[jimH]

Madness is... Thinking that the 'free market' is going to solve a problem it created, while demanding tax *breaks* for it and taking taxpayers with it, all while taking our money anyway, and using it to justify selling things which, looky looky, no one turned out to be willing or able to buy when the circumstances they insisted would never happen came about anyway.

I don't know what the economics of the conservative parallel universe are based on, but if big companies had government in their back pockets while giving us nothing *and screwing up even on their own terms,* why now does the worry about spending a buck to try and keep industry from collapsing bother you when real people *actually see real benefits from it?*

What's in it for *you?*

Somewhere along the line someone has to produce something in order for there to be more money. Government doesn't produce anything, private industry does. If the government has any money to give away it has to take it from private industry or individuals.

We are in the situation that we find ourselves in now as a result of government no doing what it is intended to do and that is to govern (regulate). Instead of trying to be the generous old "uncle" and passing out patronage to voters, it should be preventing the problems that brought us to this situation. Our country is so deeply in debt now, I doubt we will ever see daylight.

OK, now I know you are playing dumb on purpose. My original post was in response to people who complained the money for C4C was coming out straight of their pockets. I pointed out that in fact, not enough money was coming out of their pockets to pay for the entirety of government activities, even those they probably enjoy (roads, a strong military, law enforcement, etc), let alone C4C, and that the money was from lenders who lend it to us at interest. And of course I made it clear that money would have to be returned at some point.
As for the thanking part, I doubt you are willing to thank me or the people of Massachusetts (just to mention a state that pays significantly more to the federal government in taxes than it receives) for keeping your Florida highways in decent shape, or paying for hurricane emergency rescue and reconstruction when the next one comes, while of course you could all move to a state where hurricanes don't hit, or pay for your own damn damages and privilege to bask in the Florida sun. Not to mention I have not received any thanks by the numerous fools who got their little national-militaristic orgasmic frenzy when we went to war in Iraq, a war which I kindly contributed to without supporting it in the least. So, pardon me if people who take advantage of a perfectly legitimate federal program that doesn't hurt anyone and has a good chance to help the economy don't feel particularly like thanking you or anyone else.

But there is no evidence anyone bought any car they can't afford. That scenario is just the product of your and probably some wingnut talk radio host's imagination. And if a large number of people had received loans they could not afford to possibly repay, then of course it would mean that the lending standards must have been relaxed, because people don't often default on car loans at high rates. And if the lending standards had been relaxed by lenders to take advantage of lending opportunities they shouldn't have taken, you should properly blame the lenders, their greed, and the mechanisms of free market, not the government, because nothing in C4C suggested, let alone mandated, that lending standards had to be relaxed.

Son, it IS coming straight out of my checkbook. Everytime I write a check to the IRS it comes out of MY account. And there is WAY TOO MUCH coming out of American pockets. Government has terrible fiscal stewardship as evidenced by the bank bailout's 850 billion dollars. 700 to the banks and 150 to Pelosi and Reid. (mostly)

No evidence? Get real.

I thank you and Mexifornia for wasting our money with people like Kennedy, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd and the rest.

Strong military? Not for long with the Obama.

[slomojoe]

No evidence? Get real.

No, you get real - where is your evidence that people will default at any unusually elevated rate on loans related to the C4C program? You don't have any, because it's just another wingnut-land claim that not only has no current proof (because it can't) and is highly unlikely to be true, but even if true, it would not drive the conclusion that the wingnuts derive from it. Honestly, this is the kind of stuff that can only be believed if one agrees to willfully turn off their brain every time Limbaugh and Beck open their mouths.

I thank you and Mexifornia for wasting our money with people like Kennedy, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd and the rest.

Strong military? Not for long with the Obama.

Out of arguments, and entering logic-disconnected rant mode again?

No, you get real - where is your evidence that people will default at any unusually elevated rate on loans related to the C4C program? You don't have any, because it's just another wingnut-land claim that not only has no current proof (because it can't) and is highly unlikely to be true, but even if true, it would not drive the conclusion that the wingnuts derive from it. Honestly, this is the kind of stuff that can only be believed if one agrees to willfully turn off their brain every time Limbaugh and Beck open their mouths.
Out of arguments, and entering logic-disconnected rant mode again?

Son I don't listen to either Rush or Beck.

While it is true that there is no evidence for THIS event historical evidence with similar giveaways have shown it to be true.

What is false or logic disconnected about the spending patterns of those I mentioned. It is true and verifiable.

Obama will cut military spending.

[slomojoe]

While it is true that there is no evidence for THIS event historical evidence with similar giveaways have shown it to be true.

What "similar giveaways" are you referring to exactly, for which you have "historical evidence"?

What is false or logic disconnected about the spending patterns of those I mentioned. It is true and verifiable.

Well, if you are referring to your little "Mexifornia" rant, first what is true and verifiable is that, if you exclude national emergencies like wars and economic catastrophes like the Great Depression and the current recession, the two least fiscally responsible administrations by far have been Reagan's and Bush II's.

Second, the evidence also shows that California and the people from whose jurisdictions Kennedy, Dodd, Frank and Pelosi were elected to office contribute more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in expenditures. Unlike, say, the people from most "Red States", many of whom like you complain about the government "wasting their money", but actually receive more cash from the federal government than they pay in taxes.

Obama will cut military spending.

In the future, who knows. But in his first budget proposal, he increased it.

What "similar giveaways" are you referring to exactly, for which you have "historical evidence"?Well, if you are referring to your little "Mexifornia" rant, first what is true and verifiable is that, if you exclude national emergencies like wars and economic catastrophes like the Great Depression and the current recession, the two least fiscally responsible administrations by far have been Reagan's and Bush II's.

Second, the evidence also shows that California and the people from whose jurisdictions Kennedy, Dodd, Frank and Pelosi were elected to office contribute more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in expenditures. Unlike, say, the people from most "Red States", many of whom like you complain about the government "wasting their money", but actually receive more cash from the federal government than they pay in taxes.
In the future, who knows. But in his first budget proposal, he increased it.

Reagan had to increase spending because the moron before him pretty much left us in the tank. Carter was the worst president this country ever saw and tanked our economy. Ron built it back up.
Clinton again tanked the military and W had to rebuild yet again. Every time there is a liberal in office the next republican has to fix things.

Pelosi added 150 BILLION to the "emergency" bailout that was unnecessary. They are spending way more than we take in. China has told us NOT to print more money. But they still do.

Like Blue said about the pigs and mud.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by graphicgr8s; 08-27-2009 at 09:38 AM.

[slomojoe]

Reagan had to increase spending because the moron before him pretty much left us in the tank. Carter was the worst president this country ever saw and tanked our economy. Ron built it back up.
Clinton again tanked the military and W had to rebuild yet again. Every time there is a liberal in office the next republican has to fix things.

LOL, let's crank up the craaa-zy. That's so far out there, I think even Glenn Beck would think twice before saying it.

Pelosi added 150 BILLION to the "emergency" bailout that was unnecessary.

Uh? If you are talking about her stimulus proposal last fall, not only it was necessary, but it turned out not to be enough, as later events showed.

China has told us NOT to print more money. But they still do.

OK, now you are saying that the US should take advice/orders from the Chinese with regard to its monetary policy? Because they have our best interests in mind? If they don't like our debt, they should just not buy it. Obviously, they still do, so it can't be too bad.

LOL, let's crank up the craaa-zy. That's so far out there, I think even Glenn Beck would think twice before saying it.

Uh? If you are talking about her stimulus proposal last fall, not only it was necessary, but it turned out not to be enough, as later events showed. OK, now you are saying that the US should take advice/orders from the Chinese with regard to its monetary policy? Because they have our best interests in mind? If they don't like our debt, they should just not buy it. Obviously, they still do, so it can't be too bad.

So Carter was a good president?

Not the crapulus. The bank bailout of 850 billion. You know. the 700 billion to the banks and 150 billion to the Pelosi fund. The one she put together during the last year of W's term. Well her and one of the other thieves. Reid.

China has told us to stop printing money to cover. It devalues their assets.

[slomojoe]

So Carter was a good president?

No, not particularly, but he certainly was not even remotely as bad or morally bankrupt as Nixon or GW Bush, and of course he got caught in the Iranian revolution and the energy crisis which weren't his fault. But that has nothing to do with Reagan's "voodoo economics" and its effects. Reagan busted the budget because, at least initially, he was genuinely convinced that cutting taxes would magically increase revenues, and when that did not happen, he could not back off. GW Bush believed the same thing (or said he did), and at that point doing so was sheer insanity or crazy incompetence, because by 2000 everyone should have known better.

Not the crapulus. The bank bailout of 850 billion. You know. the 700 billion to the banks and 150 billion to the Pelosi fund. The one she put together during the last year of W's term. Well her and one of the other thieves. Reid.

So? She was right. By January, even Republicans agreed that a multi-hundred-billion dollars 's stimulus plan was necessary to revive the economy, although they disagreed about what form it should take.

China has told us to stop printing money to cover. It devalues their assets.

OK, now you worry me. Are you really saying that the US government should design its monetary policy to conform to the interests of Chinese creditors over those of the American people? That's just weird. As I said, the Chinese are free to stop buying US bonds at any time, if they don't like the US government's economic policies. They can always buy Euro bonds if they want. So far, that has not happened.

Whatever. Sip the Kool Aide real nice and slow.

[Ratmagiclady]

Somewhere along the line someone has to produce something in order for there to be more money. Government doesn't produce anything, private industry does. If the government has any money to give away it has to take it from private industry or individuals.

We are in the situation that we find ourselves in now as a result of government no doing what it is intended to do and that is to govern (regulate). Instead of trying to be the generous old "uncle" and passing out patronage to voters, it should be preventing the problems that brought us to this situation. Our country is so deeply in debt now, I doubt we will ever see daylight.

Government *does* have responsibilities in these regards. People don't complain when a 'bailout' hands money to the very predatory lenders that profited off creating this crisis, but actually directly stimulating industry by helping people actually buy the products that employ the people that in turn support whatever work *they* do.

The Bush administration transferred a huge budget surplus and equally-huge deficits to the corporations and rich, in the process of *making* this mess and leaving us with basically nothing but mess to show for it. You don't escape a depression by choosing *now* to start worrying about the long-term debts, if it means becoming another depressing factor on our economy, credit, and manufacturing infrastructure.

Incentives to let people start driving a more-efficient vehicle means we get to keep some means to actually start producing what it takes to start *cutting* the debt, and it also means both families and the nation as a whole can start doing something else with their money than maintain old vehicles that they can't afford to fuel.

It's certainly not belt-tightening to continue spending so much of our incomes on wasting gas and feeding no one but oil interests.

This is not money badly-spent. The same goes for incentives for more-efficient home appliances. Not only are jobs involved, money freed up, and energy costs' drag on the economy reduced, but it actually helps improve life for a lot of citizens. Which bailing out your Enrons really doesn't.

No, it's not a good situation Bush left us with. But that doesn't mean that 'Cause a Democrat's in office, now's the time to tighten things up, so we can sit here losing jobs and watching interest accrue on debts that aren't working for us.'

[slomojoe]

Whatever. Sip the Kool Aide real nice and slow.

Coming from someone who has made several demonstrably false and/or utterly unsubstantiated, and/or plainly absurd claims just in this thread, this seems a wee bit like projection.

[deadwolfbones]

So much fun watching graphics get owned in these threads.

[jsherman999]

...Even the CNN website has it wrong. And that's where I got it from. Yeah Yeah so I read CNN. So what? Big deal.

That'll teach ya - stick to Fox News!

Oh, wait - they suck.


.