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 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".
No, the point is, the current batch of bozos has asked repeatedly for blank checks and been handed them by a batch of sycophantic Republican congresscritters and a batch of spineless Democratic ones. This is not asking for a blank check. You spell out what it's going for, and what the expectations are. A blank check is the budget at Homeland Security, or the first $700 billion handed to Paulson. Not a blank check is the Democrats telling the Big 3 they need to handle this like they would a venture capital proposal. A semi-blank check is Paulson asking for hundreds of billions more for credit card and student loan money, but not saying a damn thing about how that will work (sort of like the $300 billion he's already spent but no one knows on what). A blank check is the Citibank bailout. A semi-blank check would be setting up another round of tax rebates like were done earlier in the year. Not a blank check would be grid modernization. We know what the money is going for and what it's supposed to get. By the way, that's one of the things earmarks are good for. You know exactly what the money is going for. Is it still one hell of a lot of money? Yes. But the idea that government is always the problem is wrong, and always has been. Sometimes government does get things wrong and makes things harder, see No Child's Behind Left. Sometimes it gets things right, unless you think roads, the armed forces and things like police, fire and water are all useless boondoggles. Sometimes it gets things right but makes things harder, like workplace safety or child labor laws. Don't like it? Move to Haiti where they don't have any of that, and don't enforce what they do have. If you want to be one of the "regular people" someplace like that where you don't know if the local police is going to break into your house at night and chop you and your family into little pieces with machetes because you don't agree with something the local boss said, you go right ahead. I'll happily stay here where I can say the President has his head so far up his ass he can brush his hair and his teeth at the same time, and not have to worry about that.
I guess I don't understand english. 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.
So just what exactly does "declined to put a price tag on the two-year stimulus proposal" mean? It means we are going to get a plan, but no pricing. That's an open ended consulting contract. There are federal laws against the government engaging in these types of contracts with contractors, yet the government can do this to it's taxpayers? Why do you think this is Ok? I personally don't care WHO's asking for it, or what has happened in the past. You keep running around the question. I am not saying that what has occurred in the past 8 years has been right, but this is NOT CHANGE. it's the same old shit. If you can't see that, I guess I need a pair of your Obama blinders too. RE: Obama costly stimulus needed to jolt U.S. economy | U.S. | Reuters |
