"WTF" is not a valid criticism. Are you saying the President is incorrect, or suggesting that he is contradicting himself?
It's a criticism because his budget and 'stimulus' bill are doing just that!
It's like when he had his people try and talk up the $100 million in cuts he was going to push for saying, "$100 million is a lot of money!" This was followed by a cut that was around $17 billion with the same, "I don't know about you but 17 billion dollars is a lot of money!" line. Yes, those are large sums of money but when you are talking cuts from a budget that is several trillion dollars those billions and millions don't matter much. We're talking about less that 1/2 of 1% of the budget!
I guess this is just more "OJT" for the President. It's nice to see that he is learning but it's sad that his instincts are proving to be so wrong.
Uh, no...it's perfectly in line with the President's policy of trying to raise more money from Americans through tax capital instead of going to foreign creditors. Raising income tax slightly for people making very high salaries, proposing taxing things that are known to contribute to the health problems that we already support with our tax dollars (cigarettes, sugary soft drinks, etc), and getting rid of tax credits for oil companies are all in line with that policy.
He's not saying we can't spend ANY money. He's saying we should look at ways we can raise it ourselves, not get it from a buddy.
Also, he has said from the beginning that we will have to spend in the short-term, but that it is no t sustainable. Sustainable means it cannot be kept up for long periods of time, not that it cannot ever be done. Not sleeping at night is not sustainable, but many people pull all-nighters to finish a project or paper. It doesn't mean it won't work. Just that we can't keep it up.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that injecting capital into the economy is the way to get us out of a recession, especially one in which the entire credit market turns on its head. It's good to see him come out and say "yeah, this is what we have to do, but I know it can't, and most importantly won't, last forever."
Of course, I was never really in favor of the bank bail-out plan, at least not the way it was written. Automaker loans seemed more reasonable (after all, the last thing the country needs right now is another 0.5-1.5 million people unemployed.)
Either way, it makes enough sense that I'm willing to roll with it for now.
I'm in favor of not starting new government programs when we do not have the money to pay for them.
You realize that the government has operated with a national debt since before it was created, right? We wouldn't be here if it weren't for borrowed money.
I'm in favor of not starting new government programs when we do not have the money to pay for them.
You realize that the government has operated with a national debt since before it was created, right? We wouldn't be here if it weren't for borrowed money.
Are you aware that holding some debt is fine but when the interest on your debt reaches a point where it consumes so much of your income that it becomes impossible to pay it off it becomes bad? Are you also aware that all debt is given a credit rating based on the debtors ability to pay it off? Are you also aware that many of our foreign debt holders are concerned about the future ability of the US government to pay its debts? Are you aware that part of that concern revolves around the government's ability to simply print more money (which devalues the money already in circulation)?
I simply find it ironic that the one responsible for these huge spending bills is now saying what a bad idea it is to pass these huge spending bills!
As for TARP, it was never used for what it was designed to be used for. Furthermore, as money comes back in from banks paying it back it is not being returned to the taxpayers but is instead being re-loaned to other banks. I thought the money would be lent, paid back, and all Americans would profit?
As for TARP, it was never used for what it was designed to be used for. Furthermore, as money comes back in from banks paying it back it is not being returned to the taxpayers but is instead being re-loaned to other banks. I thought the money would be lent, paid back, and all Americans would profit?
I don't think its unfair to assume that money set aside for troubled banks would continue to be used while the banks are still in trouble, especially since the plan is less than three months old.
I guess this is just more "OJT" for the President. It's nice to see that he is learning but it's sad that his instincts are proving to be so wrong.
It's the tone of comments like these that beg the question, who are you to be judging? Who are you to so arrogantly comment that someone who has an astronomically higher level of education than you is "learning" some knowledge that you would like to imply you somehow possess?
So, are you in favor of Obamanotcutting foreign debts and cutting billions of dollars from the budget?
I'm in favor of not starting new government programs when we do not have the money to pay for them.
Fail. No one, including the writer of your article has said that any of this money is going to any specifc government program.
I'm in favor of not starting new government programs when we do not have the money to pay for them.
You realize that the government has operated with a national debt since before it was created, right? We wouldn't be here if it weren't for borrowed money.
Are you aware that holding some debt is fine but when the interest on your debt reaches a point where it consumes so much of your income that it becomes impossible to pay it off it becomes bad? Are you also aware that all debt is given a credit rating based on the debtors ability to pay it off? Are you also aware that many of our foreign debt holders are concerned about the future ability of the US government to pay its debts?
Most of your concerns about government debt would not have come to pass if it hadn't been for a little war that you were so proud to support.
Most of your concerns about government debt would not have come to pass if it hadn't been for a little war that you were so proud to support.
True, $860 Billion could have paid for TARP and the automaker loans. (Speaking of only Iraq, we see a $700 Billion figure, which is certainly nothing to shrug off).
Most of your concerns about government debt would not have come to pass if it hadn't been for a little war that you were so proud to support.
True,$860 Billioncould have paid for TARP and the automaker loans. (Speaking of only Iraq, we see a $700 Billion figure, which is certainly nothing to shrug off).
. . . and which has not and will not benefit anyone or anything, with the possible exception of the top management of Blackwater and Haliburton. At least the bailouts and such will be beneficial if they succeed.
Most of your concerns about government debt would not have come to pass if it hadn't been for a little war that you were so proud to support.
To suggest that engaging enemies of the USA in battle somehow led to our current financial crisis is a serious stretch. Please back up your claim with information from unbiased sources.
To suggest that engaging enemies of the USA in battle somehow led to our current financial crisis is a serious stretch. Please back up your claim with information from unbiased sources.
I'm going to assume that Joe is not trying to say: "invading Iraq caused the current financial crisis," but more saying: "you're preaching fiscal responsibility while advocating a war against an invisible and possibly manufactured enemy in which $700 Billion has been literally flushed down the toilet."
To suggest that engaging enemies of the USA in battle somehow led to our current financial crisis is a serious stretch. Please back up your claim with information from unbiased sources.
I'm going to assume that Joe is not trying to say: "invading Iraq caused the current financial crisis," but more saying: "you're preaching fiscal responsibility while advocating a war against an invisible and possibly manufactured enemy in which $700 Billion has been literally flushed down the toilet."
I assume nothing when it comes to Joe. I will wait for him to explain his position.
Okay, but you are preaching fiscal responsibility while advocating the now-baseless war in Iraq, yeah? I think the concept that the money and resources in Iraq have been "well spent" is a bit of a stretch.
To suggest that engaging enemies of the USA in battle somehow led to our current financial crisis is a serious stretch. Please back up your claim with information from unbiased sources.
I'm going to assume that Joe is not trying to say: "invading Iraq caused the current financial crisis," but more saying: "you're preaching fiscal responsibility while advocating a war against an invisible and possibly manufactured enemy in which $700 Billion has been literally flushed down the toilet."
konistehrad is exactly right in his interpretation of what I wrote. We weren't "engaging enemies of the USA in battle." We were engaged in a "war against an invisible and possibly manufactured enemy in which $700 Billion has been literally flushed down the toilet." It's supremely disengenuous to claim a concern about fiscal responsibility when you've just literally thrown away so much.
We had a surplus when GWB entered office but the shenanigans he initiated ate up the surplus and his eight years have nearly ruined us. It's silly to say that three months of Obama trying to set things right afterwards has made us any worse or is in any way irresponsible.
It's a little like criticizing your mom for spending money on water when she has to wash your cum-stained sheets the morning after your one hundredth wet dream, or criticizing your wife for spending $5.00 to buy a spill proof mug after you've ruined your $2K laptop by spilling coffee onto it.
or criticizing your wife for spending $5.00 to buy a spill proof mug after you've ruined your $2K laptop by spilling coffee onto it.
