"We the people stimulus package"

[dahur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

[PFC5]

WOW!

Great video and I agree with all of it. Thanks for posting this.

[Ntruder]

Where were all these angry budget hawk republicans when Regan, Bush, and W. Bush were ramping up our national debt?

Bush Jr deficit spends us into a $10 trillion debt and nobody speaks a word about it. Then Obama comes into office and tries to fix the ruined economy after 30 years of Reganomics by doing a little spending, and everyone freaks out...

[kamspy]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Where were all these angry budget hawk republicans when Regan, Bush, and W. Bush were ramping up our national debt?

Bush Jr deficit spends us into a $10 trillion debt and nobody speaks a word about it. Then Obama comes into office and tries to fix the ruined economy after 30 years of Reganomics by doing a little spending, and everyone freaks out...

Well, the conservatives I know didn't care for Bush Inc outside of 'war-time' periods.

But the conservatives I know also think Shawn Hannity is a pinko liberal bitch, sooo.... they might be a bit more extreme than the average Bush Inc fan.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by kamspy

Well, the conservatives I know didn't care for Bush Inc outside of 'war-time' periods.

But the conservatives I know also think Shawn Hannity is a pinko liberal bitch, sooo.... they might be a bit more extreme than the average Bush Inc fan.

Its because the Right Wing Echo Chamber didn't bitch about Bush's deficit spending and his huge national debt on a daily basis, so all of their sheep didn't realize it. But now, the Echo Chamber is loud and clear about deficit spending, so all the sheep are suddenly concerned. See, these "tea party" idiots don't get their news anywhere outside of the Right Wing Echo Chamber, so its very easy to control what issues they are concerned with.

[F91]

Pretty bizarre if you ask me. If Obama is doing a terrible job running up the deficit, Bush was/is more than his equal. Crickets chirped.....

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Where were all these angry budget hawk republicans when Regan, Bush, and W. Bush were ramping up our national debt?

Bush Jr deficit spends us into a $10 trillion debt and nobody speaks a word about it. Then Obama comes into office and tries to fix the ruined economy after 30 years of Reganomics by doing a little spending, and everyone freaks out...

[kamspy]

It's not even the best talking point if you are looking to bash Obama Inc.

Didn't Rahm Emanuel work for Fannie? Did I miss the railing about this? The only 'right wing echo' I listen to is Savage and Emanuel was the only good thing he had to say about Obama during the cabinet draft. But, that's because Savage is pretty heavily Jewish and as a conservative that makes you pretty pro Israel. I guess Rahm has a stance he likes regarding Israel, because he (shockingly) didn't touch the Fannie topic.

[PFC5]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Its because the Right Wing Echo Chamber didn't bitch about Bush's deficit spending and his huge national debt on a daily basis, so all of their sheep didn't realize it. But now, the Echo Chamber is loud and clear about deficit spending, so all the sheep are suddenly concerned. See, these "tea party" idiots don't get their news anywhere outside of the Right Wing Echo Chamber, so its very easy to control what issues they are concerned with.

No president before Obama has spent so much money within months of going into office. No one!

Everyone has been talking about deficits for 30 years. Why do you think it is only now that people are talking about it? They are just now saying that Obama is increasing the deficit in a matter of months to the level we borrowed during 2 terms (8 full years) under Reagan.

So WHY were you concerned THEN, but not now when the deficit grew so much in a matter of months compared to what took 8 years under Reagan?

Just an FYI, the CONGRESS spends the money not the President. The president proposes a budget and Congress then decides what is spent and how. It is just a guideline for Congress when the Congress is controlled by the opposing party but is not generally changed as much when the White House & Congress are both controlled by the same party.

As far as I have read, Obama is spending about $1.75 TRILLION additional on top of what the "regular" budget of about $2.85 Trillion was. Now I am not saying the spending to some degree was needed as I believe it was, but both Bush & Obama did not put enough controls on how this bail out money could be spent IMO. AIG is only one such example.

Medicare/Medicaid annual spending is about $387 Billion MORE than what is coming in from payroll taxes. Here are the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Un...federal_budget

Total receipts

Receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion. FY2007 on-budget receipts were $1.7 trillion. FY2007 off-budget receipts were $608 billion. Off-budget receipts include Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as well as the net profit or loss of the U.S. Postal Service.

• $1.1 trillion - Individual income tax (43.9%)
• $869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes (34.7%)
• $370.2 billion - Corporate income tax (14.8%)
• $65.1 billion - Excise taxes (2.6%)
• $26.0 billion - Customs duties (1%)
• $26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes (1%)
• $47.2 billion - Other (1.9%)

Source: preliminary FY2007 year-end estimate from the U.S. Treasury Dept.
The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes, which is sometimes referred to as the "tax gap.".[1]

Total spending

A pie chart representing spending by category for the US budget for 2007

The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

• $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
• $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
• $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
• $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
• $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
• $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
• $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
• $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
• $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
• $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
• $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
• $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
• $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
• $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
• $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
• $20.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
• $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

Much of the costs of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war until FY2008 have been funded through supplemental appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, which are treated differently than regular appropriations bills. Senior congressional leaders have contended that those war costs, as much as possible, should go through the regular budget process, which provides for greater transparency. Determining the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is complex. CBO has estimated that "war-related defense activities" in 2007 were "roughly $115 billion." (CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2007, Box 1-1, available at <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8565&type=0>) See Below for total defense spending.

I highlighted in red some of the increase % over the prior year budget that really stand out to me. One thing to notice is that NOTHING actually went down and ALL aspects had budget increases, showing that government grows every year even when revenues go down.

I am not sure what the answer is, but printing more money at about 50% of the budget is really a recipe for disaster IMO. Remeber that joke roll of tioilet paper you could buy as a gag gift? Well we may be able to use REAL money if we do not do something to change this.

I am not bashing Obama here, but rather I am bashing the state we are now in financially and how they are attempting to get out of it. There were a lot of bad decisions made by Bush AND being brought to a new level by Obama IMO though. Is spending our way out of it with no one (treasury notes from foreign people/gov't) to foot the bill for this which requiring the printing of more money at such a high % IN ONE YEAR the answer?

No question Obama got handed a bad situation of the equivalent of a "perfect storm" of financial collapses, but no one individual is responsible. The gov't as a whole IS responsible and that includes Congress as much (or more IMO) as any President.

IMO, we are no where near "out of the woods" or even near the bottom I fear. I hope I am wrong, but that is how I see it right now. I think we will see another big downward drop again before we are near the bottom.

[Cygnus]

Savage, limbaugh, dubya, etc are neocons. True conservatives are not pro-israel. Try reading the american conservative mag instead of the neo-con zealots on the radio and tv. rahm is jewish as well

Originally Posted by kamspy

It's not even the best talking point if you are looking to bash Obama Inc.

Didn't Rahm Emanuel work for Fannie? Did I miss the railing about this? The only 'right wing echo' I listen to is Savage and Emanuel was the only good thing he had to say about Obama during the cabinet draft. But, that's because Savage is pretty heavily Jewish and as a conservative that makes you pretty pro Israel. I guess Rahm has a stance he likes regarding Israel, because he (shockingly) didn't touch the Fannie topic.

[Cygnus]

dubya started it and obama is finishing it...

Originally Posted by F91

Pretty bizarre if you ask me. If Obama is doing a terrible job running up the deficit, Bush was/is more than his equal. Crickets chirped.....

[kamspy]

Originally Posted by Cygnus

Savage, limbaugh, dubya, etc are neocons. True conservatives are not pro-israel. Try reading the american conservative mag instead of the neo-con zealots on the radio and tv. rahm is jewish as well

1. Lumping Savage in with Limbaugh and Hannity is an uninformed stance. He lets some really firey remarks slip out, they leak on the internet and he get's painted like a complete loon. His show has no republican party agenda.

I'd recommend a listen to you guys who think it's just another republican infomercial, but you wouldn't actually tune in.


2. I have no problem with Jewish people. Israel I don't know enough about to make an educated stance on, so I'll go neutral on that here.

[Cygnus]

Originally Posted by kamspy

1. Lumping Savage in with Limbaugh and Hannity is an uninformed stance.

I have listened to them all. limbaugh is more on the entertainment side...savage tries to portray himself as a thinker. Deep down their agendas are similar

I have no problems with anyone. I do understand what is really going on too... Alas, this is beyond the scope of this forum...

[F91]

No one got handed a bag of shit like Obama within minutes of going into office. No one!

Originally Posted by PFC5

No president before Obama has spent so much money within months of going into office. No one!

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by PFC5

No president before Obama has spent so much money within months of going into office. No one!

Everyone has been talking about deficits for 30 years. Why do you think it is only now that people are talking about it? They are just now saying that Obama is increasing the deficit in a matter of months to the level we borrowed during 2 terms (8 full years) under Reagan.

So WHY were you concerned THEN, but not now when the deficit grew so much in a matter of months compared to what took 8 years under Reagan?

Seriously, I know you're not oblivious to what has been happening in our economy over the past few years. One second, you want to be completely serious, the next second, you're trying to pass off nonsensical Sean Hannity talking points in place of a serious discussion. Tell me with a straight face that Obama had any choice in this matter. He was handed this economic climate. He was handed an economy that was shrinking what, 4, 5%? That means that unless the government injects cash into the economy, our economy will continue to shrink, lay off workers, shrink some more (because there are more jobless), which causes more layoffs, and more shrinking, and when does it stop?

There is a several trillion dollar hole in our economy right now. For once, there is actually good reason to spend all this money. Spending a trillion dollars in Iraq: NOT a good reason. Spending a trillion dollars to try to salvage our crippled economy: GOOD reason. Running a 2 trillion budget deficit wasn't in Obama's long term plan for running his administration. Its an emergency action to stop the would be downward spiral of our economy, ultimately leading to a long depression. Is that what you'd want? Just let the middle class be wiped out by an economy in free-fall as businesses lay off millions of people?

I don't think conservatives fully appreciate the mechanics of a recession. When companies downsize, they leave CONSUMERS without income, meaning demand decreases. That means our economy shrinks EVEN MORE, because there is less demand. So then EVEN MORE companies downsize, to try to stay in business, and they lay off millions MORE people, and the economy SHRINKS EVEN MORE STILL, and this process will continue until something intervenes to fill the void.

If we don't spend all this money to make up for the lost consumer spending, what is going to stop the recession? What force will bring it into balance? Explain to me how that will happen, because that is something that I never learned in my years of studying this stuff in school.

Just an FYI, the CONGRESS spends the money not the President. The president proposes a budget and Congress then decides what is spent and how. It is just a guideline for Congress when the Congress is controlled by the opposing party but is not generally changed as much when the White House & Congress are both controlled by the same party.

Thank you. But I did take Civics in 4th grade, so I already knew this. Its just easier to generalize by president

As far as I have read, Obama is spending about $1.75 TRILLION additional on top of what the "regular" budget of about $2.85 Trillion was. Now I am not saying the spending to some degree was needed as I believe it was, but both Bush & Obama did not put enough controls on how this bail out money could be spent IMO. AIG is only one such example.

#1, Bush used "emergency supplimentals" to fund his trillion dollar war in Iraq. He didn't include any of that in the budget. How is this any different?

#2, Ok, there, you just admit that the spending was needed. So why are we having this conversation? What was that whole first paragraph about then? See, I know that you get it; I don't see why you sometimes act like Obama has a choice.

#3, Bush handed out trillions of dollars to Wall Street as a parting gift on behalf of the American people, no strings attached. Obama hasn't even used all of his half of the TARP funds IIRC, and he is actually attaching rules to the acceptance of this money. Bush put NO controls on how any of the trillions of bailouts would be spent. Obama put SOME, probably not enough. When you treat Obama as a co-conspirator with Bush, its laughable. All of Obama's spending related actions are a DIRECT RESULT of Bush's failed economic policies, and 30 years of Reaganomics by Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. You should be upset with them, but certainly not Obama!

When a vandal sets your house on fire, burns it nearly to the ground, and you call the fire department, and the fire truck tears up your lawn, are you honestly going to get pissed at the fire department??

Medicare/Medicaid annual spending is about $387 Billion MORE than what is coming in from payroll taxes. Here are the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Un...federal_budget

I highlighted in red some of the increase % over the prior year budget that really stand out to me. One thing to notice is that NOTHING actually went down and ALL aspects had budget increases, showing that government grows every year even when revenues go down.

You're right, sounds like our taxes on the wealthy are too low. Glad we agree. Maybe we should go back to that 71% top marginal rate. That would straighten out a lot of the deficit issues, don't you think?

Also, maybe we should actually tax the giant corporations who do business in this country, and close up the tax loopholes that allow them to be tax evaders. Oh wait, Obama is doing that.

I am not sure what the answer is, but printing more money at about 50% of the budget is really a recipe for disaster IMO. Remeber that joke roll of tioilet paper you could buy as a gag gift? Well we may be able to use REAL money if we do not do something to change this.

I agree, its a recipe for disaster if we don't have fundamental economic change. Like, for example, raising taxes on the rich, balancing our trade deficit and reinstating import tariffs (most important), reinstating Glass-Steagel, and repealing Grahmm, Leech, Bliley, and finally, nationalizing the Federal Reserve

I am not bashing Obama here, but rather I am bashing the state we are now in financially and how they are attempting to get out of it. There were a lot of bad decisions made by Bush AND being brought to a new level by Obama IMO though. Is spending our way out of it with no one (treasury notes from foreign people/gov't) to foot the bill for this which requiring the printing of more money at such a high % IN ONE YEAR the answer?

I want you to understand how we got into this mess. Milton Freidmann/Adam Smith style supply side economics adopted by Reagan, Bush sr, Clinton, and Bush jr, which let corporations remove all regulations that might keep them in check, let them run our country, write our laws, elect our congressmen, and destroy our democracy. One more of these free market hawks, and we might see a full blown fascist state emerge. Total corporate takeover.

No question Obama got handed a bad situation of the equivalent of a "perfect storm" of financial collapses, but no one individual is responsible. The gov't as a whole IS responsible and that includes Congress as much (or more IMO) as any President.

Its an idea that is responsible, and the people who bought into that idea. You could argue Milton Freidmann is most responsible, the architect behind the bad ideas, although nobody forced Republicans and many corporate Democrats to listen to that kook.

IMO, we are no where near "out of the woods" or even near the bottom I fear. I hope I am wrong, but that is how I see it right now. I think we will see another big downward drop again before we are near the bottom.

We still have an economy in which productivity (supply) has outpaced wages (demand) for decades. Our economy grew way faster than wages supported, and the only way it was possible to do so was by way of expanding credit. With the help of the federal reserve, some giant banks, and the human desire for instant gratification, and without any regulation, we inflated a giant economic bubble that cannot be sustained.

It all comes down to greed; the most overlooked force in our universe. Corporations operate out of sheer greed; their only purpose is to generate a profit. Corporate executives are now paid in company stock; they're not interested in long term sustainability. They are interested in instant gratification. I could go on, but it all leads to one simple point:

Unregulated laissez faire capitalism does not work.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by kamspy

1. Lumping Savage in with Limbaugh and Hannity is an uninformed stance. He lets some really firey remarks slip out, they leak on the internet and he get's painted like a complete loon. His show has no republican party agenda.

I'd recommend a listen to you guys who think it's just another republican infomercial, but you wouldn't actually tune in.


2. I have no problem with Jewish people. Israel I don't know enough about to make an educated stance on, so I'll go neutral on that here.

I've only heard Savage a couple of times... His level of anger and hatred that was evident in his message forced me to change the dial after just a few short segments.