BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Lux Angel Eyes
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-24-2009, 07:18 PM   #1
NoKids
Major
 
NoKids's Avatar
 
Drives: ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ottawa

Posts: 1,343
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 328i  [0.00]
Republicans, waaaah! waah!



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29374285/

Obama is spending too much! waah! waah!
What's the republican solution? Let millions more lose their jobs? Obama is giving money to the states to create some jobs.

Of course republicans want Obama to let the economy sink faster down teh toilet. so then the unemployed voters can turn around and vote the people in charge of the government out of office next election.

And who's in charge? Democrats.

Nice try Elephants.
__________________
NoKids is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 07:26 PM   #2
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 2

Posts: 469
iTrader: (0)

What's untrue about that article? It will increase taxes in the future, and it will put a huge amount of debt on future generations. Have you actually read where the money in the stimulus package is going?
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 07:41 PM   #3
NoKids
Major
 
NoKids's Avatar
 
Drives: ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ottawa

Posts: 1,343
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 328i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrari355fi View Post
What's untrue about that article? It will increase taxes in the future, and it will put a huge amount of debt on future generations.
of course there will be more debt, duh! i never said it's false. my point is the republican alternative is worse than having another 1 trillion$ in debt. the US national debt is over 50 trillion. 1 more trillion isn't going to make a difference. all it means is it will take an extra generation to repay the money. and we'll all be dead by the time this money is fully paid back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrari355fi View Post
Have you actually read where the money in the stimulus package is going?
it's going everywhere that needs money. that's all i need to know. nobody, not even the bitching republicans have read the entire stimulus package, have you?
__________________
NoKids is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 07:55 PM   #4
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 2

Posts: 469
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post
my point is the republican alternative is worse than having another 1 trillion$ in debt.
What's the "republican alternative" that you have heard about?

Quote:
the US national debt is over 50 trillion. 1 more trillion isn't going to make a difference.
By saying that 1 more trillion isn't going to make a difference is wreckless thinking.

Quote:
all it means is it will take an extra generation to repay the money. and we'll all be dead by the time this money is fully paid back.
That's pretty selfish, don't you think? You don't care how much is spent because you'll be dead? What about future generations? I don't want to put the burden on my family in the future because of one man's short-sighted agenda.


Quote:
it's going everywhere that needs money. that's all i need to know. nobody, not even the bitching republicans have read the entire stimulus package, have you?
I suggest you read it so you see where the money is going.


I'm not completely against a stimulus package. I feel this one is excessive in its spending. There are far better ways to spend money, and to spend it wisely.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 08:49 PM   #5
johnnymu
Warranty Killer
 
johnnymu's Avatar
 
Drives: Nike shoe
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: cincinnati, OH

Posts: 1,015
iTrader: (4)

The republicans main project was to cut taxes in half and total cost of stimulus would of been 400 billion instead of 800 billion. But that's here say, who do you really believe?
__________________
EUROPROJEKTZ Midwest Member
08 335i Jet Black | too much to name....

johnnymu is offline   Taiwan
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 10:14 PM   #6
NoKids
Major
 
NoKids's Avatar
 
Drives: ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ottawa

Posts: 1,343
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 328i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrari355fi View Post
What's the "republican alternative" that you have heard about?

By saying that 1 more trillion isn't going to make a difference is wreckless thinking.


That's pretty selfish, don't you think? You don't care how much is spent because you'll be dead? What about future generations? I don't want to put the burden on my family in the future because of one man's short-sighted agenda.


I suggest you read it so you see where the money is going.


I'm not completely against a stimulus package. I feel this one is excessive in its spending. There are far better ways to spend money, and to spend it wisely.
do you have any facts to hit me with? or are you here just to play devil's advocate?
__________________
NoKids is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 10:19 PM   #7
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 2

Posts: 469
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post
do you have any facts to hit me with? or are you here just to play devil's advocate?
I can't make your opinion for you when it comes to this. Look up the package and make your own opinion on it.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 10:27 PM   #8
Nixon
Banned
 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

Posts: 1,396
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrari355fi View Post
I can't make your opinion for you when it comes to this. Look up the package and make your own opinion on it.

I think he already did.

It looks a little like this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29374285/

Obama is spending too much! waah! waah!

Look familiar?
Nixon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 10:34 PM   #9
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 2

Posts: 469
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post
it's going everywhere that needs money. that's all i need to know. nobody, not even the bitching republicans have read the entire stimulus package, have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
I think he already did.
Apparently he didn't, unless he just wants to be a blind follower.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 10:45 PM   #10
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

You seem to have forgotten that the Democrats have been in charge of both the House and the Senate all of 2007 and 2008. The Democrats needed some Republicans in the Senate to get anything done (60 votes to break a filibuster), so they had to work together during 2007 and 2008. Now they have 58 votes in their pocket (2 Indy's caucus with the Dems), so now all they need to do is convince 2 Republicans to cross the aisle.

The $700B TARP was passed by the Democrat controlled Congress and signed by President Bush. Does that make it a Republican bill, a Democrat bill or a bi-partisan bill? I submit it was a partially a bi-partisan bill because it could not pass strictly on the backs on the Democrats (House Yes, Senate No.)

So now the big Economic stimulus bill was passed by a House that didn't need a SINGLE Republican vote to pass. In the Senate, only 3 Republicans voted for it, but that was enough (they only needed 2).

Is it whining when one group is effectively locked out of the debate, unable to provide any input? What are the Republicans supposed to do? Roll over and just go with the flood? Why bother having a two party system if that is the case.

Only 53% of the country voted for Obama, meaning that 47% did NOT vote for him. I guess you think those 47% can just fuck off and shut the fuck up? That ISN'T the message Obama campaigned on.

Yes, I'm one of the 47%.
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2009, 11:37 PM   #11
lyndon_h
Lieutenant Colonel
 
lyndon_h's Avatar
 
Drives: e90
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Madagascar

Posts: 1,920
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
Is it whining when one group is effectively locked out of the debate, unable to provide any input? What are the Republicans supposed to do? Roll over and just go with the flood? Why bother having a two party system if that is the case.
Rove and Gingrich are to blame for writing the playbook on divisiness in Washington today.

Republican did provide input into the bill. They pushed for more tax breaks and got concessions.

It seems like we are the only two on this section of the board tonight...
lyndon_h is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2009, 12:27 AM   #12
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyndon_h View Post
It seems like we are the only two on this section of the board tonight...
My clock is all messed up. I'm normally on the West Coast, but I'm in FL right now. So while the clock says 12:28 AM, my body says 9:28 PM. And for a guy that usually doesn't get to bed until 1:00 AM, getting to sleep at a "reasonable" hour in the EST is tough!
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2009, 12:34 AM   #13
Nixon
Banned
 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

Posts: 1,396
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
Does that make it a Republican bill, a Democrat bill or a bi-partisan bill? I submit it was a partially a bi-partisan bill because it could not pass strictly on the backs on the Democrats (House Yes, Senate No.)
It's John McCain's bill. It was his heroic suspension of his Presidential campain until the crisis was resolved that saved the day.
Nixon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2009, 06:15 AM   #14
NoKids
Major
 
NoKids's Avatar
 
Drives: ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ottawa

Posts: 1,343
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 328i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
I guess you think those 47% can just fuck off and shut the fuck up?
that is EXACTLY what i think needs to happen. look at what the republican controlled Congress and President have done to the USA the last 8 years. Anyone who voted Republican this past election has no brain cells left. 47% of Americans therefore have no brains. For crying out loud Sarah fucking Palin was on the ticket. imagine if McCain had won, and we had to watch John McCain talk about the economy for an hour, and Sarah Palin in the background clapping. i'm sure the markets would have confidence in those two geniuses.
__________________
NoKids is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2009, 08:26 AM   #15
lyndon_h
Lieutenant Colonel
 
lyndon_h's Avatar
 
Drives: e90
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Madagascar

Posts: 1,920
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
My clock is all messed up. I'm normally on the West Coast, but I'm in FL right now. So while the clock says 12:28 AM, my body says 9:28 PM. And for a guy that usually doesn't get to bed until 1:00 AM, getting to sleep at a "reasonable" hour in the EST is tough!
I know what you mean. I'm in Texas, but whenever i travel to CA I end up going to bed way to early to have the proper amount of fun unless i have a redbull.
lyndon_h is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2009, 11:42 PM   #16
Cactus
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 2011 X3 2.8i
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posts: 45
iTrader: (0)

The Democrats promised to bring back the Clinton economy... they did! The Dow is at the 1997 level.

