• 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

Goldenboy219 said:
Once can argue the Iraq war contributed to the sub prime mortgage crisis. I'd rather give welfare mom's money than bomb/build bridges in another country.
Click to expand...

That would be a false argument; spending for social welfare never went down which is why we had a deficit. Spending for social welfare programs is not only the largest part of the Federal Budget, but also the one that increases the most.

The subprime mortgage crises can be placed squarely in the laps of a Democrat Presidency and Democrat oversight which insisted there was nothing wrong and even attempted to suggest that Republican calls to increase regulation bordered on racism.

If you like, I can bring up the videos as proof.
 
WillRockwell said:
Your charge would be alarming if it were true. But I don't think you care much about the truth when it comes to attacking Democrats. the president is making a dedicated effort to work with Republicans, as for me I think the attempt is hopeless. Republicans have made it clear if they can't govern the country they will insure that no one does.
Click to expand...


Plenty of information floating around highlighting/listing the numerous examples of pork spending...Bills awash in it. Its unavoidable.
Spending whose overt purpose can only be categorized as political pay offs and not to stimulate the economy.


IE-

Stimulus or Pork? What's In the $819 Billion Measure - Economy * US * News * Story - CNBC.com
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Once can argue the Iraq war contributed to the sub prime mortgage crisis. I'd rather give welfare mom's money than bomb/build bridges in another country.
Click to expand...

You could also argue that the moon is made of green cheese.
 
Truth Detector said:
That would be a false argument; spending for social welfare never went down which is why we had a deficit. Spending for social welfare programs is not only the largest part of the Federal Budget, but also the one that increases the most.
Click to expand...

Im am not referring to government deficit and stock of debt, but the production possibilities frontier. The Iraq war was not a dire need. Pumping that type of money into our country would have improved our actual security, and saved thousands upon thousands of lives, along with providing a rather nice multiplier effect.

The subprime mortgage crises can be placed squarely in the laps of a Democrat Presidency and Democrat oversight which insisted there was nothing wrong and even attempted to suggest that Republican calls to increase regulation bordered on racism.
Click to expand...

The crisis is not identifiable in one package, it was the result of years of poor policy and government interference.

If you like, I can bring up the videos as proof.
Click to expand...

Recapitalization via private sources was extinguished during 2003, when the Fed, in coordination with that current administration, sent bubble inducing signals to the consumer to purchase real estate and ****ty cars, etc.... Had corporations been allowed to fail during that time, the weakness displayed this past fall would have occurred much more swiftly, and this entire "too big to fail" argument would never have surfaced. Hopefully you will not force me to bring up the "tax rebate" disaster.

I do not support welfare states, but i am even less supportive of policing the world.
 
RightinNYC said:
You could also argue that the moon is made of green cheese.
Click to expand...

Refer to the production possibilities frontier, and then get back to me;)
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Im am not referring to government deficit and stock of debt, but the production possibilities frontier. The Iraq war was not a dire need. Pumping that type of money into our country would have improved our actual security, and saved thousands upon thousands of lives, along with providing a rather nice multiplier effect.

The crisis is not identifiable in one package, it was the result of years of poor policy and government interference.

Recapitalization via private sources was extinguished during 2003, when the Fed, in coordination with that current administration, sent bubble inducing signals to the consumer to purchase real estate and ****ty cars, etc.... Had corporations been allowed to fail during that time, the weakness displayed this past fall would have occurred much more swiftly, and this entire "too big to fail" argument would never have surfaced. Hopefully you will not force me to bring up the "tax rebate" disaster.

I do not support welfare states, but i am even less supportive of policing the world.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we didn't need to "police" it? It also would be wonderful if terrorists hadn't flown hijacked airliners into high rise buildings killing 3,000 citizens.

But alas, the world is filled with evil people who want to destroy our freedoms. They want to control the resources that allow us to feed the world.

We ALL would like to live in a fantasy bubble and pretend the world is not filled with despots, dictators and terrorists who want to kill or enslave us; but then we have to wake up and face the REALITY.

I suggest you contemplate those realities and wake from the slumber of fantasy that we can all just get along; it is NOT human nature and it is why the ideology of communal living always fails.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Refer to the production possibilities frontier, and then get back to me;)
Click to expand...

If your production possibilities frontier includes telling me what kind of car I can drive, when I can turn on my appliances and where I can work; no thank you. I prefer the arena of the free market with limited Government intrusions which are part of the cause of wild swings and surges in market forces.

It is not perfect; but this is far from a perfect world and nothing man has invented has worked better to feed people, allow them opportunity to prosper and to live in a way that permits freedom of expression and choice.
 
Truth Detector said:
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we didn't need to "police" it? It also would be wonderful if terrorists hadn't flown hijacked airliners into high rise buildings killing 3,000 citizens.

But alas, the world is filled with evil people who want to destroy our freedoms. They want to control the resources that allow us to feed the world.

We ALL would like to live in a fantasy bubble and pretend the world is not filled with despots, dictators and terrorists who want to kill or enslave us; but then we have to wake up and face the REALITY.

I suggest you contemplate those realities and wake from the slumber of fantasy that we can all just get along; it is NOT human nature and it is why the ideology of communal living always fails.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Truth Detector said:
If your production possibilities frontier includes telling me what kind of car I can drive, when I can turn on my appliances and where I can work; no thank you. I prefer the arena of the free market with limited Government intrusions which are part of the cause of wild swings and surges in market forces.