More like criticizing your wife for buying a multi-million dollar mansion after you purchased a sports car.
It's only foolish if you bitch when one administration spends billions and then go silent when another spends trillions. It's also foolish to propose a budget that runs in the trillions and then try to use a $100 million proposed cut as a sign of being fiscally conservative.
or criticizing your wife for spending $5.00 to buy a spill proof mug after you've ruined your $2K laptop by spilling coffee onto it.
More like criticizing your wife for buying a multi-million dollar mansion after you purchased a sports car.
There is at least some validity to your analogy because the house would likely hold its value better than a sports car and would be a wiser investment. However, it still doesn't work because both things have some value. When constructing an analogy for the money spent by the GWB administration versus the money spent by the Obama administration, one must consider that none of the money spent by Bush produced anything of value. Further, one must consider that the money spent by Obama is spent, in large part, to clean up Bush's fuck-ups.
So, to revisit your analogy, it would be more like criticizing your wife for paying for a mechanic after you wrecked your sports car.
It's only foolish if you bitch when one administration spends billions and then go silent when another spends trillions.
The important thing is not that money was spent, but what value the administrations in question actually got for our money, i.e. not that it was spent but how it was spent. Bush wasted our money. He came into office during good economic times when we actually had a surplus, and turned our economy to crap. This wasn't surprising, because he has a personal history of turning things to crap.
Obama is actually doing something of value. He's trying to bring the country out of recession. That's not wasteful, like an unecessary war.
In that respect, it's like two employees tasked with buying office supplies. One employee spends $1500.00 on a manual typewriter that doesn't have an "e" and reams and reams of carbon paper that are all water damaged. The other employee spends $2K on a laptop and a printer. The first employee spent less, but what he spent was a total waste.
It's only foolish if you bitch when one administration spends billions and then go silent when another spends trillions. It's also foolish to propose a budget that runs in the trillions and then try to use a $100 million proposed cut as a sign of being fiscally conservative.
Every single Bush administration budget has been in the trillions (from $2 trillion in 2001 to $3.1 trillion in 2009). It's foolish to bitch when one administration spends trillions when you were silent when the previous one threw away trillions.
Also, again, are you opposed to $100 million cuts? $100 million is a ton of money, even in the face of trillions.
It's only foolish if you bitch when one administration spends billions and then go silent when another spends trillions. It's also foolish to propose a budget that runs in the trillions and then try to use a $100 million proposed cut as a sign of being fiscally conservative.
Every single Bush administration budget has been in the trillions (from $2 trillion in 2001 to $3.1 trillion in 2009). It's foolish to bitch when one administration spends trillions when you were silent when the previous one threw away trillions.
Also, again, are youopposedto $100 million cuts? $100 million is a ton of money, even in the face of trillions.
It's only foolish if you bitch when one administration spends billions and then go silent when another spends trillions. It's also foolish to propose a budget that runs in the trillions and then try to use a $100 million proposed cut as a sign of being fiscally conservative.
Every single Bush administration budget has been in the trillions (from $2 trillion in 2001 to $3.1 trillion in 2009). It's foolish to bitch when one administration spends trillions when you were silent when the previous one threw away trillions.
Also, again, are youopposedto $100 million cuts? $100 million is a ton of money, even in the face of trillions.
Not it's not.
Budget = $3,600,000,000,000 Cut = $100,000,000
Move some decimal points over
Budget = $360 Cut = $0.01
Is saving one penny off of a $360 budget big money savings to you? Not to me. $100 million is a lot of money to me but in the world of government budgets it is next to nothing.
You're nitpicking while missing the big question: how do you fault the Obama administration for spending trillions domestically after Bush frittered away the same trillions on useless empire-building exercises?
Is saving one penny off of a $360 budget big money savings to you? Not to me. $100 million is a lot of money to me but in the world of government budgets it is next to nothing.
So... you are opposed to cutting $100 million from the budget! Good, because I think it would be better spent on refurnishing the White House with golden toilets and $100 bill toilet paper.
Is saving one penny off of a $360 budget big money savings to you? Not to me. $100 million is a lot of money to me but in the world of government budgets it is next to nothing.
So... youareopposed to cutting $100 million from the budget! Good, because I think it would be better spent on refurnishing the White House with golden toilets and $100 bill toilet paper.
Just wait... I have the ultimate pwn up my sleeve still.
Your pwns are misdirected. I'm pointing out how a cut of $100 million from $3.6 trillion is hardly "big money". I have not said I am opposed to cutting the budget. What I am saying is that as a percentage of the budget this "cut" is trivial at best.
Not it's not.
You're nitpicking while missing the big question: how do you fault the Obama administration for spending trillions domestically after Bush frittered away the same trillions on useless empire-building exercises?
I would also turn this around and ask how you can complain when Bush "frittered" away money on a war effort over two terms in office and not complain when the incoming administration "fritters" away even more money than that in its first 100 days!
If the money is not there you should not spend it!
If the money is not there you should not spend it!
The money for a manufactured war certainly wasn't there through swaths of tax cuts and stimulus checks; pray tell, how is this any different? Simply because we are now being told the truth?
ADDENDUM: This is, of course, the key difference. new administration says: "the credit system is in ruin. The government needs to act as a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging financial markets and we need billions to do it. In response, we're raising corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy." This in stark contrast to the Bush administration, who during a period of wealth said: "we need to cut taxes, while at the same time increasing defense spending dramatically by launching into a preemptive war, further deepening the defecit. PS: hoep u bought Halliburton stock."
If the money is not there you should not spend it!
Really? You beg to differ!
holding some debt is fine
Moving on:
Your pwns are misdirected. I'm pointing out how a cut of $100 million from $3.6 trillion is hardly "big money". I have not said I am opposed to cutting the budget. What I am saying is that as a percentage of the budget this "cut" is trivial at best.
If you are "not opposed" to cutting the budget, why do you have your britches in a bunch over budget cuts? Why do you continue to argue against those in favor of $100 million in cuts? What harm could possibly come from cutting $100 million?
If you are "not opposed" to cutting the budget, why do you have your britches in a bunch over budget cuts? Why do you continue to argue against those in favor of $100 million in cuts? What harm couldpossiblycome from cutting $100 million?
Please show me where I said I was opposed to budget cuts.
If the money is not there you should not spend it!
The money for a manufactured war certainly wasn't there through swaths of tax cuts and stimulus checks; pray tell, how is this any different? Simply because we are now being told the truth?
Manufactured war? If you believe the war was "manufactured" then we can find no common ground to debate the issue because your bias is such that even $1 dollar spent on said war is a waste.
It's just hilarious that you've been pwned so bad but you don't even know it.
Thank you Steve, for providing such great comedy. I was kind of bummed because it's Monday and I have a lot of crap to do, but thinking about this pwnage is gonna have me chuckling all through what would otherwise be a rough day.
Manufactured war? If you believe the war was "manufactured" then we can find no common ground to debate the issue because your bias is such that even $1 dollar spent on said war is a waste.
Don't look now Steve, but that's a "bias" an overwhelming majority of Americans share. It's those darn facts. They have a well-known liberal bias.
Just for more material to laugh at you about, please tell us why you think even $1.00 spent on this unnecessary, manufactured war was justified. (Please let him say that he thinks Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda. Please, oh, please.)
Comments
It's like when he had his people try and talk up the $100 million in cuts he was going to push for saying, "$100 million is a lot of money!" This was followed by a cut that was around $17 billion with the same, "I don't know about you but 17 billion dollars is a lot of money!" line. Yes, those are large sums of money but when you are talking cuts from a budget that is several trillion dollars those billions and millions don't matter much. We're talking about less that 1/2 of 1% of the budget!