Promises made... promises kept!
Cactus is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2009, 11:55 PM   #17
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post
that is EXACTLY what i think needs to happen. look at what the republican controlled Congress and President have done to the USA the last 8 years. Anyone who voted Republican this past election has no brain cells left. 47% of Americans therefore have no brains. For crying out loud Sarah fucking Palin was on the ticket. imagine if McCain had won, and we had to watch John McCain talk about the economy for an hour, and Sarah Palin in the background clapping. i'm sure the markets would have confidence in those two geniuses.
Yes, because watching that waste of carbon and oxygen also known as Pelosi standing up every 2 seconds like a Jack-in-the-Box wasn't painful.

But I applaud your excellent use of prose to bring your point home. It really highlights your intellect and ability to remove emotion from the discussion. In fact, it was so good, that I've completely abandoned my principles and have become a "born again" Obama-ite.
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      03-01-2009, 08:31 AM   #18
NoKids
Major
 
NoKids's Avatar
 
Drives: ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ottawa

Posts: 1,343
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 328i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
Yes, because watching that waste of carbon and oxygen also known as Pelosi standing up every 2 seconds like a Jack-in-the-Box wasn't painful.

But I applaud your excellent use of prose to bring your point home. It really highlights your intellect and ability to remove emotion from the discussion. In fact, it was so good, that I've completely abandoned my principles and have become a "born again" Obama-ite.
On the dem side: Pelosi is a loser, Harry Reid is a loser, Michael Moore is a loser, John Kerry is a loser, Barney Franks is a loser, Roland Burris is a loser, etc. . . .

On the rep side: Eric Cantor is a LOSER, Sarah Palin is a loser, Jindal is a loser, John Boehner is a loser, and i can go on and on. Only republicans i've ever liked are Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell.


That being said, republicans can move out the President's f***in way and let him try to fix the damn economy that Bush ignored for 8 years. Bush kept spending and spending and spending; saying everything was fine, but in the end the economy collapsed under Bush. Without the "socialist" bailouts that Bush started, the economy would have been a lot worse than it is today. Automakers would have been totally bankrupts, millions of jobs lost, and many banks like AIG, Fanny/Freddy,Citibank would have filed for bankruptcy.

Why would Americans turn to republicans to fix the economy after their track record the past 8 years?

WHY?

I'm not trying to turn you into a democrat. You can still be a republican the rest of your life, but you have to admit being a Republican is like being the fan of the Detroit Lions right now. Put a paper bag over your head, lock yourself in the closet, and be ashamed about what your elected officials have done to your country.
__________________
NoKids is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-01-2009, 09:10 AM   #19
johnnymu
Warranty Killer
 
johnnymu's Avatar
 
Drives: Nike shoe
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: cincinnati, OH

Posts: 1,015
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post
On the dem side: Pelosi is a loser, Harry Reid is a loser, Michael Moore is a loser, John Kerry is a loser, Barney Franks is a loser, Roland Burris is a loser, etc. . . .

On the rep side: Eric Cantor is a LOSER, Sarah Palin is a loser, Jindal is a loser, John Boehner is a loser, and i can go on and on. Only republicans i've ever liked are Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell.


That being said, republicans can move out the President's f***in way and let him try to fix the damn economy that Bush ignored for 8 years. Bush kept spending and spending and spending; saying everything was fine, but in the end the economy collapsed under Bush. Without the "socialist" bailouts that Bush started, the economy would have been a lot worse than it is today. Automakers would have been totally bankrupts, millions of jobs lost, and many banks like AIG, Fanny/Freddy,Citibank would have filed for bankruptcy.

Why would Americans turn to republicans to fix the economy after their track record the past 8 years?

WHY?

I'm not trying to turn you into a democrat. You can still be a republican the rest of your life, but you have to admit being a Republican is like being the fan of the Detroit Lions right now. Put a paper bag over your head, lock yourself in the closet, and be ashamed about what your elected officials have done to your country.
Quit speaking out of the ass again. You sheep seriously are brainwashed like no other. First of all blame the people for voting in these former actors, beauty pageants, athletes into congress. Hardly any of these fools have the qualification such as an MBA to make decisions they are making now.

Lets use actually real math and bust your myths for you geniuses. I want to say first i'm not a fan of either, I actually free my mind. Since you like comparing Democrats and Republicans i'll compare the more recent with Bush and Clinton.

"How can any Republican complain of Obama's spending habits or complain about his stimulus, given the way Republicans spent "the last eight years"? Well, I'm going to tell you exactly how.

According to the newspapers and TV news, Republicans have no leg to stand on when it comes to spending. President Bush spent more than President Clinton did. He waged an imperial, unnecessary war that sent spending out of control. The Republicans spent more on bailouts than the Democrats did.

President Obama made these sentiments clear, as reported by the Kansas City Star .

"It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt... What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place."

Time for some reality checks.


Myth
. Our national debt doubled in the last eight years.


Fact. Nope, no matter how you measure it. In fact, if adjusted for inflation, real economic growth and population growth, it didn't budge at all.


Here are the national debt figures in 2000 (President Clinton's last full year) and as currently estimated for 2008 (President Bush's last full year), as provided by our government.



2000 2008 % Increase


Total Debt (dollars) $5,628.7B $9,654.4B 72%


Held by Public ($) $3,409.8B $5,428.6B 59%


Total Debt (%GDP) 58.0% 67.5% 16%


Held by Public (%GDP) 35.1% 37.9% 8%



By no measure did the debt "double" (increase 100%) in the last eight years. By using total debt in nominal dollars, you get to only a 72% increase, not a doubling. But that is nominal dollars, which includes both inflation and real economic growth in a country growing in population. Plus, the "total" debt includes what the government owes itself; it is a figment of government accounting.


The most meaningful number, which is the amount of government debt held by the public (you, me and China) as a fraction of GDP, went up by only 8%. If you also take population growth into account, the amount of debt per capita remained virtually flat the last eight years. (The CIA World Factbook says our current population growth rate is 0.883%. Over eight years, that would lead to an increase of 7.3%, or just about what the debt grew by.)


Was President Obama lying? Of course not. He just sees a glass that is 99% empty as 100% full.

Myth. President Bush increased spending dramatically. Specifically, he spent more than President Clinton did, dramatically increasing our national debt.


Fact
. Only if measured in nominal dollars. But by that measure, or even in inflation-adjusted dollars, Clinton spent more than Bush 41, who spent more than Reagan, who spent more than Carter, on down the line. Measured in a meaningful way, namely as a fraction of GDP, Bush spent less than the pre-Bush average, including that of President Clinton. Similarly, he kept national debt below the pre-Bush average.


Here are the figures on federal spending and federal debt held by the public, both as a percent of GDP.


Spending ,Debt


Pre-Bush average (1960-2000) 20.4% 36.2%


Clinton average (1993-2000) 19.9% 45.1%


Bush average (2001-2007) 19.8% 36.0%


Last year available (2007) 20.0% 36.8%



If you see President Bush as suddenly increasing government spending, or generating unprecedented debt, you need new glasses.


Myth. Republicans spent more on bailouts than Democrats. After all, Bush's bailout, supported by John McCain, was $850B while Obama's stimulus was only $787B.


Fact. It is true that 850 is more than 787. But when you get into who really asked for what amounts, and who voted for those amounts, the Democrats are responsible for 80% of all bailout spending - and the worst 80%.


The original bailout proposed by the Bush administration was for $700B and its purpose was to save the financial system. But then Congress added another $150B of "sweeteners" unrelated to financial rescue. New cost: $850B. As for the $700B, it would come in two chunks of $350B each, with the second chunk needing a second request by the President and a second approval by Congress.


But a funny thing happened. By January 8, after three months of bailing out troubled assets, only $267B had been spent and the Bush administration saw no special need for the second chunk of money. Bush left it up to Barack Obama to ask for the second chunk of the bailout money. If Obama didn't want it, Bush was done with the bailout; if Obama did, Bush would go to Congress for the second chunk as a favor to Obama.


On January 12, by letter to Congress, Obama did ask for the second chunk . (President Bush then did the yeoman's task of formally requesting the second chunk, what with him being the actual President and all.)


Then another funny thing happened. The new Obama administration said it needed a second bailout, a totally separate one, as an economic stimulus rather than a financial system rescue. And its cost would end up being $787B. Total cost of the two bailouts: $1,637B (not including future interest payments).


So we can blame $350B on Bush and $1,287B (the $787B second bailout, the second $350B chunk of the first bailout, and the $150B of sweeteners in the first bailout) on Obama and Congress.


By that measure, Obama and Congress get 79% of the blame.


And who, exactly, voted for these two bailouts in Congress? The stimulus passed with 244 votes in the House (all Democrats) and 60 votes in the Senate (57 Democrats and 3 Republicans). Bush's bailout passed with 263 votes in the House (172 Democrats and 91 Republicans) and with 74 votes in the Senate (41 Democrats and 33 Republicans). That is, Obama's stimulus was 99% Democrat and Bush's bailout was 63% Democrat, going by total votes cast in both houses of Congress.


If we weight the price tags of the two packages by party vote, the Democrats are responsible for $1,315B and the Republicans are responsible for $322B, or a bit more than what actually went to rescue troubled financial assets.


Either way you measure it, the Democrats can claim about 80% of the credit for these two major bailouts totaling more than $1.6 trillion of federal spending, increasing by a third our national debt (held by the public), in less than five months time.


Moreover, the 20% credited to Republicans actually went to troubled financial assets. There is at least a case that this money helped avoid a system-wide breakdown of our banking system, and therefore truly saved us from financial catastrophe. The other 80% is more like very expensive confetti, with entrenched Democratic support groups being the confetti suppliers. They get the real money; we get the confetti and the debt.


Myth
. Bush spent irresponsibly huge amounts of money on his unnecessary war in Iraq and defense generally, crowding out non-defense spending.


Fact. No he didn't. What he spent was nowhere near unprecedented, as a fraction of GDP. And he spent more on non-defense than Clinton did, even measured as a fraction of GDP.


Spending on national defense went from 3% of GDP to 4% in President Bush's time in office. The US spent more than that from 1941 to 1994, or 53 years. A mere 4% of GDP is historically low, not historically high . Even during its lowest point previously, Jimmy Carter's term, defense spending was 4.7% of GDP.


When we let that figure get low, 1.7% in 1940 and 3% in 2000, we got Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Coincidence?


Not to mention, that 4% of GDP went to fighting wars in two countries, against people who purposely torture and behead civilians, and hardening our homeland defenses against a full spectrum of conventional and non-conventional attacks.


From 2000 (Clinton's last year) to 2007 (the last Bush year of available data, and the year of the Iraq "surge") non-defense federal spending went from 15.4% to 16.0%. (Source: US Statistical Abstract.)


Worried about health care? Federal government spending on health care and Medicare went up 30% as a fraction of GDP from 2000 to 2007. Education? It went up 21%. And don't forget the money we sent to Africa to fight AIDS; even U2's Bono praised Bush.


Myth. When Republicans were in charge, they spent too much.


Opinion. Yes they did.




Bush gave us prescription coverage under Medicare, No Child Left Behind, ethanol subsidies, massive transportation bills, etc.


But when all was said and done, spending levels remained about where they were for the previous 50 years (as a fraction of GDP). That is only upsetting to me because I thought Republicans would cut spending.


But if you are a Democrat, you should be pleased as punch. Your worst fears turned out to be unfounded. Here you had a Republican President and Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate and you still got more spending overall, especially on health and education.


Bush didn't touch Social Security. He expanded Medicare and Clinton's AmeriCorps. Grandma was not pushed into the street or forced onto dog food. That draft you said was coming right after the 2004 election if Bush won? It didn't happen.


The only people who should be upset with the Republicans in office are the Republicans who voted for them. The rest of you got what you wanted, namely the same damn status quo that we'd had for the previous 50 years of Democratic-majority rule.


What "failed theories"? So when President Obama said, "What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years," what failed theories is he talking about? Because the theory on spending that was put into practice the last eight years was the same theory that had been in practice the previous 50!


If you want to try President Clinton's economic "theories" as practiced, be my guest. Because by the time his second term ended, the federal government was spending just 18.4% of GDP, the lowest level since 1966. In addition to cutting spending, he and the Republican Congress at the time also ended Welfare and cut capital gains tax rates. Bring it on!


If Obama wants to go back to those "theories" of government, I beg him to do so. Don't expand health and education programs, like Bush did, but cut taxes and spending, like Clinton did.


Instead, Obama turned logic on its head. He complained about doubling of the national debt under Bush (itself a lie), then increased it by over a trillion dollars in his first month in office. Heck, he increased it by $350B before he was even sworn in (by sending that letter to Congress asking for the second chunk of TARP).


Obama said Bush's theories failed, yet he is doing more of the same - on steroids. Heck, on cocaine. Whatever we're on, it's a bad trip, baby."
__________________
EUROPROJEKTZ Midwest Member
08 335i Jet Black | too much to name....


Last edited by johnnymu; 03-01-2009 at 09:40 AM.
johnnymu is offline   Taiwan
0
Reply With Quote
      03-01-2009, 12:32 PM   #20
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoKids View Post

I'm not trying to turn you into a democrat. You can still be a republican the rest of your life, but you have to admit being a Republican is like being the fan of the Detroit Lions right now. Put a paper bag over your head, lock yourself in the closet, and be ashamed about what your elected officials have done to your country.
I never said I was a Republican, I'm a conservative which is a big difference. There used to be a time when Republicans were conservatives too, but anymore I call most of them RINO's, Republicans In Name Only. There are almost no degrees of separation between Democrats and Republicans anymore. They both appear to believe in BIG: Big Government, Big Spending, Big everything.

Before this last election, I was telling my friends "We should throw them ALL out of office! Every last one of them." I still feel the same way. Obama has said that one man cannot create a tidal wave of change. That is true, especially when all of his appointments are prior administration retreads, and nearly every member of the House and Senate (Repubs and Dems) is a damn career politician that has been there forever. Hard to call that "change"....
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      03-01-2009, 10:40 PM   #21
Nixon
Banned
 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

Posts: 1,396
iTrader: (0)

Hey Johnny -- What a sad case of plagiarism.

If you are going to be a brainless sheep following others, at least have the moral gravitas to QUOTE your sources instead of pretending to have your own thoughts.

A small snippet from the actual ORIGINAL source that you plagiarized:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._spenders.html

"...Myth. Our national debt doubled in the last eight years.


Fact. Nope, no matter how you measure it. In fact, if adjusted for inflation, real economic growth and population growth, it didn't budge at all...."

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnymu View Post
Quit speaking out of the ass again. You sheep seriously are brainwashed like no other. First of all blame the people for voting in these former actors, beauty pageants, athletes into congress. Hardly any of these fools have the qualification such as an MBA to make decisions they are making now.

Lets use actually real math and bust your myths for you geniuses. I want to say first i'm not a fan of either, I actually free my mind. Since you like comparing Democrats and Republicans i'll compare the more recent with Bush and Clinton.

"How can any Republican complain of Obama's spending habits or complain about his stimulus, given the way Republicans spent "the last eight years"? Well, I'm going to tell you exactly how.

According to the newspapers and TV news, Republicans have no leg to stand on when it comes to spending. President Bush spent more than President Clinton did. He waged an imperial, unnecessary war that sent spending out of control. The Republicans spent more on bailouts than the Democrats did.

President Obama made these sentiments clear, as reported by the Kansas City Star .

"It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt... What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place."

Time for some reality checks.


Myth. Our national debt doubled in the last eight years.


Fact. Nope, no matter how you measure it. In fact, if adjusted for inflation, real economic growth and population growth, it didn't budge at all.


Here are the national debt figures in 2000 (President Clinton's last full year) and as currently estimated for 2008 (President Bush's last full year), as provided by our government.



2000 2008 % Increase


Total Debt (dollars) $5,628.7B $9,654.4B 72%


Held by Public ($) $3,409.8B $5,428.6B 59%


Total Debt (%GDP) 58.0% 67.5% 16%


Held by Public (%GDP) 35.1% 37.9% 8%



By no measure did the debt "double" (increase 100%) in the last eight years. By using total debt in nominal dollars, you get to only a 72% increase, not a doubling. But that is nominal dollars, which includes both inflation and real economic growth in a country growing in population. Plus, the "total" debt includes what the government owes itself; it is a figment of government accounting.


