Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 128

Thread: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Red herring and a emotional pleas only strengthen your argument if the audience buys into them. I do not, therefore i reject your premise.

    Iraq had no involvement what so ever in the 911 attacks, and i find it laughable that you attempted to correlate the two. If you add the 4,000 plus lives lost in Iraq, you now have (according to your 911 estimate) over 7,000 causalities, all while we are no safer than we were pre invasion.

    Do pre-emptive wars of which the country and world are in disagreement make us a more safe nation? Are our enemies enthralled with the fact that it is now much easier to kill Americans with our increased middle east presence?
    How ironic that you argue about red herrings and emotional pleas while making the false argument that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

    Did you read the Joint Resolution? If you read it, can you show me or paste here where it refers to Iraq having something to do with 9-11 and is the reason we went in?

    While you’re at it, count the words in the document and tell me how many were devoted to WMDs.

    I know you prefer convenient talking points and empty partisan rhetoric to the facts, but of the 1,857 words in the Joint Resolution, only 200 plus were devoted to WMDs.

    As for the casualties, those were caused by terrorist thugs and murderers who do not want to see a free Iraq. Why do you blame the administration for the deaths caused by terrorists?

    As for our safety, have we been hit since 9-11 under George Bush's watch? I assure you that if you are feeling less safe, it is all in your head and part of the same false Liberal partisan mental state thinking that closing Gunatanamo and retreating from Iraq will make us all safer.

    Carry on; I look forward to educating you further on the FACTS.
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 02-05-09 at 07:00 PM.

  2. #102
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I guess you fail to comprehend the entire purpose of the Federal Government as set out in the Constitution.

    It didn't say to provide housing, food stamps, healthcare, cars, mortgages and the economy for the citizens; it stated to defend and protect the nation and administer the laws of the land.

    Good lord, it doesn't take a genius to figure out it isn't working for Europe, why would anyone think we can make Government work at all???

    You can't rail about how badly Government mismanaged everything from the war to Katrina, and then try to convince me that suddenly with Democrats in charge, the entire Government became efficient; that is just preposterous not to mention lame.
    I cannot believe a Bush supporter is going to use the "constitutionality" argument when criticizing social spending. You wanna talk about being stunningly full of ****
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #103
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I am going to ignore your false argument that the Iraq War has cost a trillion and focus on your other false arguments about crowding out capital.

    So you think that the current Administration's largess by passing trillions in social welfare spending is not going to crowd out investment capital?

    Why don't you tell me how the Government can borrow and also print money to pay for all this without crowding out capital? Secondly, you are so pro-Obama, why don't you share with us how he is planning to eventually pay for all the borrowing?
    Crowding out is going to take place with the current spending bill, and i never said it was not. Therefore, what is your point? If you cannot understand the concept of crowding out investment while creating a multiplier effect in another country, then you might want to refrain from making economic comments until you are more at ease with such thought.

    You crowd out private investment to spend it in another country, building palaces and bridges previously destroyed. Operating under the assumption that it has increased our safety is really quite sad.

    Had that same amount of money be spent right here in the US, our current financial crisis might not be so painful to so many...
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #104
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    How ironic that you argue about red herrings and emotional pleas while making the false argument that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

    Did you read the Joint Resolution? If you read it, can you show me or paste here where it refers to Iraq having something to do with 9-11 and is the reason we went in?

    While you’re at it, count the words in the document and tell me how many were devoted to WMDs.

    I know you prefer convenient talking points and empty partisan rhetoric to the facts, but of the 1,857 words in the Joint Resolution, only 200 plus were devoted to WMDs.

    As for the casualties, those were caused by terrorist thugs and murderers who do not want to see a free Iraq. Why do you blame the administration for the deaths caused by terrorists?

    As for our safety, have we been hit since 9-11 under George Bush's watch? I assure you that if you are feeling less safe, it is all in your head and part of the same false Liberal partisan mental state thinking that closing Gunatanamo and retreating from Iraq will make us all safer.

    Carry on; I look forward to educating you further on the FACTS.
    There was no reason to invade Iraq. If you claim all this 911 connection, then i demand you site conjunction. Failure to do so proves this entire post i am replying to irrelevant.

    At best you will find sources where Saddam was paying for Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Last time i checked, Israel was not part of the US.

    Oh yeah, 8 years without an attack is due to the war in Iraq Only in your mind...
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    How ironic that you argue about red herrings and emotional pleas while making the false argument that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

    Did you read the Joint Resolution? If you read it, can you show me or paste here where it refers to Iraq having something to do with 9-11 and is the reason we went in?

    While you’re at it, count the words in the document and tell me how many were devoted to WMDs.

    I know you prefer convenient talking points and empty partisan rhetoric to the facts, but of the 1,857 words in the Joint Resolution, only 200 plus were devoted to WMDs.

    As for the casualties, those were caused by terrorist thugs and murderers who do not want to see a free Iraq. Why do you blame the administration for the deaths caused by terrorists?

    As for our safety, have we been hit since 9-11 under George Bush's watch? I assure you that if you are feeling less safe, it is all in your head and part of the same false Liberal partisan mental state thinking that closing Gunatanamo and retreating from Iraq will make us all safer.

    Carry on; I look forward to educating you further on the FACTS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    There was no reason to invade Iraq. If you claim all this 911 connection, then i demand you site conjunction. Failure to do so proves this entire post i am replying to irrelevant.

    At best you will find sources where Saddam was paying for Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Last time i checked, Israel was not part of the US.

    Oh yeah, 8 years without an attack is due to the war in Iraq Only in your mind...
    Where am I claiming in the above that there was a 9-11 connection? That happens to be YOUR argument and I stated that your argument is fabricated.

    Did you read the Joint Resolution on Iraq? I would suggest that before you go on another incoherent rant, you read the Constitution and the Joint Resolution.

    It's obvious you fail to comprehend what anyone says in response to your rabid nonsense.

  6. #106
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    There was no reason to invade Iraq.
    The reasons we invaded Iraq were laid out quite clearly.

    Oh yeah, 8 years without an attack...
    Why do you suppose there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 9/11?

  7. #107
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Lets look at some of them...
    Ok.

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

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


    How exactly is this pork? The Bush administration and the Republicans championed this red tape organisation.. so now they dont want to house it? Wont the construction employ hundreds if not thousands of Americans?
    It doesn't have to be pork to be bad policy and ineffective as a stimulus.

    The fed government is sitting on $1.3 TRILLION of property and Congress refuses to sell it. Yet, we're going to spend $500 billion on a new building. And then another quarter billion on furnishing it? What's wrong with using less money to retrofit existing buildings and using the same furniture they do now?

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

    Fear that the US government should actually save on gasoline bills.. This smells of Detroit buying off the Republicans because Detroit does not have hybrids that are worth a damn yet.
    Not buy, but lease. And the AP looked into this nonsense last year:
    Americans love their cars, and so apparently does Uncle Sam—who's got 642,233 of them.

    Operating those vehicles—maintenance, leases and fuel—cost taxpayers a whopping $3.4 billion last year, according to General Services Administration data obtained and analyzed by The Associated Press.

    While Cabinet and other officials say they need the vehicles to do their jobs, watchdogs say mismanagement of the government fleet is costing millions of dollars a year in wasteful spending.
    we've got costs going up for no reason, agencies buying cars they don't need, cars disappearing at random...but we shouldn't trim that budget, instead, we should expand it by 20%??? What's wrong with the current inventory? Why should taxpayers buy new cars for bureaucrats rather than themselves? That makes real sense.

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

    Sounds sensible. If they can prevent STD's then they will save on medical bills.. oh wait, that is not what the HMO's and drug companies want... Smells again of industry pressure.
    You don't need $400 million to properly educate citizens about the spread and infection rates of STD's. In fact, you need not spend any more than we already do.

    • $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

    Sounds sensible. Bet the Washington sewer system is like many old cities.. a total wreck.
    This one does sound reasonable. But this shouldn't be handled as emergency stimulus spending.

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

    Again smells of Republican sewer tactics.. wonder if they are worried that a new census will weaken their grip on power even more.
    Meanwhile, as Tom Coburn rightly acknowledged yesterday:
    How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the census is so poorly managed that the census this year is going to cost twice—in 2010 is going to cost twice what it cost 10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a contract because it was no-bid that didn't perform. Nobody got fired, no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.
    So, you sure you wanna call such criticism illegitimate?

    • $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

    Ahn I see the tobacco companies at work here. Spend 75 million and maybe save hundreds of millions in medical bills in the future.. worth it if you ask me.
    Yeah, this makes sense. Congress just passed SCHIP which will require an additional 61 million more smokers to pay for...

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

    So only those with money should have access to an education and computer facilities?
    Are you serious? Since when should the fed government get involved in creating public computer centers in community colleges? Much less as emergency spending?

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

    So spend 500 million to save billions in damage due to the river going over its banks? What is not sensible in that? Or do the insurance companies like to pay out billions in damages?
    This ain't emergency spending.

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

    Very sensible.. Extremely sensible and will put tons of people into work. Not to mention the savings for the government in heating and power.
    All you're doing is playing a shell game. Taking my tax dollars, skimming an administrative factor just to build/retrofit buildings in DC rather than leaving those dollars in the private sector to actually, you know, create wealth rather than temporary jobs subsidized by government spending.

    I've listened to both sides of this debate and I'm not convicned either side knows exactly what measures will actually put this country back on the right financial footing anytime soon regardless of what "stimulas" package or "spending" bill is thrown out there.
    But people can surely draw conclusions about how some of the proposed spending ain't stimulus spending at all...unless you buy Obama's nonsense that all government spending is stimulative.

    IMO, a stimulas package should be something that takes government money and targets certain programs, activities and/or entities that can help boost the nation's economy in the short-term.
    And at the end of that short-term...all those temporary jobs disappear...unless the government continues plowing money into their pockets.

    Makes sense.

    But when you look at them the way PeteEU outlines them, most would fit because ultimately we're talking about providing employment opportunities.
    That create no wealth and create only temporary jobs. These are temporary government jobs programs that completely disappear...unless, as people rightly fear, this emergency spending becomes the baseline spending in future years. In other words, this stimulus spending ain't stimulus spending at all but just more government welfare.

    And each one of the proposals WILL employ somebody in some way,
    Yeah, like Job Corps. 388 jobs from $160 million in spending. That's $1.5 million per job.

    What a deal!

    i.e., PCs for community colleges - the PC components have to be built, the PCs assembled, the community colleges wired or rewired, the PC furniture manufactured, shipped and installed onsite, etc., etc. So, when you look at things in the abstract, maybe they don't make sense to most people. But when you really break it down from start to finish those computers would generate alot of employment opportunities.
    Those computers will be built anyways. All that is happening is that the government, with no bidding process (there is no bidding provision in the legislation), will stash government cash in Dell, HP, and Compaq's pockets. And once these community colleges have these PC's, what then? Where will they get the money to maintain them and then replace them, cuz you know that the "public" won't be allowed to use old computer lest the digital gap widen.

    Now, the real question is the timeline: how soon could something like PC installation possibly help a crippled economy in the short-term, i.e., 120-365 days?
    It doesn't. As I already noted here before, more then 60% of this spending doesn't happen until after 2010. This ain't stimulus spending.

    Nonetheless, we all know how we "spent" our last stimulas checks under former president Bush. Thus, I can see why president Obama's administration would be reluctant to do that again any time soon.
    So, lets confiscate a thousand billion plus dollars from the people to spend on temporary spending programs, most of which dn't come until after 2010...there's no sense there.

    For those arguing against the stimulas package, I won't say you're wrong for being against it. However, I will say that unless you look deeper into it, you'll be more likely as I was to reject it out of hand.
    Wrong, The further we look into it the more disgusted we become. That's why public support is cratering on this...below 40% now.

    I'm not 100% for this stimulas package, but until someone comes up with a better "mouse-trap"...

    Nuff Said.
    What totally inane thinking.

  8. #108
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The reasons we invaded Iraq were laid out quite clearly.
    te

    Why do you suppose there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 9/11?
    An attack of that nature (911) created a mindset that will no longer negotiate with terrorist threats, especially when there is a situation with few thugs and many possible hostages. Americans will no longer be threatened into a situation of mutual destruction in the name of Allah. The possibility for hostage based terror attacks are practically ZERO.

    But our borders are open to the point where millions of people can get through them without US knowledge of who the **** they actually are. We should have secured our own borders, truly protect the citizens, and then deal with the rest of the world.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When you give welfare or what not, the money is (for the most part) spent within the national economy. Of the current $600 billion total, only a portion directed towards domestic production/consumption. The efficiency creation (better infrastructure/communications) was created in Iraq along with the multiplier effect it coincides with, while production of military goods (for the most part) stayed within.

    Both could have been internal, but a judgment call was made. The fact that people are now questioning it should seem quite natural in the wake of this economic climate.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #109
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    An attack of that nature (911) created a mindset that will no longer negotiate with terrorist threats, especially when there is a situation with few thugs and many possible hostages. Americans will no longer be threatened into a situation of mutual destruction in the name of Allah. The possibility for hostage based terror attacks are practically ZERO.
    This doesn't address my question - I didn't ask why there have been no 9/11 style attack, I asked why there have been no terrorist attacks, period. There need be no hostages involved for there to be another terrorist attack in the US.

    So...
    Why do you suppose there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 9/11?

  10. #110
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The reasons we invaded Iraq were laid out quite clearly.


    Why do you suppose there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 9/11?
    Because in general it takes a long time to plan and excute a successful terrorist attack in the U.S. This is true now, and it was true previously. There were 8 years from 1993's WTC bombing to 2001's 9/11 without any terrorist attack in the U.S., yet I would hardly say that Clinton's terrorist policies made us safer or caused it.

    Simply pointing to the years without an attack as evidence is a faulty, illogical argument.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •