• 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!

House Democrats propose $410B spending bill

You are describing a completely different animal. I am pertaining to wealth decline.
Just a question...
Isnt inflation a form of 'wealth decline'?
 
Just a question...
Isnt inflation a form of 'wealth decline'?

I would certainly say so.

But inflation is also a government statistic and is easily manipulated...the same is true with unemployment figures.

Nobody knows what actual inflation is at the moment, how could they?
 
Just a question...
Isnt inflation a form of 'wealth decline'?

Who's assets are denominated just in cash:roll: Having inflation along with a fixed loan gives you an advantage over a bank, where as the opposite is true in our current economic state. Prices are sensitive to decrease when it becomes an overall phenomenon, and combined with a loss in velocity, restricts revenues. Again, people with fixed loans are not always able to renegotiate interest which creates a painful scenario if wages begin to fall with prices.

During periods of inflation, money crowds into various bonds, allowing saving to exist. Anyone holding large sums of cash is just plain weird, unless it represents only a small fraction of their net worth.

I am not arguing for inflation in anyway, but deflation is even worse from my perspective.
 
We went from big-spending Republicans to big-spending Democrats. When will the fiscal lunacy end?

I still disagree with the "big" spending label on Republicans. There is a profound difference in that the Republican spending was primarily due to 9-11, the 9-11 commission recommendations and creation of Homeland Security, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. In other words, it was NOT planned to happen; it was a string of unexpected disasters.

This is willful and borders on criminal negligence to spend this kind of money without ANY debate about how to pay for it all; BIG DIFFERENCE here folks.

:shock:
 
Bush did not inherit an economy in shambles. Obama did.

Huge difference, don't you think?

What is happening now is unprecedented. The spending that is occurring is to save the US from going under. It might work out, or it may be a total disaster, but something had to be done.

Staying loyal till the bitter end, I see. I wonder what the Democrats will run out of first: money or apologetics.
 
Bush did not inherit an economy in shambles. Obama did.

Gee, I thought Obama VOTED for all the deficit spending he inherited? It isn't like he didn't know about it is it?

Huge difference, don't you think?

There is a HUGE difference indeed; during Bush's administration the spending was mostly UNPLANNED as in the events of 9-11, the 9-11 recommendations to set up the Homeland Security, two wars and a major natural disaster in one of our major cities.

In Obama and the Democrats case, the willful continuance of spending vast sums of money they just don't have without any consideration or debate on how to fund it all borders on criminal negligence.

But we all understand why there have been NO debates on funding don't we? Aside from the fact that Pelosi and Reid LIED to the American people about transparency and fiscal responsibility in pay-as-you-go legislation, any talk about the tax increases it will require to pay for the trillions already committed, not even to mention the trillions contained in Obama's speech last night, would cause a revolt amongst the American people.

When the tab for all these programs is exposed and the taxes needed to cover it are requested, the American people will revolt.

What is happening now is unprecedented. The spending that is occurring is to save the US from going under. It might work out, or it may be a total disaster, but something had to be done.

Nothing happening now is unprecedented other than the desperate attempt to fear monger the American people in an effort to quickly pass spending legislation creating a vast expansion of Government into every aspect of American lives without an honest debate about how much this will cost the American taxpayer.

This will be one of the BIGGEST I-told-you-so's in American history before the end of this Left Wing Socialists first year in office.

It will have the American people scratching their heads wondering why they refused to listen to the Conservatives and Republican Party that warned this is what they would be getting.

It is amusing to see you parrot the Liberal talking points considering you aren't even an American but gleefully wish America to be as bankrupt as the Canadian and European systems are. After we get Universal Health Care shoved down our throats, there won't be anywhere for the world to turn for the major care no other systems provide with any kind of efficiency.
 
Staying loyal till the bitter end, I see. I wonder what the Democrats will run out of first: money or apologetics.

As long as it's not voters. :2razz:
 
I think the better question would be: Where is the money coming from???!!!

That answer is simple; ALL OF US! Every single tax payer in America who earns an average wage for a day’s honest work will pay. On top of that, the greatest lie of all will be when they pass all the taxes onto the corporations and those companies will of course pass it on in the costs of their goods and services to further erode the average wage earners income. Top this off with runaway inflation thanks to the Government having to increase the money supply to pay for this HUGE influx of Socialism, which will erode our buying power even further.

But it doesn't end there, then we have to add the cost of regulations that increase taxes for US firms doing business in foreign countries and this will just shut down the US division’s profitability.

But it doesn't end there, we will also have protectionism and now the costs of higher labor and materials will also have to be born by the American consumer.

Yes folks, this change is a BOON only to the politicians whose power will expand beyond even that of Roosevelt. I hope the American people are ready to reap what it is they have sown.
 
This thread is the epitome of partisan politics and a good example of this forum. You almost never see someone place blame on the system, it's always on a particular President. The reality is that Congress spends like drunken sailors...Democrat and Republican alike. They have done so for decades. Complaining about a spending bill and trying to fix blame over the damaged economy to a specific president or party is just plain ignorant.

And 9/11 didn't cause us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and run us into monumental debt. Irresponsible decision making and a lack of effective oversight did that. Both parties are guilty for this incredibly ****ty situation this nation is in.
 
Change we all can believe in eh? :rofl

Was Obama sitting in on the committee meetings where the bulk of these earmarks were inserted into the bill?

No he was on the campaign trail alongside Mccain, the bill would have still came up for a vote and the results would have been the same regardless of who was president currently.

Did he participate in the House vote?? No

Has he signed the bill? No

should you withhold your knee jerk impulse to throw out the "change we can believe in" jab for any and all events that occur in Washington?? Yes.

Hell 40% of these earmarks are going to Republican districts, odd seems just about the same proportion of sitting republicans on the house floor.

Earmarks have been business as usual for both sides of the aisle for a long while, you really expected them to stop this pasttime just beacuse a couple of people were campaigning to put them to an end. this bill has been in the pipes more than the last month or so that Obama has been in office. Perhaps if Mccain had won it would be appropriate to blame this all on him, even though he clearly had nothing to do with it.
 
This thread is the epitome of partisan politics and a good example of this forum. You almost never see someone place blame on the system, it's always on a particular President.

Plenty of people place blame on the system.

The reality is that Congress spends like drunken sailors...Democrat and Republican alike. They have done so for decades. Complaining about a spending bill and trying to fix blame over the damaged economy to a specific president or party is just plain ignorant. And 9/11 didn't cause us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and run us into monumental debt. Irresponsible decision making and a lack of effective oversight did that. Both parties are guilty for this incredibly ****ty situation this nation is in.

Alright, sounds like you're off to a good start. Please expand on these thoughts and clarify what you mean in regards to:

a. The system.
b. The system's role in permitting and facilitating this "****ty situation."
c. Possible solutions to this problem.
 
This thread is the epitome of partisan politics and a good example of this forum. You almost never see someone place blame on the system, it's always on a particular President. The reality is that Congress spends like drunken sailors...Democrat and Republican alike. They have done so for decades. Complaining about a spending bill and trying to fix blame over the damaged economy to a specific president or party is just plain ignorant.

And 9/11 didn't cause us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and run us into monumental debt. Irresponsible decision making and a lack of effective oversight did that. Both parties are guilty for this incredibly ****ty situation this nation is in.







Good to see you calling out lefty here. I started this thread about The house and congress and thier drunken spending ways. Someone, (i believe MG) turned this into another obama vs bush thread......


http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057938502-post12.html


Me, I blame everyone.


Glad to see you call MG out though. Good job. ;)




:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Good to see you calling out lefty here. I started this thread about The house and congress and thier drunken spending ways. Someone, (i believe MG) turned this into another obama vs bush thread......


http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057938502-post12.html


Me, I blame everyone.


Glad to see you call MG out though. Good job. ;)




:2wave:


:rofl

What did I write that was so partisan and untrue? Did Obama not inherit an economy in shambles?

:doh
 
:rofl

What did I write that was so partisan and untrue? Did Obama not inherit an economy in shambles?

:doh





Don't worry my Canadian friend. I have no problem with what you posted, though I disagree with a lot of it.... I just thought that it was neat seeing Lerxst call you out for blaming presidents.


You don't see that too often. ;)
 
Don't worry my Canadian friend. I have no problem with what you posted, though I disagree with a lot of it.... I just thought that it was neat seeing Lerxst call you out for blaming presidents.


You don't see that too often. ;)

Right. And the post that you quoted by me did not place blame on any President. The fact that Obama inherited an economy in shambles is nothing but fact. Anyone who has no more than 2 brain cells to rub together can decipher that.

It seems you do have a tendancy to blame other people for things that you do yourself, my American friend.

PS. I agree with Lerxst on a lot of things, including the above post.
 
Right. And the post that you quoted by me did not place blame on any President. The fact that Obama inherited an economy in shambles is nothing but fact. Anyone who has no more than 2 brain cells to rub together can decipher that.

It seems you do have a tendancy to blame other people for things that you do yourself, my American friend.

PS. I agree with Lerxst on a lot of things, including the above post.



This thread is about the house here in the US.


You talked about Obama inheriting the economy...


Lerxst posted about people blaming economies on presidents.

Gee.... It ain't rocket surgery.

the fact that you want to get all obnoxious because lerxst called you out is not my problem. Don't bitch though when you get what you give, ok. :2wave:
 
This thread is about the house here in the US.


You talked about Obama inheriting the economy...


Lerxst posted about people blaming economies on presidents.

Gee.... It ain't rocket surgery.

the fact that you want to get all obnoxious because lerxst called you out is not my problem. Don't bitch though when you get what you give, ok. :2wave:


Rocket surgery? :rofl

Yes, you're right, Rev. It ain't rocket surgery. :lol:

And, of course, you never blame Presidents. It's always "systems" with you, ain't it? :2wave:

Anyway, as usual, I've wasted to much time playing the semantics game with you and want to move onto bigger and better things. Like the surgery I now have to perform on my rocket. :lol:
 
Rocket surgery? :rofl

Yes, you're right, Rev. It ain't rocket surgery. :lol:

And, of course, you never blame Presidents. It's always "systems" with you, ain't it? :2wave:

Anyway, as usual, I've wasted to much time playing the semantics game with you and want to move onto bigger and better things. Like the surgery I now have to perform on my rocket. :lol:




Don't let the door hit ya. :2wave:
 
only one politician ran for POTUS with an actual plan to reduce the size of the federal government.

Governor Romney spoke about reforming the nation's entitlement program and reining in entitlement spending growth during his campaign. However, all of that occurred prior to the onset of the acute phase of the ongoing economic crisis.

It should be noted that Governor Romney would likely have supported some kind of fiscal stimulus, as well. However, his stimulus package might have been more heavily weighted in the direction of tax cuts. The one issue associated with such an approach is that it would increase the structural deficit if the cuts were made permanent and those cuts would need to be offset by either closing tax loopholes/eliminating deduction (in exchange for lower rates) or cutting spending elsewhere afterward to be budget-neutral in the long-run.

Overall, once the economy has been stabilized and is again growing, the federal government should make it a priority to begin addressing its long-term fiscal imbalances. The added debt accumulated in recent years, both before and after the current economic crisis, adds to the urgency of that task.
 
Last edited:
Governor Romeny spoke about reforming the nation's entitlement program and reining in entitlement spending growth during his campaign. However, all of that occurred prior to the onset of the acute phase of the ongoing economic crisis.

Romney also spoke of spending federal funds to aid Michigan and showed no signs of streamlining our massive foreign expenditures (which take up the lions share of our annual budget).

I recall a report from the NTU attempting to show the overall cost of the various politicians plans - Guliani was the second closest in overall cost of programs outlined, but his still showed a net gain in expenditures.


edit - here is a link summarizing the report - I was incorrect in that Guliani also showed a net reduction

Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Budget by Range of $7 Billion to $287... | Reuters
 
Last edited:
This thread is the epitome of partisan politics and a good example of this forum. You almost never see someone place blame on the system, it's always on a particular President. The reality is that Congress spends like drunken sailors...Democrat and Republican alike. They have done so for decades. Complaining about a spending bill and trying to fix blame over the damaged economy to a specific president or party is just plain ignorant.

And 9/11 didn't cause us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and run us into monumental debt. Irresponsible decision making and a lack of effective oversight did that. Both parties are guilty for this incredibly ****ty situation this nation is in.

What an amusing definition of Bush's spending; "monumental." Considering where we are with Democrats in charge, the highest budget deficit the Republicans ran was about $350 billion. Contrasted with over $2 TRILLION and counting being spent by Democrats, I would say you need to re-work that desperate partisan rhetoric.

Monumental would be an apt description of the current spending being proposed and passed every week by Democrats who have YET to debate how we are going to pay for it all. All the taxes on every rich person in the nation won't be enough at this pace.

What is even more amusing was the desperate partisan rhetoric we saw when Bush passed tax cuts and the Liberals railed how irresponsible that was with a looming deficit; now suddenly with a deficit hitting levels unheard of before, tax cuts make perfect sense.

You just cannot fabricate the level of willful denial, ignorance and hypocrisy it takes to be a Democrat these days.

And what is the clown like response from the Left when confronted with this irresponsible level of spending without funding? Bush did it too! :rofl
 
Governor Romney spoke about reforming the nation's entitlement program and reining in entitlement spending growth during his campaign. However, all of that occurred prior to the onset of the acute phase of the ongoing economic crisis.

It should be noted that Governor Romney would likely have supported some kind of fiscal stimulus, as well. However, his stimulus package might have been more heavily weighted in the direction of tax cuts. The one issue associated with such an approach is that it would increase the structural deficit if the cuts were made permanent and those cuts would need to be offset by either closing tax loopholes/eliminating deduction (in exchange for lower rates) or cutting spending elsewhere afterward to be budget-neutral in the long-run.

Overall, once the economy has been stabilized and is again growing, the federal government should make it a priority to begin addressing its long-term fiscal imbalances. The added debt accumulated in recent years, both before and after the current economic crisis, adds to the urgency of that task.

I don't think reducing entitlement growth is enough. With entitlements making up about 50% of the budget, I think a lot more needs to happen. 50% is just plain insanity. Lefties always want to cut defense which IS the function of the federal government, and only about 20% of the budget; but never ever ever want to touch entitlements. Not surprising since that's their ticket to power. But letting this Great Society bloat up to 50%, and then blaming defense and deficits is idiocy IMHO.

You can't just dump loopholes in a vacuum, which is what Congress has done up to now. The entire housing economy is built on these things, and people count on them. There has to be some other incentive in plase to stimulate home ownership. Example: It's just like when they dumped the tax deduction for credit cards in the 80's and failed to reign in the credit card industry. I understand the need to reduce the dependence on credit cards, but you just don't remove the benefit to the consumer while not aiming at the credit card companies and their immoral practices. It's bad enough the the average American is not taught in public school how to survive in a capitalist society, but to put them in financial danger without changing the fundamental business of credit cards is insane. The public in general is gullible, otherwise you wouldn't receive mountains of credit card prequals in the mail each week. That practice should be outlawed because most of those deals are preditory.
 
Back
Top Bottom