try to work with people that do not think he is God's Gift. He does not do that well. The cracks are showing. Not everyone is blown away by his teleprompter skills. He is facing serious problems and so far he has shown nothing but indecisiveness. He has signed off on bailouts that will come back to bite him because he did not understand them. He has been superficial. He is a lightweight.


    I stand by what I said... I had no idea what you were talking about. Seriously, the economy is not something i worry much about... I have always been told it would fix itself... and that Bush didn't start it, nor can Obama fix it.

    One thing I do not like about our capitalistic society is greed. Many people are very greedy... it is disgusting. In fact, I hate capitalism. Too bad it is the only economic systems that works properly in the hands of "free" humans.

    Something else to keep in mind.

    I didn't dislike Bush just because of ONE issue... or even a few issues. I disliked him because of many issues.

    I give presidents about a year before I start forming biased opinions.

    Look at Kennedy... he screwed up early on in his presidency and many didn't like him due to the fact he was Catholic. Yet he turned out to be one of America's greatest leaders... saving the entire world from complete destruction.

    Bush didn't start off too well due to the fact many believed Gore should have been president. Yet many still like him.

    Trigger... you fight on both sides--fair enough. But where does tht lead you? as an independent? Conservative dem? Liberal Republican? Liberitarian? Centrists? etc..
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 11:40 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidJPRichva-

    That is what we need. A revival of unionism. Where people get paid more than the market, and jobs get protected no matter what. It has worked well in California. Where the unions has gotten pay increases that triple the rate of inflation. Prison guards now make as much as high school principals. And our state is going bankrupt, which I hope it does, because unions are killing it because they had the money to corrupt politicians into giving them all they want.

    I am hoping we drive California into bankruptcy so that we can break the stupid union contracts. Some idiot that barely graduated high school should not make more than a teacher. But in CA, they do. Thanks to their union money corrupting our government. Yes, they can. It is legal. The rest of us can do our best to force our state into bankruptcy so that we can re-do the stupid contracts. People are finally waking up to the fact that unions are driving us into the ground.


    Actually, California is going bankrupt because 1) California capped property taxes years ago, crippling government and leading to unfair tax breaks for many affluent individuals, and 2) republican obstructionists refuse to allow the democratic majority to raise taxes on rich people who frankly could do without some of their obscenely high income. Republicans would rather cut essential education and health care services than marginally raise taxes on people who have way more than they need to live, and it's disgusting. Republican greed and ideology is what is holding the state back, plain and simple.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 11:42 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidcjc-

    I said what I said and I stand behind it. I think Obama is in way over his head because he is a speech maker not a politician in the sense that he hasn't a clue on how to get things done in a two party system. He hasn't so far. He keeps running around the country making speeches. He should stay in Washington and try to work with people that do not think he is God's Gift. He does not do that well. The cracks are showing. Not everyone is blown away by his teleprompter skills. He is facing serious problems and so far he has shown nothing but indecisiveness. He has signed off on bailouts that will come back to bite him because he did not understand them. He has been superficial. He is a lightweight.


    Calling a Harvard Law graduate a "lightweight" is more than laughable. Then again, I'm sure your own degree just blows Obama's Ivy League one away. Some people... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 11:55 AM GMT
    Well, Bush is a Yale Graduate. So you say that you cannot call an Ivy League graduate a lightyweight?

    And yes, I call many men from Harvard lightweights. Yes. Easily. Many of the men in Kennedy's cabinet where Harvard guys, and they got us into Vietnam. They had no clue about the that arena but they sent countless boys to fight there. Smart? I would guess not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 11:59 AM GMT
    Tell me, are we talking about Legacies, that got into Harvard based on who they knew or who the were related to? What Harvard guys are we talking about? Those that had a legacy in or those that really deserved to be in? You asked?
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 12:02 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidWell, Bush is a Yale Graduate. So you say that you cannot call an Ivy League graduate a lightyweight?

    And yes, I call many men from Harvard lightweights. Yes. Easily. Many of the men in Kennedy's cabinet where Harvard guys, and they got us into Vietnam. They had no clue about the that arena but they sent countless boys to fight there. Smart? I would guess not.


    Listen to Bush speak for 5 min., then listen to Obama... any idiot could tell who actually earned and deserved his degree, rather than squeaking by because his daddy way famous. Obama handles things in a balanced, rational, intellectual manner, which is why I and many others trust he will handle the recession and a host of other issues confidently and competently--as he has demonstrated so far. Every day when I look at the paper I am inspired and encouraged to see what Obama has done, from starting to close Guantanamo to opening up stem cell research to ending Bush's horrendous tax cuts and taking big strides toward fixing the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:03 PM GMT
    So yes, I say Harvard Lightweight. He was Black, wich helped. He went to the same college I went to Occidental. He was not a big thinker there. Suddenly he became OBAMA!!!!!

    Please
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 12:06 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidSo yes, I say Harvard Lightweight. He was Black, wich helped. He went to the same college I went to Occidental. He was not a big thinker there. Suddenly he became OBAMA!!!!!

    Please


    To listen to the man speak and hear what he has accomplished, and then say that he only stood out at Harvard because he was black is nothing short of racism, and it's repugnant. Either that, or one would have to be completely divorced from reality, a quality I see in many republicans--they ignore facts that do not support their beliefs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:09 PM GMT
    Good. I am so glad for you. I am glad that speaking skills are so important to you. Hitler was a great speaker also. I am glad that he has dazzled you with he speaking skills.

    The things he has done since? The stock market is down. Housing is down. No one that seems to know trusts him but hey, It is not my money, it is kid's money!!!!! Yahhooo!!!! I am not paying for his stupid mistakes!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:11 PM GMT
    http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278271

    An interesting column from The Economist about fears in the USA on becoming like socialist Europe. Talks about the backlash against government spending.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 12:12 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidGood. I am so glad for you. I am glad that speaking skills are so important to you. Hitler was a great speaker also. I am glad that he has dazzled you with he speaking skills.

    The things he has done since? The stock market is down. Housing is down. No one that seems to know trusts him but hey, It is not my money, it is kid's money!!!!! Yahhooo!!!! I am not paying for his stupid mistakes!!!!


    Given that they were handed a trainwreck, Obama and the rest are doing a damn good job. Any intelligent person would understand that no one can fix the system overnight after 8 years of disastrous decisions. Yet, Obama has already made remarkable progress at reversing the damage of the Bush years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:14 PM GMT
    Hey man, black or not, the rubber hits the road soon. What has he done? Besides nice speeches? Lots of them.

    And to deny that he was Black is BS. Libs loved the fact that he would be the first black pres. So did I. Dont deny it.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 12:19 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidHey man, black or not, the rubber hits the road soon. What has he done? Besides nice speeches? Lots of them.

    And to deny that he was Black is BS. Libs loved the fact that he would be the first black pres. So did I. Dont deny it.


    I'm not sure who exactly denied he was black...
    His accomplishments are overwhelming, however, both before and after assuming the presidency. Did you even read the list I mentioned? Closing Guantanamo, ending Bush's tax cuts and other unfair breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor, opening up stem cell research, instituting greater safeguards for the environment, ending our disastrous abstinence-only approach to the AIDS problem in Africa, increasing funding for schools and health care programs, and most importantly, taking steps to fix the economy that go beyond the failed republican response of deregulating and further lining the pockets of millionaires. The reality is his achievements have been remarkable; but as I mentioned, unfortunately there will always be those who willfully ignore reality because it doesn't support their beliefs and prejudices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:20 PM GMT
    Given that they were handed a trainwreck, Obama and the rest are doing a damn good job. Any intelligent person would understand that no one can fix the system overnight after 8 years of disastrous decisions. Yet, Obama has already made remarkable progress at reversing the damage of the Bush years.

    Please!!! WE had a great economy for the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency? When did it fall apart? About two years ago. What happened two years ago? Demos took over? Suprise suprise. Who took the most mony from AIG? Democrats! Suprise suprise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:23 PM GMT
    He is half African, half American. His Dad is fom Africa, his Mom is from America. Is that a lie?
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 12:23 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidGiven that they were handed a trainwreck, Obama and the rest are doing a damn good job. Any intelligent person would understand that no one can fix the system overnight after 8 years of disastrous decisions. Yet, Obama has already made remarkable progress at reversing the damage of the Bush years.

    Please!!! WE had a great economy for the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency? When did it fall apart? About two years ago. What happened two years ago? Demos took over? Suprise suprise. Who took the most mony from AIG? Democrats! Suprise suprise.


    Again, short-sightedness and/or a complete ignorance of how economies work (and that usual pesky habit of ignoring reality when it doesn't support your own views): Economies don't fail overnight. The economy degraded consistently throughout Bush's tenure. It just so happens that we're finally seeing the effects now. And just as the effects of failure aren't felt immediately, nor are the effects of recovery. It will take a long while to turn things around, in spite of all the progress Obama's administration has made.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 12:29 PM GMT
    I don't actually want to debate the point, but I will explain the *idea* behind spending=good / spending=bad

    Spending is bad when the economy is doing well (as it was when Bush was entering office), that's when you should be paying down your debts.

    Spending is bad when that money is going, effectively, down a hole. Money being sent to foreign countries with no hope of it returning in kind.

    Now, the rest of the theory comes down to the two opposing theories of economics. Right now, we're trying Keynesian economics, because what we were doing wasn't working (in theory).

    In this theory, domestic spending boosts the economy. Tax cut spending boosts it very minimally (approx 30 cents on the dollar) spending it on projects and programs boosts it more than the dollar you spend.


    So that's why (in theory) Bush spending is bad and Obama spending is good. Because Bush was "spending" on tax cuts and sending money into a foreign hole (whether you think the war was "right" or not) while the economy was up, and Obama is spending it domestically mostly on projects while the economy is down.


    Like I said, I don't want to argue the merits of the two economic policies, but does that explain the *theory* behind it for you?