You're kidding me Mr. Obama... Really, the spending isn't sustainable?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by ponycar17, May 16, 2009.

  1. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    From http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=abXWfVxx_e8w&refer=home

    Really Mr. Obama... Really? You're getting it? Have the economists finally injected enough truth into your diet to have you thinking healthy? Did you take absolutely no economics courses in college? What a damn idiot?!... :rolleyes:

    And now we look back to what Obama and his administration said about the TEA party protestors... :rolleyes:

    From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21870.html

    And the administration claim that they don't understand the TEA Party movement when "95% of Americans just got tax cuts". Here's a clue to you Obamanites, it's not a tax cut for long. Obama just admitted that. The TEA Party crowd already knew it. We think. We get it... :rolleyes:

    The 95% figure is a pure LIE!!!!! From The Wall Street Journal...

    Continued at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

    Another link where David Axelrod mouths off about TEA Parties and the false 95% figure... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/19/axelrod-suggests-tea-party-movement-is-unhealthy/

    Is anyone else seeing this administration underestimate the common sense of the people? Does anyone else see them parading out grandiose cuts to the budget which amount to mere fractions of percentages of the total budget?

    See the Fox News article attached...
    Republicans Deride Obama's $17B Proposed Cut in Federal Spending

    Really, am I the only one that sees the administration underestimating the intelligence of their critics? :confused:

    Discuss! :)
    Last edited: May 16, 2009
  2. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Re: You're kidding me Mr. Obama... Really, the spending isn't sutainable?

    You mean Barry has finally realized that the US Treasury is NOT a bottomless pit filled with money?! But before he realized that, he turned the federal budget into a bottomless pit filled with debt:rolleyes: He CAN'T be THAT stupid. He's just doing what his puppetmasters tell him to do. Barry is such a freakin' tool. Will someone PLEASE send him back to Kenya?!?!
    Last edited: May 16, 2009
  3. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Re: You're kidding me Mr. Obama... Really, the spending isn't sutainable?

    It seems that Mr. Obama wanted to heal the economy much like the story in one of my son's books. :D

    Obama wanted to act as an economist without economics credentials much like Patrick acted as a doctor without medical credentials... :D
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2011
  4. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,877
    Location:
    New Mexico
    The spending is only part of the problem.
    Just wait until the inflation from all that new money they printed kicks in, then the interest rates from the antistimulate bill, then the cost for bailing out states like California and Mass and …

    But now I have to ask you all a question. Do you think that after he said this that congress will spend any less, or Obomba will veto any massive spending bills?

    I’m seriously doubting that anybody here is going to answer yes. L
  5. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    So he's gonna quit spending?
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!

    We're laughing at ourselves while the rest of the world laughs at us.

    Nero fiddling while Rome burns.:mad:
  6. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Not at all. He is beginning to BRAG about the results he is getting toward his plan to destroy the American Experiment.

    Pops
  7. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    From this group of independent thinkers I expect many more posts. Come on guys, tell us what you really think. I look forward to hearing! :)
  8. OBrien

    OBrien New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Bangor Maine
    I can only see this as the government controlling one more thing. The credit card companies are in the business of making money. They do that very well. When you apply for a credit card and get approved they send tons of fine print. Its up to the person getting the account to know what can and more than likely will happen.

    I can see how this bill can help people financially but government controlling business does not seem right to me. I think credit card companies should give you more notice on changes to your account but I think it should be through company policy. It's a hell of an advertisement when your competitor tends to raise interest rates and fees with out notice and your company gives notice. I know which card I would be swiping.

    If the government can tell credit card companies what fees they can and can't spring on people with out notice where else will they do that? Ever take a car in for an oil change and find out you need something that's going to cost $600 Maybe they should put a bill in for mechanics. Would that be crossing the line? How is it different?
    Last edited: May 17, 2009
  9. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Very good point. I feel the same way about the gov't involving itself (illegally, I might add) into private business. This is just the beginnings of a socialised government controlled command economy.:mad::mad::mad:

    I think you already know what I think about this:p
  10. walien

    walien Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    276
    I'm not sure you can throw all of this on Obama. The Republicans had control of all three branches of legislature in this country for most of this decade and they were plenty spendthrift. Obama is doing basically the same thing that W would be doing.

