Congress at work: '$1 billion an hour'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    politico

    I don't see how this type of spending is sustainable. Yes this economy needs a shot in the arm, but how much is enough?

    When Obama said "change" this isn't what I thought he meant.
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    :rolleyes:
    Where the hell do you get that this is going to be sustained? They arent passing bailouts everyday.

    This is the garbage FUD that is going to cost them dearly.
     
  3. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    AirPelosi has just opened the door for a second bailout...

    link
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    and?

    So thats just one more instance of big spending, but do you honestly believe it will keep going at this rate? These are drastic measures to deal with a temporary issue.

    You can't honestly beleive this will be ongoing for 4 years?
     
  5. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5

    Er, the Omnibus bill was carried over from last autumn from the last administration and represents a year's spending, not 50 days worth. Same with the Recovery Act; spent over the coming year.

    Why can't they just stop lying?
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    Because thats how they think they can get votes, by spreading fear.
     
  7. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #7
    Hell I hope it doesn't keep going for another 4 years. Don't forget Obama's holy grail universal healthcare. It doubt that's going to be cheap either.
     
  8. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #8
    You have to remember that quite a few people think its a good idea when the government spends our money. Remember, the government is smarter at spending our money than we are. Oh, wait....
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    Aparrantly this thread will be an echo chamber based on FUD, how sad.
     
  10. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    So I take it you think government spending is in check then?

    I think its getting ridiculous.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    Hey buddy, I've seen your credit card receipts, I can't believe how much you spent on pixie sticks and the gum from baseball cards.

    And what do you do with 24 cases of Rockstar Energy Drink every day?
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    I think its ridiculous you act as if this kind of spending is going to go on for 4 years when you know damn well it isn't.
     
  13. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #13
    Actually it was you who mentioned "4 years" so who is peddling the FUD here? This bailout plus a possible second bailout plus universal heathcare is going to be very expensive and guess who is going to pay for it? It won't be just the top 5% of money makers.
     
  14. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    Perhaps so. But it's the only proven way to alleviate the effects of a steep and historical recession. I'd rather not see the British government also throwing billions at banks, but since a banking collapse and run would be even more disastrous for the global economy, it's fair to say that governments all over the world, regardless of their orientation are considering or enacting their own versions of the Recovery Act and stimulus spending.

    There's no part of this that looks any good for the world as a whole.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    It was you that said "I don't see how this type of spending is sustainable." which reads to me as if you expect this kind of spending for the entire term.

    If you werent spreading FUD you would have named the thread something resembling the fact that these arent normal circumstances.
     
  16. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16
    Hold on. Don't confuse the TARP with the Recovery Act. And Obama's shying away from universal healthcare as you guys understand it.
     
  17. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #17
    The words I've used there don't imply anything about the current presidential term.

    When do you think its going to end then? I've twice mentioned what's on the horizon in terms of Obama's agenda and it won't be cheap. The end isn't quite in sight yet.

    I understand money must be spent to prevent economic free fall but they should slow the f down don't you think?


    Is the thread title inaccurate?
     
  18. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #18

    The Recovery Act is signed and done. The TARP funds were allocated and ringfenced by the last administration. The Omnibus Bill was also carried over from the last administration and was merely waiting for a new congress to get it done.

    Obama's budget was careful to allocate funds to his healthcare plans and to also cost the two wars, including the potential savings from reducing the Iraq deployment.

    Even though Pelosi might be floating trial balloons, it doesn't mean it's going to get past a veto or even eventuate.
     
  19. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    You're words don't imply anything about the current presidential term? Maybe it's all your talk about "sustainability" and Obama's economic plans (whose term is four years) led him to throw out the four years figure.

    Geez, even when talking about FUD you try and take the conversation off topic. :rolleyes:

    And I don't get what level of comparison you have to think that "they should slow the f down." If you recognize that money must be spent to prevent economic free fall, what leads you to believe that what's being spent is too much? Is it just because "a billion" sounds like a lot? I'd like to see your suggestion for how much should be spent to prevent the free fall.
     
  20. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #20
    Imo, its better that I choose how to spend my money, instead of having someone in washington spend it for me, regardless of what i spend it on. Washington doesnt have to be held responsible for their spending, whereas I do, for if a spend to much on useless items i dont get to pay rent, eat, or drive my car. If the government runs out of money they just take more from the citizens. The government is too large to be accountable for itself, and its not going to slim down any time soon.
     
  21. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #21
    So you don't believe in paying any taxes at all?
     
  22. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #22
    Thats not at all what i said. The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, and i will gladly pay any taxes that contribute to this. I do, however, have a problem with taxes that get spent on irresponsible business owners, pointless wars, various 'research' escapades that have yet to make progress...

    The government can only spend money that it takes from someone else, and it should be held responsible for spending that money to benefit the people it was taken from.
     
  23. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #23
    But all of this money is borrowed. I'm not paying any more than I did last year, and due to the credit crunch, borrowing money is fairly difficult. So yes, at this point in time, the government is better at borrowing and spending money than we are because they can actually borrow money...

    The government has been borrowing money for years on the assumption that keeping taxes low would spur growth that would pay the deficit. If that's the case they spent money that they didn't have without taking more from anyone. Whether or not that works is up for debate.
     
  24. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    nailed it!!!!!

    They pass laws allowing them to reach into our bank accounts and grab what they need (or more accurately: what they want) then they sit around and decide how best to spend our money.

    I'm happy to contribute to funding the public works and infrastructure as well as national and local defense (including fire and EMS etc), but beyond that there should be a way to opt out if you don't agree with how the money is being spent.

    They've borrowed it with the understanding that they'd send us the bill when it came due. I fail to see how this is any different than just taking it away from us now.



    SLC
     
  25. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #25
    Nothing excuses the crap he signed so far.

    Nothing, nada, ZIP.
     

Share This Page