What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by The Bald Champion

 

Well generally "con" is used to describe "neo-cons", which I am not.

I'm an old-school Conservative, not a new age liberal wannabe neo-conservative.

I wouldn't expect anyone to know though.

It's much easier to make assumptions about people.

Ya that liberal neo-con myth is my favorite.

Why did you spend so much time defending LIBERAL NEOCON ideology if it was really liberal ideology???

or defending JR II if he was just a new aged LIBRAL?



Must be classified

BACK to topic

reply to post by The Bald Champion


You are right, we all don't agree on many things.

But one thing we should all agree on is that we can't continue what we are doing. We just can't.

I've stated what i'd like for us to do many times in many other posts. I agree pull ALL troops back, I don't care w here they are. We can't afford it. Another is the fact that it seems that a majority of our politicians are RICH. Democrats and Republicans. IMO they should lose ALL money they have and give it to charity before running for office. They would lose the 175,000 a year they make as well. How about 40,000k a year? They should live like the rest of us.

But none of these mean anything until everyone finally figures out that we can't spend anymore. That's it.

Arguing over a stimulus bill that is blatant spending is not a solution. There should be nothing to nitpick on it...we shouldn't be doing it period.

Once we all agree and can finally get our 'so called politicians" to agree along with us, it will never stop.

This is problem number 1 IMO.

reply to post by David9176



I doubt we will ever agree on the level you suggest.

I think free trade is a load of hog wash - I think carbon tax is BS, yet I still think the environment is very important, I think we should have been regulating these institutions straight from the hip, I think the bankers should be charged with economic MURDER and
be punished like a botched robber...

All is good and fine.

But when you have one half of the population who thinks HEALTHCARE is a LUXERY and the other who feels HEALTHCARE is a human right - who on EARTH will we ever agree?

Although I agree with the 40K a year idea.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by The Bald Champion

 

But none of these mean anything until everyone finally figures out that we can't spend anymore. That's it.

Arguing over a stimulus bill that is blatant spending is not a solution. There should be nothing to nitpick on it...we shouldn't be doing it period.

Once we all agree and can finally get our 'so called politicians" to agree along with us, it will never stop.

This is problem number 1 IMO.

Ya D - but if spending freezes everything freezes - At least that has served true in the past.

At the same time how do we fix the problem if we reward this BS?

Originally posted by nyk537
If I had video evidence of Obama randomly punching little kids, you'd find some way to defend him.

I'm not defending Obama. I'm addressing the GOP's concern for the wasteful spending in this bill. I'm showing that their concerns amount to 2% of the whole bill and suggesting that they are not really concerned, but rather putting on a "show" to the public who hears millions of dollars for this and millions for that and probably think the bill is "full of pork". That's what they want you to think. And you're buying it.

Even if everything on this list were pork, it's only 2%. Most people won't take the time to really think about what it means that the GOP is not complaining about 98% of the bill. So, why are they complaining? Because it's not 100% of what THEY want. They're acting like spoiled brats.

Originally posted by The Bald Champion

Ya D - but if spending freezes everything freezes - At least that has served true in the past.

Is freezing always the worst possible option?

What you are proposing actually has a name. "Bicycle theory" which is an economic theory proposed at a Trilateral committee meeting in 2000, or 199 I forget which.

The theory is, "well we dont know what to do, but we know if we stop we will fall over." (Like a bicycle that has ceased forward movement.)

However, what I thought at the time, and still think today, is;

"If you are headed for a bloody cliff, is falling over such a bad idea?"

So what if the economy freezes? It will suck, it will be hard, yes, I agree that is definitely going to be painful. But since "going forward" has gotten us into this mess, dont you think we need to STOP and make sure we arent headed for a cliff before we assume that forward motion is necessarily the best course of action?

Edit to add; Excerpts from that speech to the Trilateral Commission;

www.trilateral.org...

Second, the trading system has essentially been stalemated for several years. There are no new multilateral negotiations of any serious nature being conducted anywhere. The situation is very serious if, like me, you believe in the bicycle theory, which says you either move forward or you fall over.

The point is that there is a big backlash against globalization. We see it in the financial world. We certainly see it in the trading world as well. It’s much more fundamental than pure economics. We know that globalization does increase income and social disparities within countries. We know that globalization does leave some countries and certainly some groups of people behind. We do know that a lot of Europeans don’t want to eat genetically modified American foods and that adds to their resistance to globalization. We know that a lot Americans worry about races to the bottom—labor standards, environmental standards, and other perceived doubts about dealing with the rest of the world. We know that a lot of developing countries are raising doubts about the entire system, and such specifics as whether having agreed to the enshrinement of intellectual property rights is really in their national interest. (They would like to pull it back out of the WTO, having agreed to put it in five or six years ago.) So the list is long of the perceived intrusions of globalization into national sovereignties. There is therefore a backlash against it, which I think we have to take as an extremely serious economic, political, and social matter.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
So what if the economy freezes? It will suck, it will be hard, yes, I agree that is definitely going to be painful. But since "going forward" has gotten us into this mess, dont you think we need to STOP and make sure we arent headed for a cliff before we assume that forward motion is necessarily the best course of action?