    I certainly appreciate the Tea Party folks (not as much as the band, but I appreciate them still), but they're ostriches with their heads in the sand. When I can find one of them that will explain to me how we can deal with our massive long term debt while cutting tax revenues I'll give them credit for good ideas. Until then, they're just part of the problem. They're another group with their hands out wanting to take from the government.

    The vast majority of government spending in this country isn't elective. The amount that is discretionary is pretty small and our debt load is pretty massive. Cutting taxes while we're running huge deficits will only make them bigger and presents another macro-economic risk to the economy. Not to mention that it would just be more that people like me who pay a lot in taxes will have to pay back.

    I'm sort of blown away about how the average tax payer expects tax rebates when this country is running such massive deficits. There was a lot of talk by the freshmen class in the 90's about balanced budgets, but that idea quickly went out of their heads it seems.
  11. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    walien, the Republicans certainly did spend. They spent primarily on a war effort. Even given that effort's positive effects of providing funding to defense industry at home, it still shouldn't have gone as far as we did. You're right that deficit spending needs to stop. The Obama spending plan fails to prove to me any sustainable industry growth potential. It seems more of a stop-gap feel-good measure. Tax cuts are far more effective than Keneysian style economics that provides short-term public works projects.

    Let me state why... Already, it has been shown that most of the stimulus money is going to areas with already-low unemployment. That does nothing for the hardest hit areas in this recession. For a truly positive and broad-reaching impact to be felt by a macro-economy there needs to be a uniform application of funds. Also, de-incentivizing business while giving only minimal stimulus is a recipe for economic contraction and inevitable inflation.

    I don't agree that Bush spending/budget was totally ineffective. As I pointed out in other posts, the Bush tax cuts to provide business incentives while also providing a demand-side stimulus worked VERY well to bring us out of the recession of 2000 that lasted into half of 2001.

    If not for the burst of the housing bubble we would still be in a very stable economy. That's just my opinion. I blame the housing bubble on Democrat policy, including our current president himself. He was one of the many to legally combat banks claiming affirmitive action injustice in the housing industry. He and others were behind the poorly formulated policies that led us to the housing meltdown.

    As for the Tea Party protesters, there were many of them out there because it was the popular thing to do. There are many more who feel that spending has gone haywire and were energized by the Tea Part effort even though they didn't come out to protest. I think the disdain at spending falls on both sides of the aisle. Our next to final speaker at the Tea Party I went to called out the final speaker, US Senator Jim Demint, and asked him to LEAVE the Republican party even though the event was sponsored by a Republican group. Sure, there was a lot of partisanship at the event but MOST of the Republicans who showed up to speak were staunch Conservatives. Governor Mark Sanford and Jim Demint were 2 of those. The only Republican who voted for the stimulus package, Representative Gresham Barret, was booed so loudly he honestly couldn't be heard in the crowd. We're not afraid to hold our own accountable in public and at the ballot box. We need more people who feel as strongly as the Tea Party protesters felt.

    By the way, the Tax outrage was more directed at expected future tax hikes because of the spending and expected inflation. That inevitable inflationary effect will prompt tax hikes. There are an awful lot of people who realize that we can't get something for nothing. ;)

    Thanks for the comments.
  12. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Every time we have cut taxes (not eliminated them, just reduced them) the economy has responded by delivering increased REVENUES into the national treasury. Funny, that, allowing people to keep their money to spend allows them to spend it. hmmmm

    Mr Bob Brinker has a saying he is fond of bringing up at least once a month. He says that reducing taxes is just wrong. He asks us to carry it to its "logical conclusion" and reduce taxes to zero and imagine how much revenue will be realized. I have asked him several times to take his argument to its "logical conclusion" and raise taxes to 100% and imagine how much revenue will be realized.

    He has never answered me.

    Pops
  13. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio

    Sorry, you are wrong. The vast majority of spending IS discretionary. Every give away program the liberals have saddled us with. Not even mentioning pork.

