• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

posting by phone so I can't watch vids. If I remember when I get home I'll look.



That line of thinking is borderline unconstitutional...
How so? Because you say so? I don't think we've debated before but I don't let people get away with such assertions without something to back it up. Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

Arbitrary at best. We have lost more American lives from terror attacks since Saddam was dethroned...
we have? What "terror attacks" have we lost Americans to? Are you blurring the difference between combat fatalities from insurgents and terrorism such as the Cole bombing and barracks bombing?



We freaking lied.
so your assertion is that the ones calling the shots KNEW the intel on nuclear weapons development was wrong or bad, and that they had no other valid reasons for going into Iraq despite the truth or falsehood of nukes? Is that what you are saying?

The reasons for invasion were imaginary.
I know of MANY reasons for invasion? Which one are you referring to? Do you honestly believe it ALL hinged arounds nukes?

Would the American people have supported the invasion if they knew the Colon Powell speech was a fraud?

Remember this?
IraqMobileProductionFacilities.jpg
do you know the difference between lying and being wrong? Can you explain how you know with so much certainty that Powell was lying and wasn't simply wrong?



Build up a national defense. In case you have forgotten, our borders are still unsecured.
Yes, continue down the path history has REPEATEDLY proven futile. Why do you choose to ignore that? Its counterintuitive but inaction in cases such as this is far more dangerous than being proactive. (However, its granted that one's level of proactiveness to ensure safety and livlihood is debateable).
 
:roll:
If that's "the" answer, then you should have no trouble putting up a credible source that supports that answer. I'll wait patiently.

Rememeber that the $1.7T CBO figure he cited is for the ENTIRE war on terror -- "operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities" -- over 16 years.

Thus, I ask again:
What war has cost $1T?

What would you like me to provide, a link to the total cost of the Iraq war up until now? Again, you have to also factor in the interest payments on the treasuries issued to fund the endeavor.
 
What would you like me to provide, a link to the total cost of the Iraq war up until now?
You're the one that's arguing that the war in Iraq has cost $1T.
A link to a credible source that supports that claim would do quite well.
 
You're the one that's arguing that the war in Iraq has cost $1T.
A link to a credible source that supports that claim would do quite well.

No, read my statement: click

Crowding out $1 trillion plus from private investment is appalling. A continuation of such policies will most definitely have an effect on productivity.
 
Last edited:
I read your statement.
I then asked:
What war has cost $1T?

Are you saying that the cost of Iraq will not eclipse $1 trillion on its own? Bottom line, over $1 trillion dollars will have been taken from private investment and put into US treasuries to secure the funding of the war.

Regardless, you obviously do not see this as significant.:2wave:
 
This is true. My point was in regards to those who view social spending as atrocious, and military spending holier than holy. Of course, many of those who hold this belief are undoubtedly military/ex military.
The difference is that military spending is constitutionally mandated while social spending is expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, I am not ex military nor current but am a constitutionalist. I do have a problem with inefficient or inappropriate military spending such as waste, fraud, and ill-advised weaponry/equipment that many politicians sign off on to help out their buddies in the private sector, but that is for another thread.
 
Oh really? I haven't seen evidence that you support tax breaks for the lower and middle class, but then that isn't your "base", is it?
Class warfare talking points as a debate tactic huh? I have seen those enough, they're getting quite boring, but here it is, simplify the tax code to a fair or flat tax and everybody wins, instead of the oppressive progressive income tax, but that makes too much sense to be tried in Washington, so carry on........:roll:
 
Are you saying that the cost of Iraq will not eclipse $1 trillion on its own? Bottom line, over $1 trillion dollars will have been taken from private investment and put into US treasuries to secure the funding of the war.
I'm STILL wonderng what war has cost us $1T.
If you cannot tell me which war, and back up that claim that's fine -- just say so.

Regardless, you obviously do not see this as significant
For it to be significant, it has to be true.
So far, that's not been established.
 
Oh really? I haven't seen evidence that you support tax breaks for the lower and middle class, but then that isn't your "base", is it?
The statement "I suppoprt tax breaks for everyone" -is- evidence.

-I- would amend that to "I suppoprt tax breaks for everyone that pays taxes"
 
, instead of the oppressive progressive income tax

I use capital gains (or used before the stock crash) to lower my effective tax rate. You don't? I don't offshore, but I suppose I could do that too.

Remove progressive taxation, that nearly all economists agree is ideal, and you put more of a burden on lower/middle income, and less on the wealthy. Are you sure about believing that is ideal, because it seems absurd to suggest it.

Oh noes. The very wealthy are being living under the oppression of higher tax rates! How do they cope? Do they have to sell one of their 7 homes?
Funny stuff.
 
This is true. My point was in regards to those who view social spending as atrocious, and military spending holier than holy. Of course, many of those who hold this belief are undoubtedly military/ex military.

I understand that view point. I don't agree completely with either thing (that social spending is atrocious and military is holier than thou), though I do believe that due to the purpose of the federal government military spending, in general, should be more than social stuff.

But none of this changes the fact that some in here are trying to argue that the democrats wastefulness doesn't matter becuase the republicans were wasteful too. Or, at the very least, are deflecting from answering or responding to the democrats wastefulness by trying to cite republicans.

Oh really? I haven't seen evidence that you support tax breaks for the lower and middle class, but then that isn't your "base", is it?

Really, cause I believe RHH supported the Bush Tax Cuts and the Bush Tax Cuts did give Tax Breaks to the lower and middle class.
 
Oh really? I haven't seen evidence that you support tax breaks for the lower and middle class, but then that isn't your "base", is it?


I support tax cuts for everyone who pays taxes.



Can't make it any easier for you.
 
I agree. It's sickening. BTW, you forgot one other wasteful spending program - The Iraq War.

Actually some of the men coming home now were wishing they were back. The pay is good over there while the jobs are scarce here. MANY of them are going back to Iraq as independent contractors where they don't have the same great benefits and safety but at least they have a paying job. Bringing EVERYONE home from Iraq right about now is the ABSOLUTE worse thing Obama could do. Best way to support the troops right now is to let 'em keep that great overseas deployed paycheck. Seriously.
 
Last edited:
Oh really? I haven't seen evidence that you support tax breaks for the lower and middle class, but then that isn't your "base", is it?
Is the Rev running for office?
 
Remove progressive taxation, that nearly all economists agree is ideal, and you put more of a burden on lower/middle income, and less on the wealthy. Are you sure about believing that is ideal, because it seems absurd to suggest it.
So its ok to trample on people if they can take it?

Oh noes. The very wealthy are being living under the oppression of higher tax rates! How do they cope? Do they have to sell one of their 7 homes?
Funny stuff.
The rich should just be happy they are alive. :roll:

You have a terrifying idea of what's fair. That somehow if I made myself and provided myself better than my neighbor then I'm OBLIGATED to compensate for his lack thereof.
 
I'm STILL wondering what war has cost us $1T.
If you cannot tell me which war, and back up that claim that's fine -- just say so.


For it to be significant, it has to be true.
So far, that's not been established.

The $1 trillion dollar figure is tossed around quite a bit these days, and i admit to throwing the term around loosely. But... I do so because whenever debt is issued(especially long term), quite a considerable amount of interest is compounded.

I hope you find this site suitable;) : cost of Iraq war

It is now approaching the $600 billion mark. Wonder what it will be by the end of 2009 (in the midst of "the worst recession since the great depression":2razz:
 
I use capital gains (or used before the stock crash) to lower my effective tax rate. You don't? I don't offshore, but I suppose I could do that too.
Not at the moment I don't, but that's because I am in savings and debt elimination mode at the moment, but even then if the Dems get their way we won't have the capital gains sector to fall back on either.

Remove progressive taxation, that nearly all economists agree is ideal, and you put more of a burden on lower/middle income, and less on the wealthy. Are you sure about believing that is ideal, because it seems absurd to suggest it.
The wealthy have advantages either way, part of the problem is that progressive income taxes kill drive because it is punishment for earning more, which requires more work, the idea is to get rid of the hidden taxation inherent in the progressive income tax that makes production costs higher, thus requiring more of a persons net take home pay.
Oh noes. The very wealthy are being living under the oppression of higher tax rates! How do they cope? Do they have to sell one of their 7 homes?
Funny stuff.
It's the principle first and foremost, and secondly, I think it is extremely insulting for americans to tell other americans what they should be able to earn, keep, etc.
 
The $1 trillion dollar figure is tossed around quite a bit these days, and i admit to throwing the term around loosely. But... I do so because whenever debt is issued(especially long term), quite a considerable amount of interest is compounded.

I hope you find this site suitable;) : cost of Iraq war

It is now approaching the $600 billion mark. Wonder what it will be by the end of 2009 (in the midst of "the worst recession since the great depression":2razz:
So... the war in Iraq has NOT cost $1T.
It MIGHT cost $1T, someday, depending on a huge number of things, - but as of this point, it as NOT cost $1T.
10-4. Thank you.
 
What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. • $125 million for the Washington sewer system.• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.• $500 million for flood reduction. projects on the Mississippi River.• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.• $500 million for state and local fire stations.• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.• $850 million for Amtrak.• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Lets look at some of them...


• $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?

• $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.

• $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.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

Sounds sensible. Bet the Washington sewer system is like many old cities.. a total wreck.

• $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.

• $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.

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

So only those with money should have access to an education and computer facilities?

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

Yea dont get those native american's off the juice.. typical Republican bull****.

• $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?

• $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.

You've completely missed the point. This emergency stimulus bill is being rushed through Congress because we supposedly need to stimulate the economy RIGHT NOW. Cleaning the DC sewers and buying computers for community colleges might be great ideas, but they are not emergencies, nor are they directly related to stimulating the economy. They should be discussed and voted on in the course of the normal legislative process.
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.

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. On the surface, most if not all, of the programs outlined at the beginning of this thread (and reinterated herein) don't fit my simple criteria. But when you look at them the way PeteEU outlines them, most would fit because ultimately we're talking about providing employment opportunities. And each one of the proposals WILL employ somebody in some way, 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.

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? The variables are too great to make such an estimate. But I submit to you this: Even if 100% of the so-called stimulas package was geared towards just sending checkes out to the people, it would still take time for that process to move forward. 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.

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. No stimulas package will be able to provide immediate help (30-90 day relief), but what the package should do is zero in on some projects that need work now and can put people to work in the near future and possibly keep them employed. Building the office of Homeland Security would most likely take a year if not longer to complete. Depending on it's size, I'd say several thousand people would be gainfully employed from that project. And such a project would crossover into many different industries - plumbing, masonry, furniture, electronie, fire/theft protection, windows and doors, flooring, roofing, small electronics, heating and A/C, etc., etc.

One last thing: Could most of the proposed items fall under other separate bills? You bet! But we all know how government works. You either incorporate as much "like-items" under one document, or you waste valuable time trying to get legislation approved piece-mill. I'm not 100% for this stimulas package, but until someone comes up with a better "mouse-trap"...

Nuff Said.
 
Last edited:
• $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.


you do know at current gas prices, the cars premium costs will mean it takes them about 10 years to recoup the costs.... By then the battery is dead.


Hybrids are a feel good sham.
 
I love how people think running out on Iraq will make the cost less.

You're still going to be using the same equipment and troops in Afghanistan. At least until they are made to run away from there too.

Simple fact the USA ran away will embolden the enemy making the war harder and thus more costly.

Costs the same to outfit a soldier in Iraq as it does in Afghanistan...and being sent to fight in Afghanistan is what you all promise those you will make lose in Iraq.

How much is the life of a US soldier, human beings, the USA's word/reputation?
Apparently not worth much.





Every dollar spent on the Iraq war (in every regard) is worth 10 dollars spent on domestic feel good politician idealism.
 
Last edited:
This is true. My point was in regards to those who view social spending as atrocious, and military spending holier than holy. Of course, many of those who hold this belief are undoubtedly military/ex military.

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.
 
No i am referring to the financialization that is required to finance a $1 trillion war. That is $1 trillion that is invested in government treasuries, and $1 trillion less available for investment in the private sector.

It is a simple act of crowding out private investment capital, something you seem to desire from your above statement. The sheer fact that you have not realized this goes lengths to show your expertise in the matter.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom