dc0de wrote:

Obama, who warned again that the economy would likely get worse before it got better, declined to put a price tag on the two-year stimulus proposal which other Democrats have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars.null

Oh yes, let's spend, spend, spend to make the economy stable. Yes, that's what we need to do...

Is this the same man who stood up and said that the spending of the last 4 years was out of control?

Funny, now he's ready to do the exact same.

Who'd'a thunk that he'd do that?

(hint: I did.)

Hint, what the money is spent on matters.

Spending $1000/man/day at Blackwater for "security" following Katrina? Not useful. Spending millions on trailers so contaminated with formaldehyde that their use as shelters for people displaced by Katrina is voided? Not useful. Not spending money on FDA food testing leading to the decimation of the tomato, spinach and pepper markets because of salmonella which is detectable? Not useful. None of those do anything but cause more money to be spent because it was spent stupidly the first time.

Spending money expanding power and transportation infrastructure in sustainable ways? Useful. Spending money modernizing the power grid to prevent a rerun of the northeast blackout of 2003? Useful. Spending money to get the currently in trouble US auto industry retooled away from increased foreign oil consumption? Useful. Those would all be forward looking things that deal with issues we know are in or coming down the pipe, and provide money to put food on the table in the here and now.

Obama is right, the spending of the last 8 years was completely out of control. When the economy goes completely in the crapper, and it has, the solution is not to stop spending, but change the spending into things that make a difference over the long term, while providing short term help so people can continue to eat.

The current bunch has handed well over $100 billion to AIG, is in the process of handing Citibank God only knows how much, proposed this morning another $800 billion to buy up bad credit card and student loans, another $600 billion to deal with bad debt at Fannie/Freddie, and has already spent close to $300 billion of the $700 billion authorized in the general bailout on no one knows what because they aren't saying. That is completely insane.

It's 1929 again (who said that a year ago? Hint: I did), and you appear to be advocating a return to Herbert Hoover's policies. If my grandmother were still alive she'd get out the rug beater, take you out back of the smokehouse and see if she could knock the dirt out of your head for making that suggestion.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Obama, who warned again that the economy would likely get worse before it got better, declined to put a price tag on the two-year stimulus proposal which other Democrats have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars.null

Oh yes, let's spend, spend, spend to make the economy stable. Yes, that's what we need to do...

Is this the same man who stood up and said that the spending of the last 4 years was out of control?

Funny, now he's ready to do the exact same.

Who'd'a thunk that he'd do that?

(hint: I did.)

Hint, what the money is spent on matters.

Spending $1000/man/day at Blackwater for "security" following Katrina? Not useful. Spending millions on trailers so contaminated with formaldehyde that their use as shelters for people displaced by Katrina is voided? Not useful. Not spending money on FDA food testing leading to the decimation of the tomato, spinach and pepper markets because of salmonella which is detectable? Not useful. None of those do anything but cause more money to be spent because it was spent stupidly the first time.

Spending money expanding power and transportation infrastructure in sustainable ways? Useful. Spending money modernizing the power grid to prevent a rerun of the northeast blackout of 2003? Useful. Spending money to get the currently in trouble US auto industry retooled away from increased foreign oil consumption? Useful. Those would all be forward looking things that deal with issues we know are in or coming down the pipe, and provide money to put food on the table in the here and now.

Obama is right, the spending of the last 8 years was completely out of control. When the economy goes completely in the crapper, and it has, the solution is not to stop spending, but change the spending into things that make a difference over the long term, while providing short term help so people can continue to eat.

The current bunch has handed well over $100 billion to AIG, is in the process of handing Citibank God only knows how much, proposed this morning another $800 billion to buy up bad credit card and student loans, another $600 billion to deal with bad debt at Fannie/Freddie, and has already spent close to $300 billion of the $700 billion authorized in the general bailout on no one knows what because they aren't saying. That is completely insane.

It's 1929 again (who said that a year ago? Hint: I did), and you appear to be advocating a return to Herbert Hoover's policies. If my grandmother were still alive she'd get out the rug beater, take you out back of the smokehouse and see if she could knock the dirt out of your head for making that suggestion.

So, regardless of what happened, just because Obama says "Spending was out of control", and "We need to change spending, not stop it", we should write a blank check?

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than the last 8 years... or don't you see the correlation?

(Hint: It's the government stupid!)

Mike the Usurper wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Obama, who warned again that the economy would likely get worse before it got better, declined to put a price tag on the two-year stimulus proposal which other Democrats have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars.null

Oh yes, let's spend, spend, spend to make the economy stable. Yes, that's what we need to do...

Is this the same man who stood up and said that the spending of the last 4 years was out of control?

Funny, now he's ready to do the exact same.

Who'd'a thunk that he'd do that?

(hint: I did.)

Hint, what the money is spent on matters.

Spending $1000/man/day at Blackwater for "security" following Katrina? Not useful. Spending millions on trailers so contaminated with formaldehyde that their use as shelters for people displaced by Katrina is voided? Not useful. Not spending money on FDA food testing leading to the decimation of the tomato, spinach and pepper markets because of salmonella which is detectable? Not useful. None of those do anything but cause more money to be spent because it was spent stupidly the first time.

Spending money expanding power and transportation infrastructure in sustainable ways? Useful. Spending money modernizing the power grid to prevent a rerun of the northeast blackout of 2003? Useful. Spending money to get the currently in trouble US auto industry retooled away from increased foreign oil consumption? Useful. Those would all be forward looking things that deal with issues we know are in or coming down the pipe, and provide money to put food on the table in the here and now.

Obama is right, the spending of the last 8 years was completely out of control. When the economy goes completely in the crapper, and it has, the solution is not to stop spending, but change the spending into things that make a difference over the long term, while providing short term help so people can continue to eat.

The current bunch has handed well over $100 billion to AIG, is in the process of handing Citibank God only knows how much, proposed this morning another $800 billion to buy up bad credit card and student loans, another $600 billion to deal with bad debt at Fannie/Freddie, and has already spent close to $300 billion of the $700 billion authorized in the general bailout on no one knows what because they aren't saying. That is completely insane.

It's 1929 again (who said that a year ago? Hint: I did), and you appear to be advocating a return to Herbert Hoover's policies. If my grandmother were still alive she'd get out the rug beater, take you out back of the smokehouse and see if she could knock the dirt out of your head for making that suggestion.

My point (which was obviously missed), is this:

1) If the current regime asked for a "blank check" for spending, there would be an uproar.

2) Obama asks for a blank check, and now it's a good idea.

Uhh, really?

It's still the government... and they're not really here to "help".

dc0de wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Obama, who warned again that the economy would likely get worse before it got better, declined to put a price tag on the two-year stimulus proposal which other Democrats have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars.null

Oh yes, let's spend, spend, spend to make the economy stable. Yes, that's what we need to do...

Is this the same man who stood up and said that the spending of the last 4 years was out of control?

Funny, now he's ready to do the exact same.

Who'd'a thunk that he'd do that?

(hint: I did.)

Hint, what the money is spent on matters.

Spending $1000/man/day at Blackwater for "security" following Katrina? Not useful. Spending millions on trailers so contaminated with formaldehyde that their use as shelters for people displaced by Katrina is voided? Not useful. Not spending money on FDA food testing leading to the decimation of the tomato, spinach and pepper markets because of salmonella which is detectable? Not useful. None of those do anything but cause more money to be spent because it was spent stupidly the first time.

Spending money expanding power and transportation infrastructure in sustainable ways? Useful. Spending money modernizing the power grid to prevent a rerun of the northeast blackout of 2003? Useful. Spending money to get the currently in trouble US auto industry retooled away from increased foreign oil consumption? Useful. Those would all be forward looking things that deal with issues we know are in or coming down the pipe, and provide money to put food on the table in the here and now.

Obama is right, the spending of the last 8 years was completely out of control. When the economy goes completely in the crapper, and it has, the solution is not to stop spending, but change the spending into things that make a difference over the long term, while providing short term help so people can continue to eat.

The current bunch has handed well over $100 billion to AIG, is in the process of handing Citibank God only knows how much, proposed this morning another $800 billion to buy up bad credit card and student loans, another $600 billion to deal with bad debt at Fannie/Freddie, and has already spent close to $300 billion of the $700 billion authorized in the general bailout on no one knows what because they aren't saying. That is completely insane.

It's 1929 again (who said that a year ago? Hint: I did), and you appear to be advocating a return to Herbert Hoover's policies. If my grandmother were still alive she'd get out the rug beater, take you out back of the smokehouse and see if she could knock the dirt out of your head for making that suggestion.

My point (which was obviously missed), is this:

1) If the current regime asked for a "blank check" for spending, there ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Obama, who warned again that the economy would likely get worse before it got better, declined to put a price tag on the two-year stimulus proposal which other Democrats have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars.null

Oh yes, let's spend, spend, spend to make the economy stable. Yes, that's what we need to do...

Is this the same man who stood up and said that the spending of the last 4 years was out of control?

Funny, now he's ready to do the exact same.

Who'd'a thunk that he'd do that?

(hint: I did.)

Hint, what the money is spent on matters.

Spending $1000/man/day at Blackwater for "security" following Katrina? Not useful. Spending millions on trailers so contaminated with formaldehyde that their use as shelters for people displaced by Katrina is voided? Not useful. Not spending money on FDA food testing leading to the decimation of the tomato, spinach and pepper markets because of salmonella which is detectable? Not useful. None of those do anything but cause more money to be spent because it was spent stupidly the first time.

Spending money expanding power and transportation infrastructure in sustainable ways? Useful. Spending money modernizing the power grid to prevent a rerun of the northeast blackout of 2003? Useful. Spending money to get the currently in trouble US auto industry retooled away from increased foreign oil consumption? Useful. Those would all be forward looking things that deal with issues we know are in or coming down the pipe, and provide money to put food on the table in the here and now.

Obama is right, the spending of the last 8 years was completely out of control. When the economy goes completely in the crapper, and it has, the solution is not to stop spending, but change the spending into things that make a difference over the long term, while providing short term help so people can continue to eat.

The current bunch has handed well over $100 billion to AIG, is in the process of handing Citibank God only knows how much, proposed this morning another $800 billion to buy up bad credit card and student loans, another $600 billion to deal with bad debt at Fannie/Freddie, and has already spent close to $300 billion of the $700 billion authorized in the general bailout on no one knows what because they aren't saying. That is completely insane.

It's 1929 again (who said that a year ago? Hint: I did), and you appear to be advocating a return to Herbert Hoover's policies. If my grandmother were still alive she'd get out the rug beater, take you out back of the smokehouse and see if she could knock the dirt out of your head for making that suggestion.

My point (which was obviously missed), is this:

1) If the current regime aske... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]