    This entire mess we are in were caused by the fine liberal congress that said fannie mae needed to extend credit for non credit worthy people. O-baaa-ma as an attorney actually sued banks on behalf of ACORN over their lending policies not being "liberal" enough.

    How dare you say the tea partiers have their hand out when they just want to keep their own hard earned money. Are you here because you have any interest in firearms or just to stir things up?

    Of course republicans have been guilty too, but dont forget we have had a war to pay for.
    If you don't understand how tax cuts increase government revenue you might try reading a couple books on economics.
    Last edited: May 20, 2009
  14. walien

    walien Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    276
    PonyCar,

    They spent both before and after 9/11. Have a look at W's first budget if you don't believe me. Tax cuts do stimulate, no doubt, but the economic multiplier varies. I'm not sure how much you're spending these days, but I don't know of almost anyone who isn't cutting back in some way. Giving someone a tax break right now doesn't mean that they will spend it.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your data regarding areas that benefit, but the largest portion of Obama's program IS tax cuts. More than 1/3 of it is. If you think tax cuts are the only thing that should happen, you should only 2/3 be complaining about the program.

    In terms of the rest of the program, there is a high economic multiplier to infrastructure projects and there is a huge need for infrastructure across the country. The money will need to be spent eventually anyways.

    There are components of it that are seen as soft such as the extension of unemployment benefits and food stamps. Conservative pundits jump all over these, but someone on unemployment is pretty likely to spend all that they get. The US hasn't normally needed a long-term unemployment system as the low rate of unemployment meant that people could just get another job. With some states at >10% unemployment, it's not a bad thing to do in the short run. Will it stimulate the economy? Someone buying housing, heat and food will stimulate the economy. Most of that is produced domestically as well. I didn't get the Bush tax cut, but a few of my friends spent it on a weekend in Canada.

    Other things on the package like wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, money to modernize schools and keep teachers employed, an increase in medicaid and money to provide health insurance to the unemployed will all stimulate the economy quite well. You can't hire the chinese to build a teacher for you and you equally can't hire the Chinese to dig ditches for pipes. The economic multiplier on all of it is high.

    This is much different than government borrowing more money from China, to give to taxpayers so that they can run out and buy more goods like TV's from China.

    In terms of blaming the Democrats for the housing crisis, have a look at what happened with the housing bubble and the types of loans that happened under the second Bush administration. They controlled the Pres, House and Senate and bad loans ballooned during this time. You can blame it all on the democrats, but that's not true.

    Yes, people did lobby that lower income people should get housing loans. That lobbying didn't say that they should get an interest only, stated income loan that would reset in 5 years. The banks were giving everyone, particularly those least qualified to pay, loans that were just stupid. They did this both under Democrats and Republicans.

    After the S&L crisis in the 80's, banks were restricted on what types of debt they could carry. They weren't, however, restricted on what types of debt they could sell. They eventually figured out that they could sell debt, have it rated by rating agencies and then sell it to investors as mortgage backed securities. Since the banks didn't carry the debt, they really didn't care if the loans were good or not. They were making money either way. The rating companies were doing well and didn't want to rock the boat and basically rated everything as good debt. Greedy US consumers just wanted more, bigger houses even if they couldn't afford them and many assumed that prices would go up forever. They didn't.

    None of this was due to policies that said that banks couldn't discriminate. It was due to a lack of oversight. The Bush administration was very big on a lower government intervention in things like financial institutions. The monies to enforce regulations were reduced under Republicans. They also sat by and did nothing when they had control of everything earlier in this decade. Janet Jackson's boob got a lot more attention than housing loans. Their ideology was less government regulation is always better. It's not.

    Anyone who has studies money and banking in Economics knows that the historical regulation of banks has always had to do with governments trying to stop banks from making too many risky loans. The banks want to do it to make more profits, but the governments are the ones that ultimately have to pick up the pieces and thus they bear the brunt of the risk.

    The economy would be world's better than it would have been without the housing collapse. There still would have been problems eventually with banks due to things like credit default swaps, but then again, much of the growth earlier this decade was due to the housing bubble building. We would likely have had lower growth earlier in the decade, but not had the recession we have now.

    I never said that the stimulus post-911 didn't work. Spending money does stimulate the economy. That's true whether by the government doing it or individuals. With that said, you seem to be completely ignoring the role of Alan Greenspan and interest rates and exchange rates in what happened post-911. The President isn't as all powerful as you might think.

    That might be true, but it doesn't return as much as you give out. It's basically why supply side economics failed. In many cases, by the way, it's not letting people keep their money. Much of that tax relief goes to people who don't even pay in to the system in terms of income tax, so the 'tax rebates' we see, even for many who post on this board, are just the government borrowing from the Chinese to give money to people. That's not a tax cut.

    The stimulus that we're seeing now is, sadly, required due to the economic mess we're in. I'm firmly in favor of a balanced budget above everything, but in cases were banking crisis have tanked economies, such as not long ago in Japan, fiscal spending has been most successful in getting the economy back on track.

    Personally, I think that if more people actually cared about buying American goods instead of the cheap stuff from China along with using less oil from countries that hate us, we'd be far better off. Stopping the Chinese from illegally pegging their dollar to ours would be a good first step.
  15. glocknut

    glocknut New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Messages:
    12,490
    Location:
    THE FORUM MASCOTT...
    ha ha ha... :rolleyes:

    mike
    gn
  16. walien

    walien Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    276
    GlockNut,

    Should I take your laughing to mean that you fully agree with me? It would be nice given how much myself and others have put into the thread to get some more input than "ha ha ha". It sounds like you have an opinion to express. How about laying it out for everyone...
  17. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I'll respond with numbers later today. This should be interesting. :)
  18. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio

    Wrong again. In the first place just what do you mean "it doesn't return as much as you give out"? We're not talking about "giving out" anything. We ARE talking about tax payers keeping more of their own money.

    Secondly In almost any example you can find whether it be federal, or state income taxes, whenever there is a reduction in tax rates the revenue taken in by the government has increased.

    What you termed as a failure happened to have occured during the Reagan administration which saw one of the greatest periods of growth and prosperity we have ever known. You know it sounds to me like you are reading some liberal publication while making this stuff up.
  19. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    Profligate spending by GOP Congresscritters got them thrown out of office the last 2 elections like the gun-grabing Dem. Congressritters were thrown out a few elections ago. Too bad The Democrat citizens wouldn't throw out their money-grabing congresscritters the same way. Perhaps they support robbery by government.
  20. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Let me first say, "oh boy, numbers!" :D Sorry, I like numbers. I shouldn't though. I just spent a day at work in a statistics-based class. :eek:

    Clinton's 2000 budget was $1.77 Trillion. Bush's 2001 budget included things like the tax cuts for everyone, diversion of funds to pay back borrowed money from Medicare and Social Security and many entitlement programs including No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D roots. I cannot find his actual budget figure but I can see where you're going. I don't and have never agreed with all of Bush's policies, however he didn't put us this far in the hole this early in his Presidency either. Obama's spending is break-neck speed. :eek:

    Yes, the economic multiplier does vary, and tax cuts to the ones who can least afford to spend makes little sense. What Obama proposes is to tax the people who are responsible for the growth and expansion under the Bush administration that led to a tax burden reduction from 4.00% to 2.99% to the bottom 50% of earners, and substantial wealth creation from 50% and up. You can't simply dole out tax breaks to the middle and lower classes without a supply-side aspect. One without the other does little to bolster the economy. From a simple macroeconomic viewpoint, consumers will push the demand curve outward with tax cuts. Suppliers will push the supply curve inward as they expand and compete against one another.

    See a previous graph I've posted over and over on here.

    A Bush style tax policy could and should result in pure growth with a relatively stable price point and increased output quantity, represented by price point P1 equal to the starting point, and quantity Q3 representing a higher output. An Obama style tax policy that punishes the rich while rewarding the other 95% only slightly could result in a higher price point, P4, and a lower output quantity, Q1. Granted, this is only a microecon representation but it is very indicative of macro concepts as well.

