What I've noticed about liberals

[Ugmo]

Reagan had a massive military buildup that accounted for his spending.
Bush (the W kind) spent out of control, and is a reason I no longer consider myself a Republican.

And, if you want to point fingers at people spending, Obama spent more than every single president in history combined.

So it's okay to spend money like it's going out of style as long as you spend it on a massive military buildup, but if you spend money to avoid a possible Second Great Depression, that's not a good deal for the nation as a whole.

[VinnieKulick]

[Ugmo]

You know Vinster, at some point you're going to have to admit that the premise of this thread was fatally flawed from the beginning, because a) you didn't realize when you started that the president submits a detailed budget to Congress for approval and b) every Republican president in modern times has been a poster boy for fiscal irresponsibility.

[pooldude]

You know Vinster, at some point you're going to have to admit that the premise of this thread was fatally flawed from the beginning...

Vinnie failed in the art of respectful debate by the fourth sentence of his opening statement.

I don't want to totally hate democrats, but...

That's the type of mentality that causes gridlock, & inhibits any progress, to the detriment of us all.

[Ugmo]

Forget respectful debate, he lost the debate automatically by basing it on an irredeemably flawed premise! And then with that fourth sentence he was just begging for a verbal beatdown.

That's the type of mentality that causes gridlock, & inhibits any progress, to the detriment of us all.

Okay, but this is Sludge, not Congress, and Sludge has never been about respectful debate.

What I'm wondering is when was the last time there was a conservative on here who was actually capable of debating without clowning himself? I mean, the Vinster clowned himself in his opening post. How come the conservatives here are so intellectually outgunned?

[KneelandBobDylan]

How come the conservatives here are so intellectually outgunned?

Meh, it's an occupational hazard, in that, in much the same way many Dems, who don't seem to have one testicle between them, most conservatives, (it certainly can't be said about the conservatives that are "gaming" the system) don't have a brain between them, and the ones they do display tend to be small and lizard-like.

[Ugmo]

I found this article about GWB and posted it in another thread:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... ndex1.html

Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film "The Grapes of Wrath," based on John Steinbeck's novel of the Depression. "We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."

Doesn't that sound like every single conservative on here? Imagine if Vinnie Kulick were to become POTUS someday.

[VinnieKulick]

Well, I am not a Republican any more, so pointing at republicans really doesn't effect me.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but every single big spending bill proposed in this year has been championed by a Democrat.

And, yes, at the peak of the cold war, it was reasonable to spend a lot of money on the military.

I have no problem with social security, medicare, or medicade. I do think Labor Unions are outdated and are ripping off their members. The SEIU is a prime example.

And, like I said before when the biggest, brightest idea anybody here can point to is the interstate highway, it shows how much the obscene spending that is being proposed, or has been passed actually are.

And, the whole "we needed to spend this money to prevent another depression" is a load of shit. It was the most poorly thought out and poorly administered spending in our history.

Not only that, but when Obama stands and says it will prevent the unemployment from going over 8% if we don't spend this money, and it goes up over 10%, isn't it a waste of money? How many real jobs were 'created' by stimulus spending?
The government doesn't create jobs, unless it is expanding. The private sector is where the main source of jobs come from, and it's just as bad now as it was a year ago.

[Ugmo]

And, yes, at the peak of the cold war, it was reasonable to spend a lot of money on the military.

Well that's great, because on the cusp of the Second Great Depression, I think it is reasonable to spend a lot of money on economic stimulus measures.

[VinnieKulick]

A) We weren't on the verge of a depression.
Our GDP was not in danger of being reduced as much as the Great Depression.
We were not in danger of 25% unemployment.

The banking "crisis" which was largely due to bad mortgages would have not been a big disaster. There are plenty of banks worldwide that have the capital to buy up the bad loans.

And, lets just say for arguments sake, that the bailout WAS needed. There was still so much wasteful spending, that could have,(and should have) been eliminated, it wouldn't be as costly as it was.

The auto bailout was not needed, and was IMO Unconstitutional. Giving 40% of the stock of GM to the UAW is as horrible.

And, we just had to give GM 10 billion or so MORE money?

Is it a coincidence that Ford, who took no stimulus money, is the only one of the big three that is competitive and not lossing billions of dollars every year? If a company can't compete, it shouldn't be the government's job to pay their bills, with our tax dollars.

[Ugmo]

A) We weren't on the verge of a depression.
Our GDP was not in danger of being reduced as much as the Great Depression.
We were not in danger of 25% unemployment.

That's settled it then. I believe you and not the numerous economists who advised Obama (and Bush before him), because obviously you're an expert on this topic.

[VinnieKulick]

We were not above 9% unemployment when this hysteria started. (compared to 24.9% in the depression)
Our GDP was less than 7% lower in 2009. (compared to a loss of 13% during the depression)
That's not a depression.
Not even close.

[Ugmo]

Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman vs. Metal Sludge Porn Enthusiast "Vinnie Kulick" - will there be a Second Great Depression?

YOU DECIDE!


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opini ... ugman.html

[VinnieKulick]

Yes, an opinion piece devoid of facts or numbers.

Statistics do not lie.

We were in no danger of a depression. A RECESSION? Yes, but not a depression.

He supported the massive government spending to create jobs, but unemployment ROSE since the bill was passed.
Explain that.

Not to mention, what happens when the federal government floods the market with cash?
INFLATION.
That's our next big problem, and it's going to suck. But hey, we "created" some jobs, right?

[VinnieKulick]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/ ... mulus.html

ANd here's a handy guide that shows how the government is trying to help you feel good about being trillions in debt.

[tin00can]

Yes, an opinion piece devoid of facts or numbers.

Statistics do not lie.

We were in no danger of a depression. A RECESSION? Yes, but not a depression.

He supported the massive government spending to create jobs, but unemployment ROSE since the bill was passed.
Explain that.

Not to mention, what happens when the federal government floods the market with cash?
INFLATION.
That's our next big problem, and it's going to suck. But hey, we "created" some jobs, right?

It's been just over a year since the first stimulus bill passed. I think it is still too early to pass final judgment on its effectiveness.

That said, I disagreed with both stimulus packages and I don't think they'll work. However, I'm also willing to wait and see. And what exactly are "real jobs?" That's a term I didn't hear much until the republican trotted it out.

[Ugmo]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/ ... mulus.html

ANd here's a handy guide that shows how the government is trying to help you feel good about being trillions in debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

The newspaper was formerly distributed only in the suburbs of Washington, under the titles of Montgomery Journal, Prince George's Journal, and Northern Virginia Journal. Their parent company, Journal Newspapers Inc., was purchased by conservative benefactor Philip Anschutz in October 2004. On February 1, 2005, the paper's name changed to the Washington Examiner, and it adopted a logo and format similar to that of another newspaper owned by Anschutz, the San Francisco Examiner.[1] The Examiner's parent company, Clarity Media Group, also owns the conservative opinion magazine, The Weekly Standard.

..........

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned a more conservative competitor to the The Washington Post. According to Politico.com, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."[2]

..........

In late May 2008, it was announced that Townhall.com managing editor, FOX News contributor, and national columnist Mary Katharine Ham would be made online editor of the new "dcexaminer.com".

.............

Most recently, the Examiner has added more conservative writers and columnists including Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News) David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).[2]

Great source Vinnie.

[Ugmo]

Yes, an opinion piece devoid of facts or numbers.

Statistics do not lie.

We were in no danger of a depression. A RECESSION? Yes, but not a depression.

He supported the massive government spending to create jobs, but unemployment ROSE since the bill was passed.
Explain that.

Not to mention, what happens when the federal government floods the market with cash?
INFLATION.
That's our next big problem, and it's going to suck. But hey, we "created" some jobs, right?

You're saying we were never in danger of a depression. A Nobel Prize winner in economics said one year ago:

"Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression."

And I'm supposed to agree with you because.... ? Because you're so sure of yourself? Who exactly are you and why should I be more inclined to agree with you than with a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton?

[Thebottomline]

Does a Nobel prize winner mean anything anymore? Fuck if Obama can get one for doing nothing than that prize means nothing!

[Ugmo]

Does a Nobel prize winner mean anything anymore? Fuck if Obama can get one for doing nothing than that prize means nothing!

Well they'll give the Peace Prize to just about anyone, true, but the Economics Prize is a different matter I think!

I'll be honest, Vinnie is being a pretty good sport in this thread and I'm being kind of a dick. So let's put it this way: in essence his original question was why is Obama spending so much, and the answer is: because very intelligent people told him to.

[pooldude]

We were in no danger of a depression. A RECESSION? Yes, but not a depression.

Just remember, Vinnie:

It's a recession when your neighbor is out of work.

It's a depression when you're out of work.

[VinnieKulick]

Well, I am out of work, but we're not in a depression.

And, a REAL job is one that will be there the next week, the next month, the next year, etc.
Some of the "jobs" created were one week work contracts. So, somebody worked one week,and the administration was saying it created a job. That's not a job.

And, how do we quantify a depression? By concrete data? Because none of the data pointed to anything OTHER than a recession.

And, here's some stuff that's supposed to "stimulate" the NATIONS economy and create lasting jobs?
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.


• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

[Ugmo]

We're not even in a recession now, thanks to the stimulus measures. See, that's how it works - the country (and the whole world) was in a major panic a year ago. Obama spent the money that needed to be spent, now we are no longer in a recession, and people forget the situation we were in a year ago and say "Hey, why did he have to spend all that money?" How irresponsible!

All those items you just listed, many of them seem like perfectly sound things to spend money on. For that matter, is this part of the stimulus package or are they regular budget items? Because things like the Census I'm pretty sure would have happened anyway. And some of them seem like they will actually save money in the long run, like "smoking cessation activities", Amtrak, alternative energy vehicles, green buildings, etc. Hell, most of things have the potential to save money in the long term.

Hey, and look how much money we spend on defense!



Did you start a thread last year bitching about that?

[thejuggernaut]

And, here's some stuff that's supposed to "stimulate" the NATIONS economy and create lasting jobs?
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

LOL

[VinnieKulick]

We're not even in a recession now, thanks to the stimulus measures. See, that's how it works - the country (and the whole world) was in a major panic a year ago. Obama spent the money that needed to be spent, now we are no longer in a recession, and people forget the situation we were in a year ago and say "Hey, why did he have to spend all that money?" How irresponsible!

Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we would have been out of a recession by this time, WITHOUT the spending.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958 ... timony.pdf

Not to mention, 76% of economist said a stimulus wasn't needed, and urge a spending DECREASE in the next two years.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/31/news/ec ... ry_fiscal/

Not to mention, the CBO says the stimulus will HURT the economy:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... long-haul/

All those items you just listed, many of them seem like perfectly sound things to spend money on. For that matter, is this part of the stimulus package or are they regular budget items? Because things like the Census I'm pretty sure would have happened anyway. And some of them seem like they will actually save money in the long run, like "smoking cessation activities", Amtrak, alternative energy vehicles, green buildings, etc. Hell, most of things have the potential to save money in the long term.

Hey, and look how much money we spend on defense!



Did you start a thread last year bitching about that?

Well, if they are "good ideas" why aren't they in the normal budget? Why are they piled into a spending bill that is supposed to stimulate the US economy?
Saving Amtrak? It loses money every year, but giving it more money will make more people take the train?
Building tennis courts in Montana is going to stimulate the nation?

If these items were so important, why are they not being funded in the actual budget?

And no, I wasn't starting a thread about the military budget because that goes far beyond guys with guns, shooting people. It also covers R&D, government grants to technology developers, colleges, etc. It covers the military's pay, it covers the foreign military aid we give, it covers medivac flights, and other transportation costs. Not to mention, national defense is one of the very few things the Constitution actually says the federal government is SUPPOSED to be spending tax dollars on.

[KneelandBobDylan]

There will be lots of bullish commentary — and the calls we’re already hearing for an end to stimulus, for reversing the steps the government and the Federal Reserve took to prop up the economy, will grow even louder.

But if those calls are heeded, we’ll be repeating the great mistake of 1937, when the Fed and the Roosevelt administration decided that the Great Depression was over, that it was time for the economy to throw away its crutches. Spending was cut back, monetary policy was tightened — and the economy promptly plunged back into the depths.

This shouldn’t be happening. Both Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, and Christina Romer, who heads President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, are scholars of the Great Depression. Ms. Romer has warned explicitly against re-enacting the events of 1937. But those who remember the past sometimes repeat it anyway.

[VinnieKulick]

So, how has the spending, especially the earmark bullshit, helping the economy?

Why must we spend MORE money on bullshit, and not the actual problems going on with the economy? Banks are collapsing, so the logical solution is.... government subsidized golf carts?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Hey Vinnie, from what party was the last president to balance a budget?

Vinnie will get back to you later on that trick question, Ugmo.

He's got his hands full, right now.

Only if he's jacking off other dudes also.

And, if you want to point fingers at people spending, Obama spent more than every single president in history combined.

I'd like to see where you pulled that one from. You're full of shit. You should stick to stroking off on Jenny Craig rejects and spare everyone your ignorance like ZVD has been doing lately.

[KneelandBobDylan]

So, how has the spending, especially the earmark bullshit, helping the economy?

Why must we spend MORE money on bullshit, and not the actual problems going on with the economy? Banks are collapsing, so the logical solution is.... government subsidized golf carts?

Yeah, because it's only LIBERALS that put earmarks on billls. Please take your ignorance and go home...call it a day.

[VinnieKulick]

So, how has the spending, especially the earmark bullshit, helping the economy?

Why must we spend MORE money on bullshit, and not the actual problems going on with the economy? Banks are collapsing, so the logical solution is.... government subsidized golf carts?

Yeah, because it's only LIBERALS that put earmarks on billls. Please take your ignorance and go home...call it a day.

Thats a great answer.
How is this legislation, and spending, making the economy any better?
Both parties ARE guilty of adding on earmarks, but if you've read any of my other posts, I am not a big fan of the GOP either.

How many Dems voted against the spending?