I've got to say I've been thinking this from the beginning. From before the "bank bailout".

Did you see this video?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Lol. Nice.

I would have liked to see those dollars adjusted, which would have changed the shape of the graph somewhat, just for scrupulous fairness' sake. However, his main point is not wrong. This is a whole new kind of mess, and if you think those yo-yos making policy have a clue what to do you are sorely mistaken.

Edit to add,

Thats why I added on the link to the Trilateral commission notes. People have got to see how totally clueless these guys are. It doesnt even make common sense.

And they acknowledge that globalization is going to hurt people. Its a known. But, you see, it is good for THEM.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


When the deficit was raising and the economy declining under the Bush administration I remember many that didn't say a thing about all the pork that went into the yearly spending budget.

I will defend Obama on this one because is fair to do it.



[edit on 3-2-2009 by marg6043]

I'm just wondering how many people have actually read the bill in question. I have (God help me) and I can only say that it is emphatically, unequivocally and incontestably - crap.

If you look at it, you'll see that the overwhelming majority is simply re-funding/overfunding/expanding existing government projects. If anyone truly thinks that spending tons more money on AIDS prevention programs, obesity reduction and the national parks is going to provide a deluge of wealth into the national economy then they are truly deluded.

Also, for all the lefties out there: if you look close, you'll see that it provides tons of additional funding for the military, homeland security and surveillance programs. Look for them in YOUR house soon! ( I wonder how much of this will go to Halliburton?)

All these government programs existed before and they added in a couple of shiny new ones too! If these programs were so great to begin with and all of those people in charge were doing their jobs all along we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

The closest analogy I can come up with is having a bum relative who borrows a large sum of money from you, wastes it or loses it on a "sure thing" and then comes back for more. And then has the audacity to say that if you don't give them more then you are truly a @##$% because they are going to lose their home/car/job and it's YOUR fault because you are selfish! We all have one of those, don't we? And now our government is operating with the same mentality.

Originally posted by David9176

It doesn't matter who it goes to...you are in debting generations to come with so much that they will be paying far more money in taxes then we are now, and we think we pay too much now as it is. They will all be slaves, working off OUR DEBT to the government!

Actually, with the collapse of the financial markets and the Fed running its printing presses nonstop and Congress signing off on these huge bailout/stimulus bills and the looming derivatives meltdown/unwinding waiting in the wings like the proverbial fat lady, you will probably be able to pay off this $800 billion--heck, the whole $1.6 trillion so far--with a couple dozen wheelbarrows full of hyperinflated dollars (the size of placemats, so the Fed can print all the necessary zeroes on them) a few years from now. I honestly think this is the thinking behind this.

The whole bailout idea blows my mind. Maybe I'm just not as intelligent as everyone else, but I'm rather confused.

Why are we giving Hollywood money again? Because they're going under? Why don't they stop making horrible movies? That seems logical to me. Maybe the talent factor is what needs to be increased. Maybe we should bail them out by getting real actors to play the roles instead of having Tom Cruise playing a German who not only doesn't speak German, but also doesn't have a German accent. And did anyone see Death Race? Seriously?..

Why did we bailout the "big 3" in the auto industry? That one blows my mind more than the Hollywood bailout, I think. Call me crazy, but if a business plan sucks so horribly bad that it hasn't worked for years, wouldn't it be logical to change that business plan? Instead, the big 3 flew to DC to ask for money to continue their unbelievably crappy business plan. It seems like common sense that if your business sucks, is going down the drain and has no hope, you change something the business plan. Call me crazy.

Even more fun than Hollywood and cars, the condom bailout. Since $0.75 was far too expensive at the condom dispenser in the gas station restroom, the condom industry seems to be tanking. Of course, they must be bailed out. With the upcomming bailout, they'll finally affordable and these new bailout condoms even come with holes pre-poked. You know the brand I'm talking about.. The kind they give away for free at the health clinic. You know..

Un-frickin-believable. How about we make a new policy and let crappy businesses fall? Maybe Toyota would buy up GM, Ford, and Crysler and start making decent vehicles. Maybe Hollywood should tank since they refuse to make a decent movie. This is ridiculous. I want my school loans paid off. That'd sure as hell stimulate me to buy something nice. If the government insists on pushing through a bailout, how about they help out the average person? Hell no, let's screw this one up like the last one was and bailout the condom industry. Go liberals. Or Progressives.. Or whatever you guys like to be called these days. And by the way, before you liberals get all flustered, I didn't support Bush's bailout either. Bailouts are incredibly stupid every time, regardless of who's doing it.

You should also mention the Funding for "ACORN" which President Obama also included in his "Stimulus Package". I thought that Obama was completely rid of this "Organization" full of Nuts? Was that not one of his serious Campaign Debate points? YET another Obama contradiction.

I wonder if the Homeland Security HQ "Furniture" includes... buckets of "water" and .. "boards" ....


-

Originally posted by alkali
The whole bailout idea blows my mind. Maybe I'm just not as intelligent as everyone else, but I'm rather confused.

Why are we giving Hollywood money again? Because they're going under? Why don't they stop making horrible movies? That seems logical to me. Maybe the talent factor is what needs to be increased. Maybe we should bail them out by getting real actors to play the roles instead of having Tom Cruise playing a German who not only doesn't speak German, but also doesn't have a German accent. And did anyone see Death Race? Seriously?..

I am so sick and tired of Hollywood and their Complaints. Remember all of the Hooplah over Hollywood suing "Internet Pirates", and having them arrested for Downloading Non-Purchased P2P Movie/Music Shared Content? I remember them suing some little Eight Year Old Girl who lived in a Public Housing Project, yet, the entire time, the Directors and Actors/Actresses are living in Multi-Million Dollar Homes situated all around the Globe. They claimed that actions, such as those perpetrated by this Eight Year Old Girl, were causing them to lose Money. Well, until I see a bunch of Hollywood Stars in Bread Lines and Plywood Huts, I never want to hear such an argument ever again.

Originally posted by David9176


You are right, we all don't agree on many things.

But one thing we should all agree on is that we can't continue what we are doing. We just can't.

I've stated what i'd like for us to do many times in many other posts. I agree pull ALL troops back, I don't care w here they are. We can't afford it. Another is the fact that it seems that a majority of our politicians are RICH. Democrats and Republicans. IMO they should lose ALL money they have and give it to charity before running for office. They would lose the 175,000 a year they make as well. How about 40,000k a year? They should live like the rest of us.

That is the most lame argument ever devised by the "Anti-War" crowd, of how the War simply "Costs Too Much Money". Can you ever place a Price-Tag upon our Security? If you will not spend the Money necessary in order to Secure our Existence in this world, then what cause could ever be deemed worthy of monetary spenditure?

As for the Wealth of our Politicians, I agree that they make FAR too much Money as is. The local County where I live has a "Board of Supervisors", and they just voted to raise their own Salaries, yet, at the same time, they just said that they will most likely have to slash the Pay for Teachers, and Hold back any raises, all due to a "Budgetary Crisis". Not to mention the fact that our ill-informed Voting base may have just elected as Chairman of the Board (It is not official yet), the very lady who was amongst those responsible for this "Budgetary Crisis" and Incurred Debt in the FIRST Place (Due to her Extravagant Spending Practices over 21 Years). It never ceases to amaze me how strong an opposition movement can be towards Corrupt Politicians, which it was in this case, but then, as in our case again, only 15% of the Voting Base showed up on Election Day. The level of Involvement, or lack thereof, is utterly Absurd and Pathetic.

reply to post by slicobacon


lol Prince Obama is related to Bush and Chaney through his mothers side.. Our government is a joke.. just look at this propsed package.. instead of putting money into small business owners and taxpayer he gives it to Hollywood producers... Lmfao i guess youd have to grease up the producers so when they make his movie Will Smith can play him.. LoL.. And what do we do about it? nothing.. just watch tv and hope itll get better..

here is the new form of currency that will be established after the "stimulus"

Originally posted by slicobacon
On a serious note, it is things like this that puts me 100% against government running our healthcare system.

And I guess the invisible hand of unregulated capitalism is doing a much better job. I mean, just look at the positive outcome of a deregulated banking system.

Personally, i would rather see say, 200 billion going to a universal health care program than to office furniture for the DHS.

Originally posted by nyk537
It's not a stimulus bill people!

Obama and the Democrats are only calling it that because they think the American people are too stupid to know the difference.

It's a pork spending bill, plain and simple.

Not only is Obama quite possibly the biggest idiot we've ever had in the white house, he's also the biggest fraud.

The other day I read a pdf. file from the CBO that said only 13 cents on the dollar in this 900+ billion dollar spending bill is actually going towards stimulus. The other 87% is going to pay for liberal pet projects and greasing pockets.

The libs complained about spending for the first 6 years of the Bush administration but over the past 5 or 6 months they have spent more than Bush did in 8 years. Hypocrisy at its best is what that is!

President Government was bought and paid for to get into office and this bill is nothing more than repayment. This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States. It’s time to file articles of impeachment against this crook and hang the liberal leadership from their necks before they can completely destroy the country!

Of course, their moron voters will continue to tow the line for these criminals.