    [​IMG]

    First let me address the question of which areas are being affected most by the Obama stimulus plans concerning infrastructure spending. It's almost simply common sense but it may warrant some further explanation. The areas with the most need of infrastructure spending are also the largest and most productive areas. That's why they need the infrastructure... Those areas have an already-low unemployment rate on average. Hiring for the sake of building roads and bridges in an area with an already-low unemployment rate isn't the same as hiring in an area where the unemployment rate is already above 10%. Here's a story that demonstrates what I'm referring to...

    Continued at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_re_us/us_stimulus_left_out

    Now, I don't believe that proposed 1/3 figure representing tax cuts as a portion of the stimulus bill. There are roughly 304 Million citizens in the United States. For the tax 'cuts' Obama has planned. The alleged cuts will come in the form of $800 tax credits for couples married and filing jointly and $400 for single tax payers (so, $400 per person). The elderly and some other groups will receive $250 as a check this year.

    Let's say, as I've heard that around 134 Million actually pay taxes. That's around 40% of Americans. I'm going to use some theoretical percentages based as closely as possible on the actual numbers. Let's assume that approximately 40% of those are seniors who are eligible for the $250 tax credit. So, maybe 20% of the total population isn't paying taxes at all or is underage and not working.

    So, by my logic tax payers will receive approximately (134,000,000 * $400 = $53.6 Billion) in tax cuts. The rest of America will receive approximately (122,000,000 * $250 = $30.5 Billion) in tax cuts for a total of $84.1 Billion in tax 'credits' over the next year. That amounts to close to ((84.1/787)*100 = 10.6%) of the stimulus budget, not 33%. John Kerry said the 'stimulus' plan was closer to 42% in tax cuts. I'll bet that figure includes 'potential' tax cuts allowed for first-time home buyers and the purchase of energy-saving appliances. Those cuts are NOT guaranteed and only projected. Wanna bet they won't make up that extra 31.4% of promised tax credits by large purchases? I kinda doubt it... That's a carrot dangled out in front of people who cannot discern fact from rhetoric. In other words, it's vote-buying by way of promising something you will never get. :(

    Furthermore, because of the ill-devised withholding plan, millions of married-filing-jointly filers and those retired with a small income will owe most of their heightened W2 earnings back to the IRS in April, 2010 unless they adjust their W4s. If you and a spouse work, your employer will withhold approximately $800 less for both of you this year. Ironically, the credit is only good for $800. You'll owe $800 back to the IRS next year.

    I admire your persistence but infrastructure projects do not work in kick-starting most economies as effectively as tax cuts. As I stated in a previous response to you, it didn't work for Japan. Japan abandoned infrastructure spending through a decade in the 1990s after it only helped to mount their national debt as a percentage of their GDP. I worked for a Japanese company for 3 years and had a few trips over there in 2002 where I saw what Japan did concerning infrastructure improvement. It was pretty amazing but hardly productive. Their roads are almost entirely toll roads as a method to pay for the road's construction and the Japanese really resent paying exorbitant car taxes and tolls to take a simple family trip into the mountains. A simple 100 mile trip to the country can cost a couple hundred dollar-equivalent Yen in Japan.

    Infrastructure spending employs government and government-contract workers who are paid by the government. They are paid from the government's pocket and the taxes received back into the government coffers are simply changing hands; not growing wealth. Nothing fuels government income except the expansion of private industry. See the information provided in the following links on how Japan didn't succeed in their spending efforts in the 1990s, and why FDR's spending policy likely led us to a 7 year longer depression.

    I can't argue with you on a short-term need to bolster unemployment protection. I don't like having to worry about being robbed while running to the grocery store. Crime would skyrocket if unemployment funding wasn't provided. :)

    Some of that is certainly true. However, from my previous thread responding to you education is largely self-destructive. The more money education gets, the more it needs, and there's no ready rationale for that besides wasteful spending. Even when large sums of money are thrown at education all at once, more is begged for in following years, often with no tangible results from the previous funding allowance. My state is a prime example.

    Again, from what I stated above, much more is needed in terms of a supply-side tax cut, which Obama is eliminating. Demand-side-only does not work and is indeed only a 'stimulus' to make supply-side cuts work. Obama's plan wants to punish the top 5% of our income earners which have grown wealth tremendously for all Americans over the past 8 years. The top 5% of income earners have received massive tax cuts over the past 8 tax years. In 1999 the top 5% paid a 55.45% portion of the total tax base. In 2006's tax year they paid 60.14% of the total tax base. Those tax payers created wealth, which created jobs and allowed capital investment into other companies that correspondingly created MORE jobs. Obama wants to punish these most productive individuals that fuel our entire economy. Does that make sense? In economic theory, you've got a concept of marginal returns on investment. When an investment is made on an asset that could be better spent on another asset, then the difference is a net loss. Conversely when an investment is made on one asset that produces the same good more efficiently, the gain returned on that good is called a marginal return over the other investment. Investing in a lower-efficiency asset results in an 'opportunity cost' forgone by not investing in the higher-efficiency asset.

    We're effectively choosing to make an unwise investment in 95% of Americans when the top 5% provide a much larger return to everyone. You seem to have some financial and economics know-how about you. Surely you can agree on that point. :confused:

    I'm sorry but many Republicans attempted to stop these loans. From my previous response to you, the New York Times in 1999 acknowledged the threat of massive failure because of the force the federal government used to make banks give bad loans. The NY Times was right. Now they blame the Republicans and Bush for it all. I'm afraid there's a bit of a double-standard going on. :rolleyes:

    Let's look at some information...

    From http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&pagewanted=print

    And primarily Democrat recipients of funding and sweetheart loans from the mortgage Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) were the ones defending those GSEs' solvency and denying an impending mortgage meltdown.

    Some video...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVIAGWtCD10

    Read this from American Thinker.com as well.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

    This article details where Republican congressmen attempted to reign in the GSE's and were met with opposition from Democrats. Even George Bush voiced opposition to the impending crisis. I don't think I'm just holding the party line here. There's enough evidence to show collusion between Democrats and the banks, without help needed from Republicans. Indeed Barack Obama also benefited in the '90s and possibly later from this association with Community Activist groups that pressure the government for bad loans.

    Also, see this pre-election work of art.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8

    We can agree on most of that assessment. One has to wonder why government would put into place mandates for banks to behave badly and then not foresee what would happen in the financial industry. The intervention we saw in 1995 is the reason banks chose to sell debt. The option was available to them and they could not fail because of government mandates. But... As the banks were eventually failing, they had strong Democrat ties to lie for them to keep them in business.

    I'm glad we agree on the point of the post-911 stimulus. Spending public sector money does not stimulate the economy in any sustainable fashion for reasons I stated a few paragraphs above. It didn't work for 1990s Japan and didn't work for FDR. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Yes, Greenspan's lowering of the Fed Discount Rate after 911 did play a role in making credit more available and that probably did exacerbate the already-frenzied mortgage lending industry. That's a good point! :)

    You're right on a good portion of that. Giving a tax 'cut' to someone who doesn't pay taxes isn't a 'tax cut'; it's welfare. That was mentioned in my original post. That's why a 'tax cut' to 95% of Americans in Obama's plan never made sense to anyone who was paying attention.

    Some of the stimulus is needed, mainly the unemployment bolstering in the short term. MOST of the stimulus will not be effective, and a small but toxic part of the stimulus is just wasteful.

    Again, we disagree on Japan yet again. Japan has greatly distressed its citizens with taxes on every aspect of travel because of their version of an infrastructure stimulus. Read the article I posted above. Expect that we can see the same taxes, primarily through fuel tax increases.

    That's a good idea and I'll agree on a patriotic note but I'm left wondering who will buy our goods if we stop buying their's? I want to be an isolationist on some points and then I realize that if no nation can afford our goods we can't export anything. :confused: :eek:

    Thanks for the interesting debate! :)
    Last edited: May 21, 2009
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum You're Gonna' Love This ...... Jan 3, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Privacy? You're dreaming! Jun 29, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obama says: "You're not listening" Jan 27, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum binder full of watchwords, or you're on the list Jan 17, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 1st Amendment? Not if you're Republican Aug 26, 2009

Share This Page