The next spending bill thread

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
So I figure since the new spending bill has just started to be made public today, there will be plenty to discuss.

*This may be somewhat related to Ramastoria's health care thread, if it ends up being the same I apologize.

I think Glenn Beck pretty much nailed my feelings on the whole thing today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDOoV3Qxjsc

As we find out what's in this spending bill, post here.
 
he is complaining about less than 2% of the budget, even though i agree that some earmarks are wasteful, there are always some that are important. You have to take the good with the bad. Oh and his shtick of being loud and throwing things must make repubs' pants all tight cause he just sounds like a windbag to me
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']he is complaining about less than 2% of the budget, even though i agree that some earmarks are wasteful, there are always some that are important. You have to take the good with the bad. Oh and his shtick of being loud and throwing things must make repubs' pants all tight cause he just sounds like a windbag to me[/QUOTE]

Maybe you missed the half where he called out Republicans for being at least 40% of the problem, and essentially calling the RNC chairman a total liar.

And he isn't a Republican. He spent half of last year on his radio show "auditioning" alternative political parties by having their leaders on trying to convert him. I only heard when he had the leader of the prohibition party on. That was a hoot.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Maybe you missed the half where he called out Republicans for being at least 40% of the problem, and essentially calling the RNC chairman a total liar.

And he isn't a Republican. He spent half of last year on his radio show "auditioning" alternative political parties by having their leaders on trying to convert him. I only heard when he had the leader of the prohibition party on. That was a hoot.[/quote]



I saw him say republicans were also the problem, then he kept on naming democrats, now I didnt finish, but the first 3 minutes was all anti dems after briefly mentioning republicans
 
Pork is the reason Republicans lose?

No ... a Republican President flaunting the law, dragging the country through two pointless wars and being cool with record deficits did a lot to ruin the Republican brand.

Of course, said President's replacement was war torn, ill tempered, jack and master of no trades zombie standin with vice president who was the poster woman for the positive aspects of a global caliphate.

The Democrats, on the other hand, nominate a newb who fulfilled the fantasy of every conservative since 1992: beating Hillary Clinton.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I saw him say republicans were also the problem, then he kept on naming democrats, now I didnt finish, but the first 3 minutes was all anti dems after briefly mentioning republicans[/QUOTE]

Skip to about 5:00 in, he lists off some Republican offenders.
 
one of the right wing radio people that I listen to on the way home has been going on and on about how taxes on the top 2% of earners in this country account for something like 40-50% of what the govt. takes in as income. Sounds absolutely horrible until you change those percentages into some real numbers. At that point, the top 2% pay FAR less as a percentage of personal income than those at the median income.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Honestly, I can blame 535 members of Congress atm.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, there are some members, like John McCain and Tom Coburn, who foreswear earmarks. Some Democrats too. Even Obama said he wouldn't put in more earmarks, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside after the campaign. But most of them are to blame, sure. Chuck Schumer in particular, from that video clip and everything I've ever heard him say, is a complete and total ass (who is also beholden to Wall Street, by the way, and a big Geithner supporter - egads).
 
I want to find out if it's true that this new spending bill has earmarks by Obama in it from when he was a Senator, and as recently as this week had his name removed from it.

That's really embarrassing if true.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I want to find out if it's true that this new spending bill has earmarks by Obama in it from when he was a Senator, and as recently as this week had his name removed from it.

That's really embarrassing if true.[/QUOTE]

Without doing any research I believe it's from when he was a senator. The bill they just passed was actually this year's budget, the one Congress utterly failed to complete on schedule last year (not a shock; they wanted a more amenable White House to work with). Now they move on to working on next year's budget and larding on as many bullshit projects as they can to that.

When you or I don't have extra money, or are in debt, we cut back on purchases. Maybe we don't buy that new video game or we don't go out to eat at fancy restaurants. Congress, on the other hand, decides we need to spend the money we are borrowing from China for mosquito traps in Florida or restoring a historic structure of little importance at best.

Unlike Charles Schumer, the rest of us understand that every little bit counts. Even if it's only $10 billion (it's far more, really, since much of this stuff is disguised as legitimate things like military acquisitions) that's $10 billion less we are in debt. I know that seems like a small amount compared to the glazed-eyes numbers we're hearing now ($7+ trillion?), but $10 billion is 1/3 of the amount of money it would take to conquer world hunger, to take an example of how that waste could be used more productively. Or, think about how many people could be retrained for better jobs who have lost work in the last year or two with $10,000,000,000. fuck you, Schumer.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']When you or I don't have extra money, or are in debt, we cut back on purchases. Maybe we don't buy that new video game or we don't go out to eat at fancy restaurants. Congress, on the other hand, decides we need to spend the money we are borrowing from China...[/quote]

There is a word you should know about, that word is counterintuitive. Lot of things seem to be against common sense but actually work, although that hardly counts here as it takes a special sort of person to compare the federal government to their household budget.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There is a word you should know about, that word is counterintuitive. Lot of things seem to be against common sense but actually work, although that hardly counts here as it takes a special sort of person to compare the federal government to their household budget.[/QUOTE]
Msut, why don't you explain it?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Msut, why don't you explain it?[/QUOTE]

Explain what exactly?

Why the federal budget isn't like yours or anyones household budget?

Want me to give an example of something counterintuitive?

Pretty much everything about economics post whatever people happen to think Adam Smith said?

Seriously?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Explain what exactly?

Why the federal budget isn't like yours or anyones household budget?

Give an example of counterintuitive?

Pretty much everything about economics post whatever people happen to think Adam Smith said?

Seriously?[/QUOTE]
Why not explain why the opposite of what elprincipe said applies to the federal budget?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Why not explain why the opposite of what elprincipe said applies to the federal budget?[/QUOTE]

My answer would depend on how much you know about Keynesian Economics or Economics in general.
 
All this BS about economic theory get's to be pointless:

It is simple, really:

To combat a deficit, one should spend less such that income > expenditures...
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Keynesian economics is unwraveling before our eyes today. It's a beautiful thing.

Good riddance.[/QUOTE]

You are a joke.

Doubly so considering where you are coming from.
 
[quote name='BigT']All this BS about economic theory get's to be pointless:

It is simple, really:

To combat a deficit, one should spend less such that income > expenditures...[/QUOTE]

This is what happens when your go to guy for economics is Joe the Plumber.
 
[quote name='Kayden']So you think it's a good idea to spend your way out of debt?[/QUOTE]

Can you point out a time the US has ever been "out of debt"?

I must have missed the part where that became the only point of the stimulus.
 
EXACTLY.
The economy has gone to shit because the government spends more than it has with reckless abandon. Any time they need more money, they just print it and hurt the economy more.

Maybe if the people in charge of the country were fiscally responsible we'd be in better shape.
[quote name='Msut77']Can you point out a time the US has ever been "out of debt"?
[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']The economy has gone to shit because the government spends more than it has with reckless abandon.[/QUOTE]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 
Enlighten me then, how has uncheck spending helped the economy and what is the real cause of our depression?
[quote name='Msut77']You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']Enlighten me then, how has unchecked spending helped the economy and what is the real cause of our depression?[/QUOTE]

The failed policies of conservatism certainly haven't helped, I have seen it argued that spending so much in Iraq has helped to fuel the recession. Having spent tons of money the wrong way is not an argument against the stimulus.

If I had to point to one single direct cause it would be the collapse of the housing bubble along with the banks and investment firms that were ridiculously over leveraged.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The failed policies of conservatism certainly haven't helped, I have seen it argued that spending so much in Iraq has helped to fuel the recession. Having spent tons of money the wrong way is not an argument against the stimulus.

If I had to point to one single direct cause it would be the collapse of the housing bubble along with the banks and investment firms that were ridiculously over leveraged.[/quote]

If you still have faith in either party, then I feel sorry for you... Democrats and Republicans have both proven themselves to be complete crooks.

There are a few very applicable quotes to our current dilemma:

Mencken:
Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
Click to expand...

Franklin:
When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic.
Click to expand...

Marx:
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Click to expand...

The housing bubble, and prior to that, the tech bubble, only masked the fundamental problems of our economy: it was basically a large ponzi scheme with fake money (i.e., money with no real backing or value) being earned on wall street and experts telling people to always stay in for the long haul -- because we all know how Ponzi schemes end! Plus this was all enabled by the easy money being pumped in through credit and being printed by the fed... People's value and home prices rose on paper, but our economy did not have any fundamental increase in productivity that would justify such a rise...

...now, the Ponzi scheme is falling apart and the artificially overvalued assets are collapsing to their natural value... Uncle Obama can try to prop it up as long as he can, but that will just delay the inevitable.
 
[quote name='BigT']If you still have faith in either party, then I feel sorry for you.[/QUOTE]

I am not saying the Democratic Party is perfect but it is unequivocally superior to the Republicans.

with fake money (i.e., money with no real backing or value)
Click to expand...

There were recessions and depressions at times when currency was or was backed with specie.

Not to take this OT but I would like to hear your alternative to Democracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='BigT']

The housing bubble, and prior to that, the tech bubble, only masked the fundamental problems of our economy: it was basically a large ponzi scheme with fake money (i.e., money with no real backing or value) being earned on wall street and experts telling people to always stay in for the long haul -- because we all know how Ponzi schemes end! Plus this was all enabled by the easy money being pumped in through credit and being printed by the fed... People's value and home prices rose on paper, but our economy did not have any fundamental increase in productivity that would justify such a rise...

[/quote]

You've passed the issue. The issue wasn't with the federal reserve in itself, the federal reserve has been around when we were not in the worst depression of our lifetime. We all know things could've been done to prevent this from happening. I know this sounds silly, but the federal reserve is here, it's not going anywhere, and we have to find ways to work with it or around it in order to have a sustainable economy, simple as that. It IS possible.
 
[quote name='speedracer']When BigT is quoting Marx to make a point, you know the world is screwed up.[/quote]

Yes, it truly is! ;)
 
Here is a challenge for anyone here in debt: Whatever your debt is, triple it.

After all, if Obama thinks it's a good idea for the government, why isn't it a good idea for you? :)
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']You've passed the issue. The issue wasn't with the federal reserve in itself, the federal reserve has been around when we were not in the worst depression of our lifetime. We all know things could've been done to prevent this from happening. I know this sounds silly, but the federal reserve is here, it's not going anywhere, and we have to find ways to work with it or around it in order to have a sustainable economy, simple as that. It IS possible.[/QUOTE]

It depends on what you mean by "sustainable". If you're ok with a depression every now and then, and fat cats getting richer than they should, then sure you'll want the Fed.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Here is a challenge for anyone here in debt: Whatever your debt is, triple it.

After all, if Obama thinks it's a good idea for the government, why isn't it a good idea for you? :)[/quote]

OK. Can I buy 5 houses and start charging rent?

EDIT: Assume we don't have a collapse of civilization and all this money causes some inflation, anybody buying homes on the cheap and setting them up as rental properties is going to clean up in a few years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK. Can I buy 5 houses and start charging rent?

EDIT: Assume we don't have a collapse of civilization and all this money causes some inflation, anybody buying homes on the cheap and setting them up as rental properties is going to clean up in a few years.[/QUOTE]

You should be able to, yes. There is more than enough money in circulation now, that's for sure.
 
The only problem here is that it'll only work for those that are already moderately well off. The only ways to make "easy" money require you already have a lot of money. If you have to work your ass off, that'll usually just get you by.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK. Can I buy 5 houses and start charging rent?

EDIT: Assume we don't have a collapse of civilization and all this money causes some inflation, anybody buying homes on the cheap and setting them up as rental properties is going to clean up in a few years.[/quote]
 
[quote name='rickonker']It depends on what you mean by "sustainable". If you're ok with a depression every now and then, and fat cats getting richer than they should, then sure you'll want the Fed.[/quote]

[quote name='Kayden']The only problem here is that it'll only work for those that are already moderately well off. The only ways to make "easy" money require you already have a lot of money. If you have to work your ass off, that'll usually just get you by.[/quote]

Those examples are just the nature of capitalism, the government doesn't have anything to do with the existence of depressions or the rich getting richer. Well, it can, but it doesn't create those problems, they're inherent.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Those examples are just the nature of capitalism, the government doesn't have anything to do with the existence of depressions or the rich getting richer. Well, it can, but it doesn't create those problems, they're inherent.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying, if one person murders someone, and then an army nukes a city, it's just human nature to kill. Maybe, maybe not, but it's missing the difference between the two.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Here is a challenge for anyone here in debt: Whatever your debt is, triple it.

After all, if Obama thinks it's a good idea for the government, why isn't it a good idea for you? :)[/quote]

Thats actually works great and I do it personally as often as possible.

Lets say, I'm 10k in debt (I'm not). Someone is willing to loan me 20k at x%, tripling my debt. If I can get a return on that 20k in excess of x% before I have to pay it back, then I'll take whatever loan I can get. Its all about return on investment. I'll 10x or 100x my debt if someone will extend that much credit at a rate I can exploit.

I often get 0% interest rates on checks that get applied to my credit card. I take out the maximum and find some investment for it, pay them back and pocket the difference.

As far as a spending bill, we have two potential rates to beat:
1) Rates from selling treasury bonds to the Chinese.
2) Taking it from the rich at ~0% :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Five weeks into Obama's presidency and you're agreeing with batshit insane "let's show a video of my colonoscopy" Glenn Beck?

Jesus, man, you still have a roof over your head. No need to get so desperate just yet!
 
Yes I do. I see blatant hypocrisy in what he said in his campaign about earmarks (one of the few things I liked that he said) and what's going on with these spending bills.

Edit: and here is a warning/hint: Beck has suddenly become the only MSM host saying it like it is and needs to be said in the past 3 weeks, so expect my linkage to his videos more. Those that hiss like vampires to a crucifix at Beck or Foxnews clips may want to click on my name and consider hitting that last option while you still have the chance to save your blood pressure ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't know if any of you caught the Gizmodo concept picture of a trillion dollars, but I thought it appropriate for this thread.

pallet_x_10000.jpg
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes I do. I see blatant hypocrisy in what he said in his campaign about earmarks (one of the few things I liked that he said) and what's going on with these spending bills.

Edit: and here is a warning/hint: Beck has suddenly become the only MSM host saying it like it is and needs to be said in the past 3 weeks, so expect my linkage to his videos more. Those that hiss like vampires to a crucifix at Beck or Foxnews clips may want to click on my name and consider hitting that last option while you still have the chance to save your blood pressure ;)[/quote]

Focusing on earmarks is like treating rabies by wiping the foam off of a rabid dog's mouth.

...

I'm waiting to see the military budget to go down. Would it be ill advised to hold my breath?
 
So do we get to talk about Pelosi's referenced Stimulus Bill #3 in this thread, or does that get a new one? (next next spending bill) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top