 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to fiberguy
Re: Hooray For Change said by fiberguy:History shows that democrats tend to balance the budget while republicans deficit spend. That is a fact. Except Obama isn't "history." He is the president now. I fail to see how spending even more money that we don't have when we are in the hole $10 trillion is going to do anything to reduce our national debt. Obama's budget deficit is set to be the biggest in history, far bigger than any budget deficit set under Bush.
said by fiberguy:You're being VERY disingenuous or simply ignorant to the facts here when you stated "Why is Obama trying to top it?"... are you serious? How am I being disingenuous or ignorant? The Democrats' economic stimulus plan will cost at least $850 billion. They themselves have said this.
said by fiberguy: What is he supposed to do? He was handed more than a turd.. he was handed the septic tank as well! Perhaps he needs to put a halt to the reckless borrow-and-spend policies of the past 8 years.
said by fiberguy:He could certainly hold a yard sale and sell off art work in the white house to raise money.. he could do a raffle.. lottery.. or a bunch of charity dinners and set the U.S. people up as the beneficiary charity.. So really.. what's he to do? These are not bad ideas either.
said by fiberguy:The funny thing is how they are/were fighting over the new treasury secretary.. in the end, it didn't matter did it? .. there's no money for him! So we should just roll over and let an idiot who can't even do his own taxes right run the Treasury and by extension, the IRS? Of course given how Charlie Rangel and Al Franken, to name a few, have had significant tax problems in the past I can "see" why the current Treasury Secretary nominee is "qualified." I have to hand it to Obama though, he managed to find the one person who is even less qualified than Hank Paulson to run the Treasury. That takes talent.
said by fiberguy:So, to fix the problem, he has to spend.. that is how you spur growth. That's silly. We've been spending and spending and spending even more and more and more money and it hasn't done anything to spur growth.
said by fiberguy: The other solution is to suspend tax collection and let the people have money to spend and spur the economy. However, the gov still needs to operate and pay bills.. so even in that case, the treasury would have to print more fake money to pay IT'S bills. Why not cut government spending and reduce taxes? It has worked in the past and will work again now.
said by fiberguy:I think you're going WAY overboard to slam Obama on "Change" when he CLEARLY is making change. Did you not see him freeze salaries of those making 100K or more? Saving a few tens of thousands of dollars on raises is far offset by spending close to a trillion dollars of money we do not have.
said by fiberguy:He's already, as a so-called "ultra left wing liberal" with "the most liberal record", reaching across the isle to BOTH parties and work for the country, not the party. He's made that clear. LOL. On what major pieces of legislation did Obama "cross the aisle?" Obama's liberal record is well documented. There's no disputing it.
said by fiberguy:Right now, 78% of the country approve of him and believe in him. I find that hard to believe considering that 47% of the country did not vote for him.
said by fiberguy:The man has all the right ingredients to make a FAIRLY quick recovery.. Again, deficit spending by government will never work to stimulate the economy. It never has, it never will. If it did, we'd have the world's strongest, fastest growing and most robust economy right now because we spend so much.
said by fiberguy:(not to mention, I thought the right didn't believe in bashing the leader of the country.. so don't start now) I thought "dissent was patriotic."
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | All of your response doesn't matter since you evaded the one simple question I posed to you.. and YES, the past DOES matter.
Bush came into office and complained that he was handed a turd of an economy.. even thought we actually had a surplus. I won't even get into what I think Bush did right or wrong or what happened on his watch.. even thought the buck stopped with him.
However, as I said.. HOW do you expect Obama, who JUST took over, to get things going again? You're a republican, you should get this.. it TAKES MONEY to MAKE MONEY.
You said that "OBAMA'S DEFICIT" is expected to be the biggest. Dude, again, I didn't think republican's smoked pot, so why are you?  Obama hasn't spent a dime yet. You're prejudging the man who's asking to spend about 1 trillion.. take a guess at how much Bush has spent? We're about 10 trillion in the hole, right? So far, by my counts, and well, EVERYONE'S count.. that's all him buddy. When Obama pushes up past about 19 trillion, and we have a for-sale sign on the white house and the rest of the countries assets, then we'll talk about the deficit. (seriously. I can't stop laughing at that one)
Dude, let me say thing, you're a party liner, we get it. MOST intelligent people also know that party lines get you no where. So do us a favor and take it to the red room.
You're no better than Fox news and their fear mongering "news" reporting and telling everyone that the world will end if Obama takes the office. You have NO idea what he's going to do yet, just as we didn't know when Bush took over. I don't care to talk about What-if's in politics becuase it hasn't happened. That's the job of an analysist to which you are not.
And, as for cutting spending and reducing taxes.. it's worked in the past huh? Show me the same conditions as we face today, that were in the past, where that worked and we'll talk. (It makes great talking points though.. ) Some of you people think that we only have a few conditions that the country can be in.. well, I'm here to tell you you're wrong. The reason why we don't get out of some of these messes is becuase people, such as yourself, enjoy looking to the past for the answer. Such as "Well, when we had X going on Regan did Y" .. Guess what.. it didn't work well for Regan, it was a quick fix.. much of what we're seeing today is a direct result of Regan's destined to fail policies carried on through Bush 43. The economy is not as SIMPLE as you'd like to think it is.. yet, you're trying to apply a simple approach. Good job.
You're attempt to mock everything that is going on as trivial actually makes me want to vomit, among other things, but I'll be nice. Your piss poor attitude is part of the reason why this country is in the shitter. You sit here and trivialize him freezing salaries? Are you really that ignorant to how things work in a society? I guess when times are tough, and we all have to make "sacrafices" cutting and freezing salaries is "no big deal" .. it's "jst a few dollars".. go rent the movie "Dave." Cutting has to come all around.. it adds up.. you yourself said "cut spending".. well, buddy, what do you think government jobs are? Charity?!
I'm going to simply end my reply with the very same BS that your republican party did in 2000, 2002, and 2004.. YOU LOST THE ELECTION.. get over it, move on.
78% of the people do approve of him.. even Fox News surveys state that.. you believe what you want.. okay?
Your desire to push talking points to do interest/amuse me.
I'm simply going to say it now.. you're an ultra right wing nut job who gets his rocks off on being ignorant for a few laughs. The man just took office and you're already bashing the man.. I thought you Republican's had more decorum than that.. yet you play the same Fing games as you say the dems do. Maybe it's time for you to just grow up and get a life... and realize that it's people like you that are the problem. I mean seriously, I'd say FAR more to you here, right now, but the mods are already going to have a field day with my post.. and trust me, I'm holding WAY back.. becuase people like you disgust me. Even your own party doesn't agree with you right now.. grow up. You lost for good reasons. |