It is not perfect; but this is far from a perfect world and nothing man has invented has worked better to feed people, allow them opportunity to prosper and to live in a way that permits freedom of expression and choice.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What war has cost $1T?
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Iraq had no involvement what so ever in the 911 attacks, and i find it laughable that you attempted to correlate the two.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no one has said otherwise, though many try to twist the words of Bush to say that he did. 9/11 was yet another example of IRREFUTABLE proof that isolationist policies are doomed to failure. That simply sitting apathetic to the despots and tyrants of the world WILL catch up with you and the costs of such apathy can be extraordinarily high even when you are the most powerful and strongest in the world by far. That is the lesson of 9/11.

Eliminating Saddam and helping Iraqis create a democracy is taking a proactive stance to combating tyrants and despots who are either foreseeable threats or contribute to foreseeable threats.

We didn't go there to conquor or control or to steal or to colonize. We went there to plant the seeds of freedom and democracy to create a better tomorrow for both us and the Iraqis and hopefully the entire region. Such traumatizing change does not come cheap. Nor will it ever. Is it a price you are willing to pay to secure a better future or shall we wallow, apathetic in the chaos and pray that it magically works itself out?

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.
Click to expand...
But are we safer than we would be now and in the future if we left Saddam in power?

Do pre-emptive wars of which the country and world are in disagreement make us a more safe nation?
Click to expand...
so we should double check our actions with the world? A world which contains isolationists, pacifists, double-crossers who seek to reduce or destroy our country,, and allies, supporters, and proxies to the very despots and tyrants we wish to depose? You think all these people have OUR best interests in mind or even the best interests of the world in mind?

HA!

Are our enemies enthralled with the fact that it is now much easier to kill Americans with our increased middle east presence?
Click to expand...
What is your solution to these people who are obsessed with killing Americans? Hide at home and hope they can't find ways to attack us even though they have repeatedly proven they can?
 
scourge99 said:
You missed the point. We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no one has said otherwise, though many try to twist the words of Bush to say that he did. 9/11 was yet another example of IRREFUTABLE proof that isolationist policies are doomed to failure. That simply sitting apathetic to the despots and tyrants of the world WILL catch up with you and the costs of such apathy can be extraordinarily high even when you are the most powerful and strongest in the world by far. That is the lesson of 9/11.
Click to expand...

I was responding to TD's speech about 911.

Eliminating Saddam and helping Iraqis create a democracy is taking a proactive stance to combating tyrants and despots who are either foreseeable threats or contribute to foreseeable threats.
Click to expand...

Remember this guy:YouTube - The George Bush You Forgot

We didn't go there to conquor or control or to steal or to colonize. We went there to plant the seeds of freedom and democracy to create a better tomorrow for both us and the Iraqis and hopefully the entire region. Such traumatizing change does not come cheap. Nor will it ever. Is it a price you are willing to pay to secure a better future or shall we wallow, apathetic in the chaos and pray that it magically works itself out?
Click to expand...

That line of thinking is borderline unconstitutional...

But are we safer than we would be now and in the future if we left Saddam in power?
Click to expand...

Arbitrary at best. We have lost more American lives from terror attacks since Saddam was dethroned...

so we should double check our actions with the world? A world which contains isolationists, pacifists, double-crossers who seek to reduce or destroy our country,, and allies, supporters, and proxies to the very despots and tyrants we wish to depose? You think all these people have OUR best interests in mind or even the best interests of the world in mind?

HA!
Click to expand...

We freaking lied. The reasons for invasion were imaginary. Would the American people have supported the invasion if they knew the Colon Powell speech was a fraud?

Remember this?
IraqMobileProductionFacilities.jpg


What is your solution to these people who are obsessed with killing Americans? Hide at home and hope they can't find ways to attack us even though they have repeatedly proven they can?
Click to expand...

Build up a national defense. In case you have forgotten, our borders are still unsecured.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you were referring to the War on Terror, in its entirety, over 16 years.
Click to expand...

The total cost of the Iraq war is in line with about $1 trillion minus repayment...
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The total cost of the Iraq war is in line with about $1 trillion minus repayment...
Click to expand...

You posted:

total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017
Click to expand...
So, that's $1.7T over 16 years for the entire war on terror, including Iraq.

This does -not- support your claim that "The total cost of the Iraq war is in line with about $1 trillion minus repayment." -- in fact, it rather refutes it.

Thus, I ask again:
What war has cost $1T?
 
Goobieman said:
You posted:


So, that's $1.7T over 16 years for the entire war on terror, including Iraq.

This does -not- support your claim that "The total cost of the Iraq war is in line with about $1 trillion minus repayment." -- in fact, it rather refutes it.

Thus, I ask again:
What war has cost $1T?
Click to expand...


Since the war in Afghanistan cost a tiny fraciton of the total, the Iraq adventure has sucked up at least 1 trillion of that 1.7 trillion. You have your answer, whether you like it or not.
 
WillRockwell said:
Since the war in Afghanistan cost a tiny fraciton of the total, the Iraq adventure has sucked up at least 1 trillion of that 1.7 trillion. You have your answer, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
: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?
 
aps said:
Your attack on Democrats implied that only Democrats have a spending problem. So you attacked Democrats, and I merely pointed out that it applies to Republicans as well.

Okay. I'll grow up now. :rofl
Click to expand...




It does?

I thought bush spent way too much.
 
WillRockwell said:
Since the war in Afghanistan cost a tiny fraciton of the total, the Iraq adventure has sucked up at least 1 trillion of that 1.7 trillion. You have your answer, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Which still is irrelevant to whether or not this stimulus bill is a wasteful abomination of spending that doesn't facilitate the emergency economic stimulation that its meant to and being sold as.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which still is irrelevant to whether or not this stimulus bill is a wasteful abomination of spending that doesn't facilitate the emergency economic stimulation that its meant to and being sold as.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom