LOLbama Money!!!

[Caydr]

...Ok what's wrong with this thread? I can only see 2 pages listed and yet this post is on the third page and invisible unless I edit the URL.

[aegis]

resynced.

[Peet]

Trickle down has never, ever worked.

Reagan. Also, under Reagan, taxes were lower, but government income was higher. Gee, I wonder how that worked?

Didn't the national debt triple under reagan?

[tombom]

[Forboding Angel]

Considering he's coming off of Jimmy carter, not shabby at all. The president after Obama is going to end up committing suicide, if not simply just being committed.

[Caydr]

...fortunately his family won't become destitute paying for his mental care.

Obama's inherited the biggest economic disaster since the depression, and he's trying to bring you out of that disaster as quickly as possible. Is he doing it the best way possible? Does it matter? Government waste and corruption isn't a new thing, and I don't hold him personally responsible for whatever waste is inherent in any government policy.

Do you need a reminder what kind of debts Bush ran up? I don't know what Obama's thinking is, but if I was in his place I'd probably be thinking "Screw it, the debt's imaginary anyway and we can worry about it at a time when millions of people aren't unemployed and losing everything they own".

[Forboding Angel]

So one man spends a ton of money and you condemn it, but another comes along after the first guy and spends 50x more and you condone it? On what planet does that logic work?

[Neddie]

Considering he's coming off of Jimmy carter, not shabby at all. The president after Obama is going to end up committing suicide, if not simply just being committed.

The numbers his are being compared to are those under Carter, and his numbers are absolutely awful in comparison. Not shabby? This is the definition of shabby... complete failure in all categories.

[Pxtl]

So one man spends a ton of money and you condemn it, but another comes along after the first guy and spends 50x more and you condone it? On what planet does that logic work?

Spending it on keeping the economy of the whole Western world afloat is something different from spending it on bombing brown people and unnecessary tax cuts.

[Forboding Angel]

Spending it on keeping the economy of the whole Western world afloat...

You honestly believe that?

[Caydr]

I don't, not really, but we faced a similar situation here in Canada.

Unlike the 'States, our banks are fairly solid and never gave out money to hobos and such to begin with. So our big economic crisis exists solely of "there are less fat, rich americans coming up here to ski in the middle of July".

With everything in perspective, our economy wasn't very badly hit. We were mainly just playing defense, trying to keep isolated from the world crashing down around us. Not doing too badly, overall.

Then some dickweed (who can no longer show his face in public) got in charge of our major opposition party (there is more than one here), and said "hey you, you're not blowing our entire GDP on stimulus packages! what gives?!" Then he proceeded to try to start an election by making a deal with a party whose stated goal is to break up Canada and, unofficially, lower the age of consent to 6. I made that last part up, but they're really not very nice people.

So he gets the whole country in an uproar, "look at the world exploding everywhere, there's limbs flying across the border, zombies are rising up in Mexico, etc".

So Evil Genius, our Prime Minister caves since he doesn't want the eleventh election is as many days, and says "fine fine, here's some stimulus funding, now leave me alone".

The whole Stimulus concept doesn't really work very well in the real world. You can't throw money at a problem, certainly not one that requires instant results, and not expect that at least 75% of it will be consumed by corruption.

Your new President was in the same situation. He needed to prop up his support by appearing to be making sweeping changes "for the people" and get the opposition off his back for a while. Shocker, the stimulus didn't do much and the money was really all just wasted. Study the election and notice how "I will do X for stimulus funding" was translated by the public as "I will save the universe from the Zerg" while "I think stimulus is bogus" was understood as "I hate America."

Political maneuvering with the public paying when reality sets in? REALLY?

Obama wasted that money, it was a bloody tragedy, but I hold him no more accountable for that waste than I hold our PM accountable for our waste. He was appeasing an ignorant public that had been led to believe stimulus was the answer. He promised the moon, and whether or not the moon actually arrived he DID follow through with his promises.

Similarly I respect Ron Paul - I think he's a little bit unbalanced but he's the most honest politician I've ever seen. I don't agree with the things he says, does, and wants but at the same time I think your country would be better off with him than a guy with no goals or principles whatsoever, like Bush.

It's politics, a retarded system designed to keep the rich as rich as possible while keeping everyone else just happy enough to avoid an uprising. It will be replaced by nerve stapling in about 40 years, if my research is correct. With everything being relative, all Obama has to do is not blow up the sun and he will be making grand progress as far as most people are concerned.

[Forboding Angel]

Caydr, I agree with what you said 100%. So do conservatives (and the vast majority of republicans). The stimulus was a retard move, and a total waste of money that people in this country will have to deal with for decades to come.

Here is the rub to caydr, obama and the liberals actually believe that stimulus is the way to solving the problem. For that, he gets held accountable. SO does Bush for his part in the "stimulus" craze.

[tombom]

Caydr, I agree with what you said 100%. So do conservatives (and the vast majority of republicans). The stimulus was a retard move, and a total waste of money that people in this country will have to deal with for decades to come.

Here is the rub to caydr, obama and the liberals actually believe that stimulus is the way to solving the problem. For that, he gets held accountable. SO does Bush for his part in the "stimulus" craze.

The idea of massive government spending to counteract a recession is really not unusual, look up Keynesian economics or see any economy that ended the Great Depression.

I'd agree that lots of money to banks with few restrictions on use was very silly though.

[Forboding Angel]

Lets put it in BA terms:

Obama is trying to tek2advfusion and moho metalmakers on T1 solar and T1 metalmakers.

The problem is he's e-stalling and so all the metalmakers are shutting down.

He also didn't notice all the mex spots in his baes.

Synopsis:
Obama=n00b

[JohannesH]

Is it comm ends?

[Forboding Angel]

lets hope not

[Das Bruce]

JFK refuses to play since LHO dgunned him.

[Pxtl]

Spending it on keeping the economy of the whole Western world afloat...

You honestly believe that?

The DOW just broke 10,000. Now, I have no idea if that's just the largest dead cat bounce in the history of the unverse, an artificial stimulus bubble, or genuinely effective recovery.... but you can't deny the fact that, at least on the face of things, the stimulus worked.

And as for Caydr's comment about Canada, how do you feel about Iggy? I think the problem Canucks have is that we want to support *a* liberal party, but not *the* Liberal party.

I mean, Americans had to choose between crazed idiots and disorganized losers, and this time they chose disorganized losers. In Canada, we get to choose between an evil genius ruling over a swarm of crazed idiots, or even-more-disorganized losers who don't have a charismatic leader. Oh, and a crazy wackjob with a 'stache.

The Liberals were politically popular until Chretien left. I think the Sponsorship scandal had less to do with their failure than the total absence of respectable leadership in his wake.

[Forboding Angel]

Pxtl, the bounceback is a repeat of history. Last time this happened, tons of money was thrown at it, and there were several bubbles along the way that burst epicly. There is a reason investors are really edgy about it.

Isn't this jsut a little messed up?: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... blue_N.htm

Also, another disturbing thing in the works: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

[Pxtl]

Read your own articles:

The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

In other words, whatever statistical anomaly that results in Obama-supporters being in high-aid areas is endemic to the government and not the result of direct influence from Obama. The only people getting special preferential treatment are the blue dogs (DINOs) who need to have some goodies for their constituents if they want to keep their seats through these unpopular bills.

As for the other article, it clearly says that the worry is that, as the Cap And Trade system progresses, the Cap will become a greater burden. Shocker.

The whole point of Cap And Trade is that it gives the government a means to control emissions. The specifics of that emissions level are a direct variable they will have access to. If the cap becomes too much of a burden, it will be adjusted. It sets aggressive targets right now because you should always set ambitious goals. However, if the cap starts looking like a problem, there is no way they will keep pushing the cap harder.

Think about it - we're talking about 2020 before the thing is fully implemented, and several years afterwards before the pressure mounts. This is too slow for people who are genuinely concerned about global warming, and too fast for people who aren't. Isn't that a sufficently cautious timeline?

Remember, you live in a democracy. If the cap becomes a problem, it will be adjusted one way. If global warming becomes a problem, it will be adjusted the other way. The point is that the cap gives the government the means to set the target, while allowing the free market to handle the details - everybody does what they're good at.