Dems & Obama Toss $4500 Bundles From Planes?

[redfish64]

Its easy to spend money that is not yours. Im sure we all remember a time when we were young and our parents handed us money to buy things. That money at the time didn't mean much since we weren't the ones having to work of it. Well, that is exactly how the dems and Obama are handling our money, like a bunch of spoiled teenagers shopping in the mall with mom and dads credit card.

They had some far left wack job on the radio this morning praising the success of the "cash for clunkers" program. What this guy failed to realize, as many seem to be doing, is this is our money that the dems in Congress are just giving away. Why not just throw bundles of 4500 dollars out of planes all across America? Why not the cash for airplanes, or the cash for gas station, or even the cash for failed left wing news organiztions? I joke about that last one, but I think they may be serious about that one.

This left wing nut, went on to blame Fox New for making up news, for telling the people if they can't run a bankrupt cash for clunkers what make anyone believe they can run health care. They guy said, once they heard that from Fox they went out and repeated it.
Fox News is killing everyone in the ratings for a reason, they tell us the truth despite what he left thinks, the numbers don't lie.

Where is the end of the give-aways? The sad part of all this is, the cash for clunkers was suppose to stimulate American car purchases, instead from what I am hearing and seeing, many are using our tax money and purchasing foreign cars. Obama is hiding the numbers and facts behind this program for a reason. I think when the truth comes out it will show that most of these cash for clunker deal gave our money to foreign auto makers and their countries.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?pp_album=main&pp_cat=&pp_image=Obama_joker.jpg

[rational]

Were they just stupid in not making it a requirement that an American auto be purchased? I think more people would be in favor of the program if that was the case. The big question now is how many repossessions are going to occur as a result of this program (as compared with the rate before the program).

[MrCapitalism]

Were they just stupid in not making it a requirement that an American auto be purchased?

That would have been illegal.

[Vaard]

they shold have just given them that money for down payments on houses they couldnt afford... what could go wrong?

[Vaard]

how soon before republicans start accusing dems of forcing car loan companies to make bad loans to people?

[B' en Natuf]

That would have been illegal.The excuse de jour... and decidedly false. I do understand they have to put out this bit of disingenuous tripe to prevent the bcklash, but its simply not true. Technically the money is going to individuals, as such, any restrictions on its use fall outside of any trade agreement which would only cover direct subsidies or tarrifs. Liberals are lying to you yet again... and like a true sheople, you are gobbling it up. There is no trade agreement which covers restrictions on what money can be used for when the money is given to an individual.

That said, what do you suppose we should do when the artificial auto bubble burts and what's been purchsed in it has real declining value (declining eventually ro Zero) and not just percieved declining value? This stupid contrived bubble is creating a situation which will give auto manufacturers a short breath of air only to have the life breath sucked from them later.

[MrCapitalism]

how soon before republicans start accusing dems of forcing car loan companies to make bad loans to people?

They've already been saying that. Where have you been?

[B' en Natuf]

how soon before republicans start accusing dems of forcing car loan companies to make bad loans to people?C4C is the governments latest attempt at incentivising irresponsibility.

[Vaard]

They've already been saying that. Where have you been?

month end close.... hard to keep up with the republican tripe......

[B' en Natuf]

month end close.... hard to keep up with the republican tripe......I hope you bought something worthwhile with the 4500 bucks you stole from my children.

[ChicoLibertarian]

The excuse de jour... and decidedly false. I do understand they have to put out this bit of disingenuous tripe to prevent the bcklash, but its simply not true. Technically the money is going to individuals, as such, any restrictions on its use fall outside of any trade agreement which would only cover direct subsidies or tarrifs.

Are you sure that I can take my clunker to a dealer, collect $4500 and not buy an automobile? Isn't it true that you only get the $4500 if you purchase an automobile?


That said, what do you suppose we should do when the artificial auto bubble burts

You are aware that there was a tremendous amount of inventory on hand, aren't you? I drive by the Benecia unloading facility every so often and the number of cars sitting in the holding lots is enormous! It wasn't that way prior to the downturn. So, my take on it is that a large amount of unsold inventory is being cleared out.

[MrCapitalism]

Are you sure that I can take my clunker to a dealer, collect $4500 and not buy an automobile? Isn't it true that you only get the $4500 if you purchase an automobile?



You are aware that there was a tremendous amount of inventory on hand, aren't you? I drive by the Benecia unloading facility every so often and the number of cars sitting in the holding lots is enormous! It wasn't that way prior to the downturn. So, my take on it is that a large amount of unsold inventory is being cleared out.

Yes, it is clearly a direct subsidy. In fact, buy american provisions were in the bill, they were stripped out after several trade lawyers weighed in on it. That is just how it went down.

