850 Billion Dollar Stimulus Package

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by PURPLE TIGER, Dec 17, 2008.

  1. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    No question, but at some point you've got to quit digging. Bush is gone. It accomplishes nothing to keep pointing out past problems unless it's to learn from them.
     
  2. LSUMASTERMIND

    LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,992
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    Im not pointing out past problems, I guess my point is I dont understand all of the fiscal responsibility now that a democrat is doing it.
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The stimulus itself is not intended to address the deficit or the national debt. It worsens it, in fact. The stimulus is intended to keep the economy from spirally downward for years. When the economy stabilizes, the deficit spending and national debt will still have to be addressed.

    Basically we have to borrow money when we have deficits, so there is going to be no getting around the fact that to pay down the debt, we must stop deficit spending and make sure that taxes coming in are sufficient to pay for government spending. Raise taxes, cut spending or both, it doesn't matter. But spending money we don't have is wasteful and leads to inflation and digs the debt deeper. We pay over 100 Billion dollars a year in interest on the national debt. What a waste!

    It took Clinton 6 years to get the budget under control and post two years of surpluses. Bush posted nothing but the worst deficits in history. I think Obama inherited a hole that's too deep to climb out of in 8 years and the bailouts and the stimulus dug it deeper. To address the national debt, it will be necessary to post budget surpluses, so that the extra money can be used to pay down the debt over time. It doesn't have to be paid off, but it is essential that it be reduced to a manageable level before it gets out of control as it has in many bankrupt countries.

    I think the best we can hope for in the short term is stabilizing the economy and begin to offer balanced budgets with the idea of building them into surplus budgets that can be used to pay down the unprecedented national debt.
     
  4. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    But there has to be a point where you just bite the bullet and stop. It's like a family keeping their heads above water by using credit cards. At some point, the consequences far outweigh the short term benefit.
     
  5. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Lets review...
    I haven't come here in a couple of days and posted but I found it quite humorous that people are having discussions about Obama's pork project which aren't very positive.
    It looks like less than a month has gone by and there are two people defending the Obama administration while others are questioning policies and ethics.
    I say its not me at all actually, I seem to agree with most posters on here besides you.
    It doesn't look like you ignored me so I don't know why you would say that?:)
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Oh, we're way past that point. The Congress became addicted to deficit spending a couple of decades ago. The big picture and the forward-thinking plans have been supplanted by the "get it right now" philosophy". The new addiction is "tax cuts" without spending cuts. It gets them re-elected but it worsens the deficit and grows the debt.
     
  7. PURPLE TIGER

    PURPLE TIGER HOPE is not a strategy!

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,186
    Likes Received:
    395
    red...this is what drives me nuts. This is the "excuse" that I mentioned in another thread. So what you're basically saying is that if anything goes well it's because of Obama and the Democrats and if something goes awry it's because of Bush and the Republicans.

    This is why I stopped voting Democrit. Plenty of excuses and finger pointing but rarely a quality answer.

    It's like Al Gore and his ridiculous Global Warming scare tactics. If you wake up one morning with 70 degree weather it's due to global warming. If it snows the next day it's due to global warming. It's pretty hard to ever be wrong with that type of mentality.

    Obama and the Democrats have their plan. They've been telling us for the last few years that they have all the answers and only needed Bush out of the way. They now have complete control of the House, Senate, and Oval office. If they can't have an impact (and much more immediate compared to 8+ years) then shame on them. They should be run from office if they can't have a significate, "positive" impact in four years.

    NO MORE EXCUSES DEMOCRITS!!! We've seen it before and it's why you were run from office last time.
     
  8. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    He hasn't shown me any reason to have confidence in him to get the job done.
    No, I decided before he was elected that if elected he probably would fail because he doesn't have the experience to do the job.
    Sound familiar?
    No, I decided that Bill and Hillary Clinton would've been better than Obama because they at least have some sort of track record.
    Obama certainly hasn't done anything to give me confidence that he isn't in over his head.
    Questionable ethics and comments from himself and his cabinet members have made me also question their motives.

    Have you watched the news at all?
    Obama has been down playing his stimulus bill, if you want to call it that.
    He has also made comments like this is the first installment, etc?
    How long and how much money do we have to throw away to decide if this will work or not?
    2, 4, 10 years or 50 million, 50 trillion?

    Like I've said numerous times, people, government thinks they can spend more money and that will solve the problem.
    I think that only creates a bigger problem.
    You want to talk about last time?
    What are you talking about?
    Its nothing personal.
    No, the last quarter government was the only part of the economy that grew.
    While the private sector down sizes and restructures itself the government still continues to grow first under Bush and now Obama.
    Someone has to pay for bigger government and socialist policies, they aren't free.
    I'm willing to bet the government will grow enough to offset any growth in the economy over the next 4 to 8 years.
     
  9. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    See my post above, that is part of my point!:thumb:
     
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That's not what I said at all. It's what you want to hear. :mad:

    What I said was that Obama inherited two wars and a global financial crisis and it will be difficult for him to fix everything in 8 years. That doesn't mean he won't fix a lot of it and have us on the right path. If he just stops the slide and stabilizes things, it will be an achievement.

    Bush and the republicans have already gone wrong and rightfully are blamed for it--they ruined everything. They will have nothing to do with Obama's success or failure either, if all they do is be an obstructionist party. If so, they will also be blamed for that. Your leader, Rush Limbaugh, has already proclaimed that republicans should attempt to make Obama fail, no matter if it trashes the country in the process.
     

Share This Page