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:
    7,888
    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:
    4,719
    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
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