I guess this is just more "OJT" for the President. It's nice to see that he is learning but it's sad that his instincts are proving to be so wrong.
He's not saying we can't spend ANY money. He's saying we should look at ways we can raise it ourselves, not get it from a buddy.
Also, he has said from the beginning that we will have to spend in the short-term, but that it is no t sustainable. Sustainable means it cannot be kept up for long periods of time, not that it cannot ever be done. Not sleeping at night is not sustainable, but many people pull all-nighters to finish a project or paper. It doesn't mean it won't work. Just that we can't keep it up.
Of course, I was never really in favor of the bank bail-out plan, at least not the way it was written. Automaker loans seemed more reasonable (after all, the last thing the country needs right now is another 0.5-1.5 million people unemployed.)
Either way, it makes enough sense that I'm willing to roll with it for now.
I simply find it ironic that the one responsible for these huge spending bills is now saying what a bad idea it is to pass these huge spending bills!
As for TARP, it was never used for what it was designed to be used for. Furthermore, as money comes back in from banks paying it back it is not being returned to the taxpayers but is instead being re-loaned to other banks. I thought the money would be lent, paid back, and all Americans would profit?
We had a surplus when GWB entered office but the shenanigans he initiated ate up the surplus and his eight years have nearly ruined us. It's silly to say that three months of Obama trying to set things right afterwards has made us any worse or is in any way irresponsible.
It's a little like criticizing your mom for spending money on water when she has to wash your cum-stained sheets the morning after your one hundredth wet dream, or criticizing your wife for spending $5.00 to buy a spill proof mug after you've ruined your $2K laptop by spilling coffee onto it.
It's only foolish if you bitch when one administration spends billions and then go silent when another spends trillions. It's also foolish to propose a budget that runs in the trillions and then try to use a $100 million proposed cut as a sign of being fiscally conservative.
So, to revisit your analogy, it would be more like criticizing your wife for paying for a mechanic after you wrecked your sports car. The important thing is not that money was spent, but what value the administrations in question actually got for our money, i.e. not that it was spent but how it was spent. Bush wasted our money. He came into office during good economic times when we actually had a surplus, and turned our economy to crap. This wasn't surprising, because he has a personal history of turning things to crap.
Obama is actually doing something of value. He's trying to bring the country out of recession. That's not wasteful, like an unecessary war.
In that respect, it's like two employees tasked with buying office supplies. One employee spends $1500.00 on a manual typewriter that doesn't have an "e" and reams and reams of carbon paper that are all water damaged. The other employee spends $2K on a laptop and a printer. The first employee spent less, but what he spent was a total waste.
Also, again, are you opposed to $100 million cuts? $100 million is a ton of money, even in the face of trillions.
Budget = $3,600,000,000,000
Cut = $100,000,000
Move some decimal points over
Budget = $360
Cut = $0.01
Is saving one penny off of a $360 budget big money savings to you? Not to me. $100 million is a lot of money to me but in the world of government budgets it is next to nothing.
If the money is not there you should not spend it!
ADDENDUM: This is, of course, the key difference. new administration says: "the credit system is in ruin. The government needs to act as a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging financial markets and we need billions to do it. In response, we're raising corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy." This in stark contrast to the Bush administration, who during a period of wealth said: "we need to cut taxes, while at the same time increasing defense spending dramatically by launching into a preemptive war, further deepening the defecit. PS: hoep u bought Halliburton stock."
EDIT: speaking of which, here's that thing I had up my sleeve.
Thank you Steve, for providing such great comedy. I was kind of bummed because it's Monday and I have a lot of crap to do, but thinking about this pwnage is gonna have me chuckling all through what would otherwise be a rough day. Don't look now Steve, but that's a "bias" an overwhelming majority of Americans share. It's those darn facts. They have a well-known liberal bias.
Just for more material to laugh at you about, please tell us why you think even $1.00 spent on this unnecessary, manufactured war was justified. (Please let him say that he thinks Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda. Please, oh, please.)