You are of course right with the second part as well.

[MrCapitalism]

Liberals are lying to you yet again... and like a true sheople, you are gobbling it up.

Those evil liberals were the ones that wanted a buy American provision in the first place.

[B' en Natuf]

Are you sure that I can take my clunker to a dealer, collect $4500 and not buy an automobile? Isn't it true that you only get the $4500 if you purchase an automobile?Obviously what could be purchased was restricted. Obviously it could as easily be further restricted. The money is disbburesed to individuals for a defined purpose... no trade agreement even remotely covers such disburesments.



You are aware that there was a tremendous amount of inventory on hand, aren't you? I drive by the Benecia unloading facility every so often and the number of cars sitting in the holding lots is enormous! It wasn't that way prior to the downturn. So, my take on it is that a large amount of unsold inventory is being cleared out.So what? That there was a large unsold inventory does not mean I have any responsibility to make sure it gets sold... or my kids.

[B' en Natuf]

Yes, it is clearly a direct subsidy. In fact, buy american provisions were in the bill, they were stripped out after several trade lawyers weighed in on it. That is just how it went down.

You are of course right with the second part as well.It is decidely NOT a direct subsidy and who cares what a few trade lawyers say... they have been wrong before. And who cares about part deaux... their unsold inventory is their problem.

[ChicoLibertarian]

So what? That there was a large unsold inventory does not mean I have any responsibility to make sure it gets sold... or my kids.

My point about unsold inventory was directed at your claim that this would create a "production bubble" that would burst when the program ended. I was simply pointing out that automobile manufacturers had a problem with excessive stock and this program is helping with that. And you know what? The employees that work in idled production facilities probably appreciate that as well.

[MrCapitalism]

It is decidely NOT a direct subsidy and who cares what a few trade lawyers say


You make a good point, you are certainly far more qualified to speak to these matters. Accept my apology.

[B' en Natuf]

Those evil liberals were the ones that wanted a buy American provision in the first place.To be sure I would not have supported the provision to begin with... to be sure I don't support the program at all in any event. What I can't stand here is the disingenuous parroting of "law" that is so obviously not true. It is merely the excuse de jour, and since most people will take their word for it, they'll get away with it. My problem is not with the provision its with the lying.

[B' en Natuf]

My point about unsold inventory was directed at your claim that this would create a "production bubble" that would burst when the program ended. I was simply pointing out that automobile manufacturers had a problem with excessive stock and this program is helping with that. And you know what? The employees that work in idled production facilities probably appreciate that as well.Where did I say anythin about a "production" bubble? It's an artificial SALES bubble. And I dn't give a rats ass what those employees feel. They have no right to indebt my children for their "appreciation".

[MrCapitalism]

To be sure I would not have supported the provision to begin with... to be sure I don't support the program at all in any event. What I can't stand here is the disingenuous parroting of "law" that is so obviously not true. It is merely the excuse de jour, and since most people will take their word for it, they'll get away with it. My problem is not with the provision its with the lying.

Like I said, I don't know what you do, but you should go into trade lawyering. Hell, my firm paid one 1000 an hour. Thats a damn good gig.

[egs21]

Its easy to spend money that is not yours. Im sure we all remember a time when we were young and our parents handed us money to buy things. That money at the time didn't mean much since we weren't the ones having to work of it. Well, that is exactly how the dems and Obama are handling our money, like a bunch of spoiled teenagers shopping in the mall with mom and dads credit card.

They had some far left wack job on the radio this morning praising the success of the "cash for clunkers" program. What this guy failed to realize, as many seem to be doing, is this is our money that the dems in Congress are just giving away. Why not just throw bundles of 4500 dollars out of planes all across America? Why not the cash for airplanes, or the cash for gas station, or even the cash for failed left wing news organiztions? I joke about that last one, but I think they may be serious about that one.

This left wing nut, went on to blame Fox New for making up news, for telling the people if they can't run a bankrupt cash for clunkers what make anyone believe they can run health care. They guy said, once they heard that from Fox they went out and repeated it.
Fox News is killing everyone in the ratings for a reason, they tell us the truth despite what he left thinks, the numbers don't lie.

Where is the end of the give-aways? The sad part of all this is, the cash for clunkers was suppose to stimulate American car purchases, instead from what I am hearing and seeing, many are using our tax money and purchasing foreign cars. Obama is hiding the numbers and facts behind this program for a reason. I think when the truth comes out it will show that most of these cash for clunker deal gave our money to foreign auto makers and their countries.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?pp_album=main&pp_cat=&pp_image=Obama_joker.jpg

This is really not much different than Bush tax cuts / stimulus programs that were not paid for but were used to stimulate the economy. Did you have this kind of outrage then? If so, then cool, but I want to make sure you are being consistent and not being partisan.

[wildcat87]

can someone tell me if there was outrage at giving $30,000+ per car tax breaks on SUV's in the mid 2000's? Just curious.

usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm

[B' en Natuf]

You make a good point, you are certainly far more qualified to speak to these matters. Accept my apology.If your being serious there is no need. That this is not a matter of any legal trade restrictions is a point of law which can be argued. Ultimately a court would decide... an American court, since we don't recognize world courts. The point is if they thought it should be in the bill... they should have put it there and let the courts decide the legality. My take is that disbursements made to individuals are not covered. If you think about it that way... it becomes obvious that the excuse for removing the provision was just that... an excuse. And, a poor one.

[redfish64]

month end close.... hard to keep up with the republican tripe......

Yes by all mean, dissension is so over rated. Doesn't anyone in congress feel embarresed that a fox news reporter on a car lot figured out, that if you took the number of dealships in the country and divided it by 1 billion, that only 10 cars can be sold at each dealership with cash for clunkers? He was standing there talking to a dealership owner who sold about 20, and asked him have you recieved all you money yet?:)) Next thing you know the Dems are coming out on TV saying we might need more money:eek: LMAO. Yes by all means lets not question the democrats. We don't want to be seen as unpatriotic.:lol:

[egs21]

can someone tell me if there was outrage at giving $30,000+ per car tax breaks on SUV's in the mid 2000's? Just curious.

usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm

Great link. Simply put, there was none. Plus, that was all financed via deficit spending, which was the main criticism of the original post of this thread.

[wildcat87]

Great link. Simply put, there was none. Plus, that was all financed via deficit spending, which was the main criticism of the original post of this thread.

yeah, I keep posting it and you're the first one to respond.....

[egs21]

yeah, I keep posting it and you're the first one to respond.....

Well, I am independent, Obama supporter, not a partisan right winger. Clearly it seems like deficit spending is only ok if the GOP does it:rolleyes:

[Rurudyne]

WKRP threw turkeys from a helicopter.

They didn't fly either, if I recall correctly.

The only difference is that this bunch will keep doing what hasn't worked and will never show remorse if the nation hits the pavement. Just like communism was never managed by the right people, they'll say they just never tried hard enough.

[redfish64]

This is really not much different than Bush tax cuts / stimulus programs that were not paid for but were used to stimulate the economy. Did you have this kind of outrage then? If so, then cool, but I want to make sure you are being consistent and not being partisan.

One big difference, Bush tax cuts went to everyone. The 4500 dollars goes to just those who are buying a car. From the news that is getting out, it is mostly people that should not be buying a new car. Hence the reason they are driving a clunker. Plus the 4500 has been taken from me, not given to me in the form of tax cut as Bush did.

[B' en Natuf]

can someone tell me if there was outrage at giving $30,000+ per car tax breaks on SUV's in the mid 2000's? Just curious.

usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htmAllowing a business a tax break for their purchases through deductability which allows them to keep more of the money THEY earn is decidedly different than allowing auto companies acces to the money I earned.

[Vaard]

I hope you bought something worthwhile with the 4500 bucks you stole from my children.

i hope those kids are sleeping well in the house i helped pay for with the $5k you stole form my kids.....

[Vaard]

WKRP threw turkeys from a helicopter.

They didn't fly either, if I recall correctly.

The only difference is that this bunch will keep doing what hasn't worked and will never show remorse if the nation hits the pavement. Just like communism was never managed by the right people, they'll say they just never tried hard enough.

i swear, as god as my witness, i thought turkeys could fly.......


best episode of the whole series.......

[Vaard]

Allowing a business a tax break for their purchases through deductability which allows them to keep more of the money THEY earn is decidedly different than allowing auto companies acces to the money I earned.

see.. socialism and marxism is ok with republicans as long as republicans are the ones doing it.......

[MrCapitalism]

i swear, as god as my witness, i thought turkeys could fly.......


best episode of the whole series.......


Maybe of any series ever.

[B' en Natuf]

Great link. Simply put, there was none. Plus, that was all financed via deficit spending, which was the main criticism of the original post of this thread.Deficit spending is cased by the gov't SPENDING money it doesn't have. Tax cuts are NOT spending... they are just not TAKING the money in the first place.

When the government allows deductability for purchases for a business they are allowing the business to keep more of their OWN money. When the government subsidizes purchases for anybody they are giving away MY money... big difference.

[egs21]

One big difference, Bush tax cuts went to everyone. The 4500 dollars goes to just those who are buying a car. From the news that is getting out, it is mostly people that should not be buying a new car. Hence the reason they are driving a clunker. Plus the 4500 has been taken from me, not given to me in the form of tax cut as Bush did.

I'll never understand the logic of people who think "deficit causing tax cuts" (like the Bush tax cuts) are ok, but deficit spending is not ok.

The Bush stimulus bill from 2007 did not go to everyone. It phased out with certain income levels. The $7,500 first time home buyers refundable tax credit (loan) only went to first time homebuyers.

[redfish64]

i hope those kids are sleeping well in the house i helped pay for with the $5k you stole form my kids.....

Oh I didn't know this was tit for tat govenment. Why didn't you tell me. So its gotten to the point where if dems spend then the GOP should spend more, and then the dems spend. Oh ok I get it now. Lets just spend all the money until its gone, and our Navy is in dry dock cause we can't afford to run the ships, kinda like Russia. Then we will just sit around in the dark, with no heat, rationed gas, high cost on food, high interest rates, kinda like the Jimmy Carter years. Ok now I understand. I didn't know it was a mutual agreement to ruin the country.

Vote them all out! Anyone that voted yes for spending is losing their seat in November.

[Rurudyne]

i swear, as god as my witness, i thought turkeys could fly.......


best episode of the whole series.......
And there were a lot of good ones too.

[B' en Natuf]

see.. socialism and marxism is ok with republicans as long as republicans are the ones doing it.......Marxism is when you think the money you have belongs to the governent and that they allow you to keep some of it. Tax cuts or deductions are not the equivalent of spending. It is NOT the governments money. Socialism can not be affected by the government allowing you to keep whats yours to begin with... thats capitalism. When the government takes it from you and gives it away... THATS socialism.

[egs21]

Deficit spending is cased by the gov't SPENDING money it doesn't have. Tax cuts are NOT spending... they are just not TAKING the money in the first place.

When the government allows deductability for purchases for a business they are allowing the business to keep more of their OWN money. When the government subsidizes purchases for anybody they are giving away MY money... big difference.

You end up with the same result either way. If I make $20k per year and spend $20k and I have net deficit of $0. If I increase my spending (deficit spending) by $10K and my income stays the same at $20k, I will have a -$10 deficit. On the other hand, if I cut my income by $10k (tax cuts) and keep my spending the same at $20k, I will still end up with a -$10k deficit.

If its not the same, how do explain the massive deficit Bush rang up? Clearly, he cut taxes but continued spending, therefore leading to a deficit.

[Vaard]

Oh I didn't know this was tit for tat govenment. Why didn't you tell me. So its gotten to the point where if dems spend then the GOP should spend more, and then the dems spend. Oh ok I get it now. Lets just spend all the money until its gone, and our Navy is in dry dock cause we can't afford to run the ships, kinda like Russia. Then we will just sit around in the dark, with no heat, rationed gas, high cost on food, high interest rates, kinda like the Jimmy Carter years. Ok now I understand. I didn't know it was a mutual agreement to ruin the country.

Vote them all out! Anyone that voted yes for spending is losing their seat in November.

yeah, each party tries to outdo the previous parties spending, increasing the size of government and taken way of our rights and freedoms........


sure.. vote them all out and replace them with more of the same........

[redfish64]

I'll never understand the logic of people who think "deficit causing tax cuts" (like the Bush tax cuts) are ok, but deficit spending is not ok.

The Bush stimulus bill from 2007 did not go to everyone. It phased out with certain income levels. The $7,500 first time home buyers refundable tax credit (loan) only went to first time homebuyers.

Let me school you on the realities. If you have a bank account and a check book you may understand what Im about to tell you. If you have a hundred dollars in your account and you spend 125 dollar that is overdrawn. It is a fact and proven, that when taxes are cut on business, revenues to the govenment, double.(undisputable don't even try). If I tell you that the 100 dollar in that account is only to pay me 10 dollar instead of 25 dollars Im sure you would use that extra money in some way.

The problem starts when government refuses to balance a check book like the rest of us. Take Social Security for example. Not a bad thing in my mind. You have so much money taken out of your check each week and it is waiting for you when you retire. Government was NOT to take this money and use it, THEY DID. Hence the problem, we are now paying 1/3 of our federal budget on just paying the interest on the money borrowed from Socail Security. Our budget roughly is about 1.3 to 1.5 trillion dollars a year. Here is the second fact, with a budget of, lets say 1.3 trillion dollars, our government on a regular basis spends about 1.8 trillion. So back to your checking account again. 1.3 in your account and you spend 1.8...

[Buffalo]

Its easy to spend money that is not yours. Im sure we all remember a time when we were young and our parents handed us money to buy things. That money at the time didn't mean much since we weren't the ones having to work of it. Well, that is exactly how the dems and Obama are handling our money, like a bunch of spoiled teenagers shopping in the mall with mom and dads credit card.

They had some far left wack job on the radio this morning praising the success of the "cash for clunkers" program. What this guy failed to realize, as many seem to be doing, is this is our money that the dems in Congress are just giving away. Why not just throw bundles of 4500 dollars out of planes all across America? Why not the cash for airplanes, or the cash for gas station, or even the cash for failed left wing news organiztions? I joke about that last one, but I think they may be serious about that one.

This left wing nut, went on to blame Fox New for making up news, for telling the people if they can't run a bankrupt cash for clunkers what make anyone believe they can run health care. They guy said, once they heard that from Fox they went out and repeated it.
Fox News is killing everyone in the ratings for a reason, they tell us the truth despite what he left thinks, the numbers don't lie.

Where is the end of the give-aways? The sad part of all this is, the cash for clunkers was suppose to stimulate American car purchases, instead from what I am hearing and seeing, many are using our tax money and purchasing foreign cars. Obama is hiding the numbers and facts behind this program for a reason. I think when the truth comes out it will show that most of these cash for clunker deal gave our money to foreign auto makers and their countries.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?pp_album=main&pp_cat=&pp_image=Obama_joker.jpg
The CPA did that in Iraq and we're still trying to figure out where 9 billion went to. At least these funds actually went towards something.

[Vaard]

Let me school you on the realities. If you have a bank account and a check book you may understand what Im about to tell you. If you have a hundred dollars in your account and you spend 125 dollar that is overdrawn. It is a fact and proven, that when taxes are cut on business, revenues to the govenment, double.(undisputable don't even try). If I tell you that the 100 dollar in that account is only to pay me 10 dollar instead of 25 dollars Im sure you would use that extra money in some way.

The problem starts when government refuses to balance a check book like the rest of us. Take Social Security for example. Not a bad thing in my mind. You have so much money taken out of your check each week and it is waiting for you when you retire. Government was NOT to take this money and use it, THEY DID. Hence the problem, we are now paying 1/3 of our federal budget on just paying the interest on the money borrowed from Socail Security. Our budget roughly is about 1.3 to 1.5 trillion dollars a year. Here is the second fact, with a budget of, lets say 1.3 trillion dollars, our government on a regular basis spends about 1.8 trillion. So back to your checking account again. 1.3 in your account and you spend 1.8...



wow... when you put it like that it makes someone that would say somethign like "the deficit is big enough to take care of itself" out to be a complete imbecile........


wouldnt you agree that someone who said something like that would have to be about the dumbest person you ever knew?

[egs21]

Let me school you on the realities. If you have a bank account and a check book you may understand what Im about to tell you. If you have a hundred dollars in your account and you spend 125 dollar that is overdrawn. It is a fact and proven, that when taxes are cut on business, revenues to the govenment, double.(undisputable don't even try). If I tell you that the 100 dollar in that account is only to pay me 10 dollar instead of 25 dollars Im sure you would use that extra money in some way.

The problem starts when government refuses to balance a check book like the rest of us. Take Social Security for example. Not a bad thing in my mind. You have so much money taken out of your check each week and it is waiting for you when you retire. Government was NOT to take this money and use it, THEY DID. Hence the problem, we are now paying 1/3 of our federal budget on just paying the interest on the money borrowed from Socail Security. Our budget roughly is about 1.3 to 1.5 trillion dollars a year. Here is the second fact, with a budget of, lets say 1.3 trillion dollars, our government on a regular basis spends about 1.8 trillion. So back to your checking account again. 1.3 in your account and you spend 1.8...

I do understand how this all works and I am not disputing the whole tax revenue thing. The problem is that while your theory is correct, in reality it did not quite work out that way. Bush made significant tax cuts, which was good as it did have some stimulative effect. However, even if it did in fact double tax revenue as you said, it was easily wiped out and then some by excessive spending. Hence the massive deficit that was left upon him leaving office. Theories are great, but they don't always work out as planned in the real world.

[egs21]

The CPA did that in Iraq and we're still trying to figure out where 9 billion went to. At least these funds actually went towards something.

Exactly. We stimulated DOMESTICALLY for once instead of blowing money in Iraq.

[redfish64]

yeah, each party tries to outdo the previous parties spending, increasing the size of government and taken way of our rights and freedoms........


sure.. vote them all out and replace them with more of the same........

why do you agree with me that this is bipartisan spending but yet you are always pointing the finger at the GOP? Voting them out of office is our right since this is our govenment, and if more trash is voted in, we vote them right back out. Keep it going till they get the message. The majority of our founding fathers were men of the cloth, teachers, military men, farmers, and writers. Today the majority in Congress are men and women who have never made or produced anything. They have never run a business, never paid a payroll, never sat down with the people they work for. This Congress is more detatched than ever before, out of touch. Obama for example has never had a regular job, so how can he tell us about something he knows nothing about?

[redfish64]

I do understand how this all works and I am not disputing the whole tax revenue thing. The problem is that while your theory is correct, in reality it did not quite work out that way. Bush made significant tax cuts, which was good as it did have some stimulative effect. However, even if it did in fact double tax revenue as you said, it was easily wiped out and then some by excessive spending. Hence the massive deficit that was left upon him leaving office. Theories are great, but they don't always work out as planned in the real world.

It was not wiped out by massive spending. You're wrong. The crumble in the housing market cause this whole thing to topple like dominos. When Bush left office he left rougly 500 billion dollar in deficit. Now under Obama it is over 2 trillion and that does not include health care or all of our bankrupt intitilement programs that Obama want to side step.
http://www.euronewspages.com/herald-tribune/2008-7-29_bush-expected-to-leave-482-billion-deficit

[redfish64]

wow... when you put it like that it makes someone that would say somethign like "the deficit is big enough to take care of itself" out to be a complete imbecile........


wouldnt you agree that someone who said something like that would have to be about the dumbest person you ever knew?

Reagan was correct, and later proven by not only fact, but by word of people like Robert Reich.
A portion of the article:
President Reagan famously quipped, "I'm not worried about the deficit -- it's big enough to take care of itself."

Taken at the time as out-to-lunch insouciance, Reagan's quip was right. The budget deficit took care of itself, a fact worth recalling in light of the deficit angst currently tormenting Democrats everywhere.

Democrats invoke with longing the Clinton administration's approach to the deficit in the 1990s, and they should, so long as it is properly understood. How to summarize it in a word? "Relax."
http://townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2003/05/13/the_deficit_is_big_enough_to_take_care_of_itself

[B' en Natuf]

Exactly. We stimulated DOMESTICALLY for once instead of blowing money in Iraq.C4C is not stimulating the economy into a recovery. It is creating an artificial sales bubble in one segment of the economy which will collapse as soon as the money is no longer available, or as soon as the market adjusts... whichever comes first. Ether way we will still have to pay the 4500 bucks back (with interest) which will in turn create a dampening effect on the future economy by taking that money OUT of the hands of those who would most readily spend it then. We are doing nothing but buying our own present at the expense of ours and our childrens future... it is NOT a good trade off. Once again the government is incentivising people to spend money they don't have by borrowing it from their children before they've even made it. Once again the government is incentivising irresponsibility. Once again the gonernment is telling you the way to prosperity is to spend money you don't have that hasn't been earned yet by ANYONE.

House of cards.

[egs21]

It was not wiped out by massive spending. You're wrong. The crumble in the housing market cause this whole thing to topple like dominos. When Bush left office he left rougly 500 billion dollar in deficit. Now under Obama it is over 2 trillion and that does not include health care or all of our bankrupt intitilement programs that Obama want to side step.
http://www.euronewspages.com/herald-tribune/2008-7-29_bush-expected-to-leave-482-billion-deficit

I am not sure how that is possible. This link from the Washington Post talks about the 2004 budget deficit, which was the biggest in history at the time. This was well before the housing market crashed--and I am curious, exactly how did the housing crash directly affect Bush's budgets? From the data I've seen, Bush had budget deficits immediately after his tax cut bill, which was well before the housing bubble burst.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Jul30.html

The following link has a chart (up to date to 2006) comparing Bush's defcits to Clintons. As you will see, the deficits started piling up immediately, even before the housing bubble burst.

http://zfacts.com/p/519.html

Lastly, using your link, Bush left office with a $500 billion dollar deficit. He had a surplus when he entered, so how exactly am I wrong by saying that his tax cuts were effectively wiped out by spending? The fact the he left $500 billion in the hole shows that any additional tax revenue that was created via tax cuts was wiped out with spending.

[ChicoLibertarian]

It was not wiped out by massive spending. You're wrong. The crumble in the housing market cause this whole thing to topple like dominos. When Bush left office he left rougly 500 billion dollar in deficit. Now under Obama it is over 2 trillion and that does not include health care or all of our bankrupt intitilement programs that Obama want to side step.
http://www.euronewspages.com/herald-tribune/2008-7-29_bush-expected-to-leave-482-billion-deficit

Bzzzt! You cons are now going to quote a European newspaper and expect us to believe it to be credible? After your constant attacks of all things Euro, you want us to now believe their press? For reals? :naughty:

[egs21]

C4C is not stimulating the economy into a recovery. It is creating an artificial sales bubble in one segment of the economy which will collapse as soon as the money is no longer available, or as soon as the market adjusts... whichever comes first. Ether way we will still have to pay the 4500 bucks back (with interest) which will in turn create a dampening effect on the future economy by taking that money OUT of the hands of those who would most readily spend it then. We are doing nothing but buying our own present at the expense of ours and our childrens future... it is NOT a good trade off. Once again the government is incentivising people to spend money they don't have by borrowing it from their children before they've even made it. Once again the government is incentivising irresponsibility. Once again the gonernment is telling you the way to prosperity is to spend money you don't have that hasn't been earned yet by ANYONE.

House of cards.

The same thing was done under Bush with tax cuts that led to deficits and stimulus programs. Not saying is right, but both parties have engaged in it, so lets call it as it is.

[ChicoLibertarian]

Where did I say anythin about a "production" bubble? It's an artificial SALES bubble.

I'm sorry, but you were not very clear on the type of bubble that you were talking about.

That said, what do you suppose we should do when the artificial auto bubble burts and what's been purchsed in it has real declining value (declining eventually ro Zero) and not just percieved declining value? This stupid contrived bubble is creating a situation which will give auto manufacturers a short breath of air only to have the life breath sucked from them later.

[B' en Natuf]

The same thing was done under Bush with tax cuts that led to deficits and stimulus programs. Not saying is right, but both parties have engaged in it, so lets call it as it is.Tax cuts are NOT spending. Tax cuts are NOT borrowing. Tax cuts are the government NOT taking. The two are not inyerchangeable. The deficit was not caused by "tax cuts" it was caused by the government SPENDING more than it took.

[redfish64]

Lastly, using your link, Bush left office with a $500 billion dollar deficit. He had a surplus when he entered, so how exactly am I wrong by saying that his tax cuts were effectively wiped out by spending? The fact the he left $500 billion in the hole shows that any additional tax revenue that was created via tax cuts was wiped out with spending.[/QUOTE]

We are at War!!! WAR, WAR,!!!! and this was spent over 8 years. Obama has spent 2 TRILLION IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!!!!! The idea of taking an bad situation, i.e. Bush, and quadrupling it doesn't wash.

[ChicoLibertarian]

Tax cuts are NOT spending. Tax cuts are NOT borrowing. Tax cuts are the government NOT taking. The two are not inyerchangeable. The deficit was not caused by "tax cuts" it was caused by the government SPENDING more than it took.

Then perhaps Bush should have vetoed a few spending bills?

[ChicoLibertarian]

We are at War!!! WAR, WAR,!!!! and this was spent over 8 years. Obama has spent 2 TRILLION IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!!!!! The idea of taking an bad situation, i.e. Bush, and quadrupling it doesn't wash.

Gosh, considering that we're at war and all, perhaps some people should stop criticizing the president. After all, that will just give comfort to and embolden the enemy.

[B' en Natuf]

Then perhaps Bush should have vetoed a few spending bills?No argument from me there.

In his defense though I will point out that no war has ever been fought and won except on borrowed money. In the event of war I do support the government running a deficit if its necessary to the war effort. Not saying the deficits under Bush were entirely due to the war or that he couldn't have forced the congress to spend less... but it ws a factor. And since we are still at war... srill is.

[egs21]

Lastly, using your link, Bush left office with a $500 billion dollar deficit. He had a surplus when he entered, so how exactly am I wrong by saying that his tax cuts were effectively wiped out by spending? The fact the he left $500 billion in the hole shows that any additional tax revenue that was created via tax cuts was wiped out with spending.

We are at War!!! WAR, WAR,!!!! and this was spent over 8 years. Obama has spent 2 TRILLION IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!!!!! The idea of taking an bad situation, i.e. Bush, and quadrupling it doesn't wash.[/quote]

Umm, and who wanted to go into war? Its not like Iraq directly attacked us and we had to defend ourselves. What happened to your theory that is was because of the housing crisis? Looks like you are shifting to the war in Iraq. I've got news for you--spending is spending, whether it is financing a war or anything else. You seem to think that war spending doesn't count or something.

Lastly, what does anything Obama has done have anything to do with the discussion of Bush deficits? Its not like Obama handed Bush the deficits.

Plus, Bush had veto power and could have said no to any additional spending if he wanted.

[egs21]

Tax cuts are NOT spending. Tax cuts are NOT borrowing. Tax cuts are the government NOT taking. The two are not inyerchangeable. The deficit was not caused by "tax cuts" it was caused by the government SPENDING more than it took.

Right, it was caused by "governement spending more than it took"--with "took" being the key word. If you have less income coming in because of a "cut" and you keep spending the same, then you end up with a deficit.

[B' en Natuf]

Right, it was caused by "governement spending more than it took"--with "took" being the key word. If you have less income coming in because of a "cut" and you keep spending the same, then you end up with a deficit.The tax cuts INCREASED revenue (income) to the government they did not cut it. The government INCREASED spending more than the increase in revenue thereby increasing the deficit. Tax cuts did not cause the deficit, if anything they helped to mitigate it and keep the deficit smaller than it otherwise would have been given the increased spending witout the tAX CUTS.

[Rurudyne]

Right, it was caused by "governement spending more than it took"--with "took" being the key word. If you have less income coming in because of a "cut" and you keep spending the same, then you end up with a deficit.
Actually, the dominant political fact that caused deficit spending to grow from 2001 to 2006 was the lack of a partisan reason for so-called "moderate" Republicans to restrain themselves any longer and cooperate with conservatives.

Beginning in 1995 the new Republican majority had a PARTISAN reason to hang together: opposition to a Democrat POTUS.

With the election of W this partisan reason evaporated. The moderates quickly came to understand that they held the voting block that would enable the President to achieve his policy goals and that he would have to give them what they wanted if he was to get what he wanted. It was the true end to conservative dominance of the RNC. Sure, the conservatives still held important leadership positions but they were no longer the true power because the President needed the moderates.

So President Bush rolled over and gave in to every spendthrift impulse.

If you think my analysis inaccurate, let me ask you something: why did moderates vote FOR the bail out but vote AGAINST the stimulus — nearly in lockstep?

They have a new partisan reason to go along with conservatives ... the old partisan reason in fact.

[redfish64]

We are at War!!! WAR, WAR,!!!! and this was spent over 8 years. Obama has spent 2 TRILLION IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!!!!! The idea of taking an bad situation, i.e. Bush, and quadrupling it doesn't wash.[/quote]

Umm, and who wanted to go into war? Its not like Iraq directly attacked us and we had to defend ourselves. What happened to your theory that is was because of the housing crisis? Looks like you are shifting to the war in Iraq. I've got news for you--spending is spending, whether it is financing a war or anything else. You seem to think that war spending doesn't count or something.

Lastly, what does anything Obama has done have anything to do with the discussion of Bush deficits? Its not like Obama handed Bush the deficits.

Plus, Bush had veto power and could have said no to any additional spending if he wanted.___________________________________________ ____
You made the statement that the war in Iraq lead to all of Obama troubles, and Bush left him with all this debt. The housing market crash lead to the economic troubles we are in, and those trouble can and will in time be linked directly to democrats. Although republican hands are not clean by any means, they are on record, by video and print as trying to stop the cash give-aways to AIG. As for the war in Iraq, I can care less who caused it, or was it right or wrong, you believe what you want. All Im saying is when it comes to Bushs debt you have to take into consideration that most of that comes from the war in Iraq and Afgaistan. That debt is one accumulated over eight years. Obama has spent four time that in less than six months and still has not fixed any issues that threaten us as a country, such as Social Security, Med/care/cade. The over two trillion in debt Obama has accumualted alone does not even include his attempts at health care which is estimated at a trillion dollars alone. I am totally in agreement that Bush was not a fiscal Conservative, and the republican spent like drunken sailors, but like I said, to say that Bush gave me all this debt and then quadruple it like Obama has, simply will not wash. Anyone who want to argue with that is climbing a steep mountain.

[egs21]

[/i]_______________________________________________
You made the statement that the war in Iraq lead to all of Obama troubles, and Bush left him with all this debt. The housing market crash lead to the economic troubles we are in, and those trouble can and will in time be linked directly to democrats. Although republican hands are not clean by any means, they are on record, by video and print as trying to stop the cash give-aways to AIG. As for the war in Iraq, I can care less who caused it, or was it right or wrong, you believe what you want. All Im saying is when it comes to Bushs debt you have to take into consideration that most of that comes from the war in Iraq and Afgaistan. That debt is one accumulated over eight years. Obama has spent four time that in less than six months and still has not fixed any issues that threaten us as a country, such as Social Security, Med/care/cade. The over two trillion in debt Obama has accumualted alone does not even include his attempts at health care which is estimated at a trillion dollars alone. I am totally in agreement that Bush was not a fiscal Conservative, and the republican spent like drunken sailors, but like I said, to say that Bush gave me all this debt and then quadruple it like Obama has, simply will not wash. Anyone who want to argue with that is climbing a steep mountain.

What statement did I make that said "the war in Iraq lead to all Obama's troubles"?

Show me where I said that and this discussion can continue. Otherwise, this conversation is pointless if you are going to make things up.

[agent_86]

how soon before republicans start accusing dems of forcing car loan companies to make bad loans to people?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090805/bs_nm/us_usa_housing_deutschebank

who knows...