Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bailout, stimulous packages, pork, no pork, fat, government waste. bush's bailouts were a failure, no accountabilty whatsoever. now, obama want's a stimulous package, with accountabilty - strings attached, he want's to know where the money is going to go, and the republican party is bucking him. who was or is the real boy crying wolf here? Real reasons for big bailouts
obama's plan sounds better to me than the previous administration's throwing our tax dollars to the wind, at least this administration is seeking accountability. while obama is trying to reach across the aisle, the republicans are acting like a bunch of jackasses and backing up like a sewer.
Well, there is a LOT of money at stake here. We had two previous bailouts of $700 billion and $15 billion, and now an addition $825 billion for a stimulus package. The Obama Administration's bailouts are going to make the money funneled into Iraq War these past 6 years look like pocket change.
Besides, I like the Republican plan of cutting taxes for the poor and small businesses, but the Democrats can't have any of that....
I think you're wrong.
when bush took office, he started with a balanced budget, and a surplus, thanks to democrat clinton, and bush squandered america's future. I hate to say this, but it appears as if the democrats are more conservatively minded than republicans are. and, wasn't it bush's administration that started this iraq war? hardly conservative at all. more like neo-cons if you really see the whole picture.
US News / Special: Empire Builders / Neocon 101 | Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Well, there is a LOT of money at stake here. We had two previous bailouts of $700 billion and $15 billion, and now an addition $825 billion for a stimulus package. The Obama Administration's bailouts are going to make the money funneled into Iraq War these past 6 years look like pocket change.
Besides, I like the Republican plan of cutting taxes for the poor and small businesses, but the Democrats can't have any of that....
I think at this point we are in uncharted territory and the left right, Clinton vs Bush arguments at this point are rather pointless. We now have what we got and its not pretty. This confusion over what to do with TARP funds seems to be abating a bit from just 3 months ago, but to be honest, all I see is the look of terror on the faces of a group of really smart people who are on their knees praying that something works.
I think Obama has a credibility issue, a big one, so people won't cut him any slack on trying to push the same bailout plan as Bush. And his party leadership isn't helping him any either, they can hardly wait to let the pork start rolling.
Right now, and this is kind of scary, its the republicans who are sounding like the fiscally responsible people trying to make Obama hold back and rethink his policies. Many were always skeptical, many democrats were too, of the bailout, but they just never had the backbone to stand up against party leadership and listen to their citizens.
Some people might walk off a cliff if Obama told them too, but most wouldn't even if they like him and the way he said it. He's going to have a hard sell on this bailout.
I see nothing wrong with pork, but only if it's lean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
I think Obama has a credibility issue, a big one, so people won't cut him any slack on trying to push the same bailout plan as Bush. And his party leadership isn't helping him any either, they can hardly wait to let the pork start rolling.
Right now, and this is kind of scary, its the republicans who are sounding like the fiscally responsible people trying to make Obama hold back and rethink his policies. Many were always skeptical, many democrats were too, of the bailout, but they just never had the backbone to stand up against party leadership and listen to their citizens.
Some people might walk off a cliff if Obama told them too, but most wouldn't even if they like him and the way he said it. He's going to have a hard sell on this bailout.
I think you're wrong. When bush took office, he started with a balanced budget, and a surplus, thanks to democrat clinton, and bush squandered america's future. I hate to say this, but it appears as if the democrats are more conservatively minded than republicans are. and, wasn't it bush's administration that started this iraq war? hardly conservative at all. more like neo-cons if you really see the whole picture.
US News / Special: Empire Builders / Neocon 101 | Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html - broken link)
War is expensive. War has brought the economies of entire nations down on their knees. So many nations and entire civilizations have collapsed in the past due to sucking their own economies dry.
Please spare me the Clinton rhetoric. Most of the economic growth that occurred on his watch was caused by the dot com bubble. As a matter of fact, I think it is important to realize that economic growth does not come out of the blue, you need some kind of new development that spurs growth.
I was a bit disappointed when the Republicans caved on the $700 billion bailout. They were fighting it tooth and nail when the Democrats convinced the weaker Republicans to vote for it. I said before it wouldn't work, hell half of this forum knew it wouldn't work.
I still have not figured out why a topic was started on the new bailout, yet somehow reverts to Clinton vs. Bush vs. Iraq....
Ok, it's not rhetoric, and I won't spare you from it, the facts speak for themselves, except republicans and neocons can't bring themselves to the fact that when bush took office there was a budget surplus and was balanced, and they can't deny that. bush ran this country into the ground in many ways, it may take another 8 years to pull it out. the part that bothers me is that all of a sudden when a democrat begins leading us in a positive direction, and the newly elected democrat puts forth an economic stimulous package, the republicans are acting like conservative now. where were they when bush was squandering the surplus? nowhere to be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
War is expensive. War has brought the economies of entire nations down on their knees. So many nations and entire civilizations have collapsed in the past due to sucking their own economies dry.
Please spare me the Clinton rhetoric. Most of the economic growth that occurred on his watch was caused by the dot com bubble. As a matter of fact, I think it is important to realize that economic growth does not come out of the blue, you need some kind of new development that spurs growth.
I was a bit disappointed when the Republicans caved on the $700 billion bailout. They were fighting it tooth and nail when the Democrats convinced the weaker Republicans to vote for it. I said before it wouldn't work, hell half of this forum knew it wouldn't work.
I still have not figured out why a topic was started on the new bailout, yet somehow reverts to Clinton vs. Bush vs. Iraq....
The real-world differences between the parties are grossly exaggerated.
Every four years we hear the same nonsense: that we are on a roller-coaster ride to socialism if the Democrats win, or that old people will be eating dog food if the Republicans win. Strictly for the birds. Neither party is going to fundamentally alter the system. Both parties favor a basically capitalist economy with a very generous safety net attached. The Democrats call the safety net "welfare", the Republicans call it "defense." (Every dollar spent on the military that is not specifically needed to defend the territory of the United States is just a jobs program.)
Since the arguments between Ds and Rs are more about the form of big government we're going to have rather than whether we're going to have one, I vote on a different basis altogether. Those who've read any of my previous posts won't have to guess what basis that is, but the point is: our semi-capitalist system is not going anywhere anytime soon.
I think you're wrong.
when bush took office, he started with a balanced budget, and a surplus, thanks to democrat clinton, and bush squandered america's future. I hate to say this, but it appears as if the democrats are more conservatively minded than republicans are. and, wasn't it bush's administration that started this iraq war? hardly conservative at all. more like neo-cons if you really see the whole picture.
So, in looking at your whole picture... WHERE IS CONGRESS ? ? ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's trying to be a conservative.