The most meaningful number, which is the amount of government debt held by the public (you, me and China) as a fraction of GDP, went up by only 8%. If you also take population growth into account, the amount of debt per capita remained virtually flat the last eight years. (The CIA World Factbook says our current population growth rate is 0.883%. Over eight years, that would lead to an increase of 7.3%, or just about what the debt grew by.)


Was President Obama lying? Of course not. He just sees a glass that is 99% empty as 100% full.

Myth. President Bush increased spending dramatically. Specifically, he spent more than President Clinton did, dramatically increasing our national debt.


Fact. Only if measured in nominal dollars. But by that measure, or even in inflation-adjusted dollars, Clinton spent more than Bush 41, who spent more than Reagan, who spent more than Carter, on down the line. Measured in a meaningful way, namely as a fraction of GDP, Bush spent less than the pre-Bush average, including that of President Clinton. Similarly, he kept national debt below the pre-Bush average.


Here are the figures on federal spending and federal debt held by the public, both as a percent of GDP.


Spending ,Debt


Pre-Bush average (1960-2000) 20.4% 36.2%


Clinton average (1993-2000) 19.9% 45.1%


Bush average (2001-2007) 19.8% 36.0%


Last year available (2007) 20.0% 36.8%



If you see President Bush as suddenly increasing government spending, or generating unprecedented debt, you need new glasses.


Myth. Republicans spent more on bailouts than Democrats. After all, Bush's bailout, supported by John McCain, was $850B while Obama's stimulus was only $787B.


Fact. It is true that 850 is more than 787. But when you get into who really asked for what amounts, and who voted for those amounts, the Democrats are responsible for 80% of all bailout spending - and the worst 80%.


The original bailout proposed by the Bush administration was for $700B and its purpose was to save the financial system. But then Congress added another $150B of "sweeteners" unrelated to financial rescue. New cost: $850B. As for the $700B, it would come in two chunks of $350B each, with the second chunk needing a second request by the President and a second approval by Congress.


But a funny thing happened. By January 8, after three months of bailing out troubled assets, only $267B had been spent and the Bush administration saw no special need for the second chunk of money. Bush left it up to Barack Obama to ask for the second chunk of the bailout money. If Obama didn't want it, Bush was done with the bailout; if Obama did, Bush would go to Congress for the second chunk as a favor to Obama.


On January 12, by letter to Congress, Obama did ask for the second chunk . (President Bush then did the yeoman's task of formally requesting the second chunk, what with him being the actual President and all.)


Then another funny thing happened. The new Obama administration said it needed a second bailout, a totally separate one, as an economic stimulus rather than a financial system rescue. And its cost would end up being $787B. Total cost of the two bailouts: $1,637B (not including future interest payments).


So we can blame $350B on Bush and $1,287B (the $787B second bailout, the second $350B chunk of the first bailout, and the $150B of sweeteners in the first bailout) on Obama and Congress.


By that measure, Obama and Congress get 79% of the blame.


And who, exactly, voted for these two bailouts in Congress? The stimulus passed with 244 votes in the House (all Democrats) and 60 votes in the Senate (57 Democrats and 3 Republicans). Bush's bailout passed with 263 votes in the House (172 Democrats and 91 Republicans) and with 74 votes in the Senate (41 Democrats and 33 Republicans). That is, Obama's stimulus was 99% Democrat and Bush's bailout was 63% Democrat, going by total votes cast in both houses of Congress.


If we weight the price tags of the two packages by party vote, the Democrats are responsible for $1,315B and the Republicans are responsible for $322B, or a bit more than what actually went to rescue troubled financial assets.


Either way you measure it, the Democrats can claim about 80% of the credit for these two major bailouts totaling more than $1.6 trillion of federal spending, increasing by a third our national debt (held by the public), in less than five months time.


Moreover, the 20% credited to Republicans actually went to troubled financial assets. There is at least a case that this money helped avoid a system-wide breakdown of our banking system, and therefore truly saved us from financial catastrophe. The other 80% is more like very expensive confetti, with entrenched Democratic support groups being the confetti suppliers. They get the real money; we get the confetti and the debt.


Myth. Bush spent irresponsibly huge amounts of money on his unnecessary war in Iraq and defense generally, crowding out non-defense spending.


Fact. No he didn't. What he spent was nowhere near unprecedented, as a fraction of GDP. And he spent more on non-defense than Clinton did, even measured as a fraction of GDP.


Spending on national defense went from 3% of GDP to 4% in President Bush's time in office. The US spent more than that from 1941 to 1994, or 53 years. A mere 4% of GDP is historically low, not historically high . Even during its lowest point previously, Jimmy Carter's term, defense spending was 4.7% of GDP.


When we let that figure get low, 1.7% in 1940 and 3% in 2000, we got Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Coincidence?


Not to mention, that 4% of GDP went to fighting wars in two countries, against people who purposely torture and behead civilians, and hardening our homeland defenses against a full spectrum of conventional and non-conventional attacks.


From 2000 (Clinton's last year) to 2007 (the last Bush year of available data, and the year of the Iraq "surge") non-defense federal spending went from 15.4% to 16.0%. (Source: US Statistical Abstract.)


Worried about health care? Federal government spending on health care and Medicare went up 30% as a fraction of GDP from 2000 to 2007. Education? It went up 21%. And don't forget the money we sent to Africa to fight AIDS; even U2's Bono praised Bush.


Myth. When Republicans were in charge, they spent too much.


Opinion. Yes they did.




Bush gave us prescription coverage under Medicare, No Child Left Behind, ethanol subsidies, massive transportation bills, etc.


But when all was said and done, spending levels remained about where they were for the previous 50 years (as a fraction of GDP). That is only upsetting to me because I thought Republicans would cut spending.


But if you are a Democrat, you should be pleased as punch. Your worst fears turned out to be unfounded. Here you had a Republican President and Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate and you still got more spending overall, especially on health and education.


Bush didn't touch Social Security. He expanded Medicare and Clinton's AmeriCorps. Grandma was not pushed into the street or forced onto dog food. That draft you said was coming right after the 2004 election if Bush won? It didn't happen.


The only people who should be upset with the Republicans in office are the Republicans who voted for them. The rest of you got what you wanted, namely the same damn status quo that we'd had for the previous 50 years of Democratic-majority rule.


What "failed theories"? So when President Obama said, "What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years," what failed theories is he talking about? Because the theory on spending that was put into practice the last eight years was the same theory that had been in practice the previous 50!


If you want to try President Clinton's economic "theories" as practiced, be my guest. Because by the time his second term ended, the federal government was spending just 18.4% of GDP, the lowest level since 1966. In addition to cutting spending, he and the Republican Congress at the time also ended Welfare and cut capital gains tax rates. Bring it on!


If Obama wants to go back to those "theories" of government, I beg him to do so. Don't expand health and education programs, like Bush did, but cut taxes and spending, like Clinton did.


Instead, Obama turned logic on its head. He complained about doubling of the national debt under Bush (itself a lie), then increased it by over a trillion dollars in his first month in office. Heck, he increased it by $350B before he was even sworn in (by sending that letter to Congress asking for the second chunk of TARP).


Obama said Bush's theories failed, yet he is doing more of the same - on steroids. Heck, on cocaine. Whatever we're on, it's a bad trip, baby."
Nixon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-01-2009, 10:50 PM   #22
johnnymu
Warranty Killer
 
johnnymu's Avatar
 
Drives: Nike shoe
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: cincinnati, OH

Posts: 1,015
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
Hey Johnny -- What a sad case of plagiarism.

If you are going to be a brainless sheep following others, at least have the moral gravitas to QUOTE your sources instead of pretending to have your own thoughts.

A small snippet from the actual ORIGINAL source that you plagiarized:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._spenders.html

"...Myth. Our national debt doubled in the last eight years.


Fact. Nope, no matter how you measure it. In fact, if adjusted for inflation, real economic growth and population growth, it didn't budge at all...."
I quoted thank you very much. You even quoted that I quoted. See that's whats so sad about you, you don't give a flying f*ck what others say you go around and try find fault and just want to argue. You are a very sad individual that goes through every thread i'm in and try to argue just for the sake of argument. Please go back to your rock you came from cause it's getting old.
__________________
EUROPROJEKTZ Midwest Member
08 335i Jet Black | too much to name....

johnnymu is offline   Taiwan
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST