• 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!

Am I the only one who's noticed that republicans are sparing no expense to rescue the economy?

Vern said:
don't get me wrong, I fully support the effort. Its what they should be doing but I just cant help but suspect its only because a republican is president. I don't see any protests, claims of hyperinflation,dollar collapse, market to zero. And not only are republicans no longer worried about deficits as they hope to prevent a depression, they seem to be mad that they cant spend it as fast as they want to. Golly, that's not how I remember them during the Great Bush Recession. And the ongoing negotiations only show more republican hypocrisy. Democrats are not "conspiring to obstruct" the stimulus. they are simply trying to put some adequate controls on how the money is spent. This would be common sense even if Trump wasn't president. Its even more important with him in office.
Click to expand...

Republicans tend to “find religion” when it suits their purposes. They are a party without integrity. At least Democrats, while wrong on almost everything, are consistent in their ideology of government control.

I’m just one voice, but I adamantly disagree with any kind of financial stimulus. But that’s only because of its 100% failure rate. If the last go around was at all “good for the economy”, we’d have a sound economy that would be bouncing back already, and would never have lost 30+% of its value.

If a strong economy was actually the goal, we’d reduce government intervention and spending.
 
Vern said:
I'm sorry luther, unchecked, the virus would have shut down the economy anyway. and its almost as if you're saying it we shouldn't have provided a remedy for the Great Bush Recession. But the Great Bush Recessison was a result of govt policies. Bush's policies to be exact.
Click to expand...

You don’t know that the virus would have shut down the economy.

As for the previous economic collapse, Bush’s policies were no more to blame than any previous administration before him. The policy of central economic planning and control (embraced by both major parties) was to blame - as it is this time. You have to have 0 understanding of economics to assume one person, or one party’s policies, is to blame.

Sound economics necessarily dictates individual control of outcomes vs. central control.
 
Mycroft said:
Nobody frets over deficits...unless they have a political motive to do so. When that motive disappears...ie, when their party regains power...then talk about deficits disappear. Doesn't matter what party you are talking about, either. They both don't care about deficits.

But the economy...the welfare of ALL Americans...is an issue right here, right now. I, personally, think that the welfare of all Americans...right here, right now...is MUCH more important than a deficit that nobody cares about.
Click to expand...

Is that how you approach personal economy?
 
Felis Leo said:
REPS: We need to make sure that the goose that lays the golden eggs does not starve. We have to keep feeding it.
DEMS: No! We need to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs to get at the golden eggs! Otherwise the people will not have enough gold!

We can play the game of glittering generalities all day, but at the end of the day, here is the problem: if the Democrats propose legislation and pass legislation that kills the source of the taxpayer money, i.e., businesses and payroll taxes from businesses, none of the above matters. There will be plenty of money, and it will be worthless, because the businesses that produce those goods and services will be gone.
Click to expand...

The Fed handed sixteen trillion to banks in 2008.
 
Idontbelonghere said:
At least Democrats, while wrong on almost everything, are consistent in their ideology of government control.
Click to expand...

According to conservative columnist P.J. O'Rourke, "Hillary is wrong on everything, but she's wrong within NORMAL parameters."

"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises," O'Rourke continued. "It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."
Click to expand...

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Hillary 4 Pres fan.

But boy howdy do I ever now realize just how far in second place she was.

Trump "chosen by God" my ass.
Voters chose Trump, God sent a plague!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I refuse to look at only your partisan selection of congressional actions.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why you post in a thread where you're afraid to discuss the thread topic. Discussing the thread topic doesn't make me a partisan. Your off topic whining about Pelosi also doesn't make me a partisan. Again, republicans are sparing no expense now to save the economy when 12 years ago they only cared about the deficit. Please address that.
 
Vern said:
I just don't understand why you post in a thread where you're afraid to discuss the thread topic. Discussing the thread topic doesn't make me a partisan. Your off topic whining about Pelosi also doesn't make me a partisan. Again, republicans are sparing no expense now to save the economy when 12 years ago they only cared about the deficit. Please address that.
Click to expand...

OK, were republicants being wrong then or are they being wrong now? If they have changed from being wrong (then) to being right (now) then why, exactly, is that a problem?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, were republicants being wrong then or are they being wrong now? If they have changed from being wrong (then) to being right (now) then why, exactly, is that a problem?
Click to expand...

Oh look, questions. I clearly stated in the OP that I fully support their actions to prevent a depression. But you had to ask questions because you cant address the facts I've posted that show republicans are flaming lying hypocrites. And if I have to explain to you why republicans sabotaging the economy under President Obama making more Americans suffer and suffer longer is a bad thing, it either means you're dishonestly deflecting or just not that smart.
 
We should have no homeless in our Republic.

Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States should be, "this Majestic",

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
Anatole France
Click to expand...
Merely and simply, for the greater glory of our first world economy and Republic.
 
Vern said:
Oh look, questions. I clearly stated in the OP that I fully support their actions to prevent a depression. But you had to ask questions because you cant address the facts I've posted that show republicans are flaming lying hypocrites. And if I have to explain to you why republicans sabotaging the economy under President Obama making more Americans suffer and suffer longer is a bad thing, it either means you're dishonestly deflecting or just not that smart.
Click to expand...

Only one of my current repubicant Senators was serving during the Obama administration and my House representative is a demorat.
 
Vern said:
Republicans are sparing no expense now to save the economy when 12 years ago they only cared about the deficit. Please address that.
Click to expand...

To be entirely fair, this statement relies on a presumption about the intentions of Republicans. Current circumstances certainly depress production, but it is also a humanitarian crisis. Without sufficient supplies, people could endanger public safety out of necessity or desperation for themselves and their family. You need some relief for businesses and households, especially poorer households, to not incite absurd behavior. I'm not sure you're being as fair as you could be with Republicans by summerizing the underlying motivations as "saving the economy." If you're wrong about the capacity of deficit spending to allow an economy to bounce back in 2008, the cost is millions of people will live less comfortably for a while. If you're wrong today, hundreds of thousands of people could die. It's not the same trade-off at all.

I am perfectly aware that some of what Republicans did during the first term of Barack Obama was very questionable. They once threatened to withhold funding and default on some payments for the government debt as a negociation tactic. That seemed reckless to me, just as the recent behavior of Democrats seems reckless to me.

The relief package crafted in the Senate was a bi-partisan effort that even had support at the State and local levels from members of both parties. House Democrats voted down the bill, allegedly over concerns that there might be too much space for business managers among others to spend those funds in less than an ideal manner. People are suffering harsh conditions, high uncertainty and they're quibbling over details about closing loopholes? We even have members of the party explicitly saying that this is a negociation ploy, a chance to force policy choices on Republicans. Sure, you might argue that in a vacuum, Democrats have a point and that the bill wasn't sufficiently well crafted. It really depends on how you price the consequences of the delay. I don't think it's exactly the right time for partisan bickering. I would have passed the bill with all its pros and cons, pointed out that it wasn't perfect and start working on amending the bill and preparing a second contigent bill. They could also have avoided all of it if they worked with Republicans from the very start.
 
Last edited:
TheEconomist said:
To be entirely fair, this statement relies on a presumption about the intentions of Republicans. Current circumstances certainly depress production, but it is also a humanitarian crisis. Without sufficient supplies, people could endanger public safety out of necessity or desperation for themselves and their family. You need some relief for businesses and households, especially poorer households, to not incite absurd behavior. I'm not sure you're being as fair as you could be with Republicans by summerizing the underlying motivations as "saving the economy." If you're wrong about the capacity of deficit spending to allow an economy to bounce back in 2008, the cost is millions of people will live less comfortably for a while. If you're wrong today, hundreds of thousands of people could die. It's not the same trade-off at all.
Click to expand...

Then it comes down what you choose to believe about this virus? For instance, if I believe that the virus is the threat we’re told it is, I might find wisdom in what you’re saying. If I don’t believe that this virus is the threat we’re being told it is, then Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on.

Am I reading you correctly?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Only one of my current repubicant Senators was serving during the Obama administration and my House representative is a demorat.
Click to expand...

the only good thing I can deduce from your "golly, the guys who let more Americans suffer and suffer longer as they tried to sabotage the economy for their own political gain aren't really around anymore" post is that you're basically admitting that republicans let more Americans suffer and suffer longer. Now take a step back and say to yourself, "golly, these guys lacked the common sense and/or decency to put America first as they tried to sabotage the economy for their own political gain, why would I ever vote for them again?" And the beauty of that is you like to ask questions. You just need to learn to ask better questions.

Now I didn't explicitly state it but notice how democrats are not flailing and whining about how the stimulus will explode the deficit. See, they're putting America first. Now TT, you've obediently flailed about Pelosi, you've cowardly and/or dishonestly deflected from the thread topic, you've even pretended to not understand what I've posted or why republicans sabotaging the economy is a bad thing, why not attempt to post in an honest and intelligent fashion? Just try it for once.
 
Mycroft said:
No.

You'll have to explain the relevance of your question as well as exactly what your question is in reference to.
Click to expand...

You claim that debt doesn’t matter as it pertains to the national economy. Is that the case for your personal economy of one?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'm sure Mitch can try to be a little more flexible on this stuff.

View attachment 67276267
Click to expand...

Rest assured that they will get the details figured out. ALL progressives are on the same side of this issue. It’s just a matter of working out the details, then preparing talking points to bastardize the other team.
 
TheEconomist said:
To be entirely fair, this statement relies on a presumption about the intentions of Republicans. Current circumstances certainly depress production, but it is also a humanitarian crisis. Without sufficient supplies, people could endanger public safety out of necessity or desperation for themselves and their family. You need some relief for businesses and households, especially poorer households, to not incite absurd behavior. I'm not sure you're being as fair as you could be with Republicans by summerizing the underlying motivations as "saving the economy." If you're wrong about the capacity of deficit spending to allow an economy to bounce back in 2008, the cost is millions of people will live less comfortably for a while. If you're wrong today, hundreds of thousands of people could die. It's not the same trade-off at all.

I am perfectly aware that some of what Republicans did during the first term of Barack Obama was very questionable. They once threatened to withhold funding and default on some payments for the government debt as a negociation tactic. That seemed reckless to me, just as the recent behavior of Democrats seems reckless to me.

The relief package crafted in the Senate was a bi-partisan effort that even had support at the State and local levels from members of both parties. House Democrats voted down the bill, allegedly over concerns that there might be too much space for business managers among others to spend those funds in less than an ideal manner. People are suffering harsh conditions, high uncertainty and they're quibbling over details about closing loopholes? We even have members of the party explicitly saying that this is a negociation ploy, a chance to force policy choices on Republicans. Sure, you might argue that in a vacuum, Democrats have a point and that the bill wasn't sufficiently well crafted. It really depends on how you price the consequences of the delay. I don't think it's exactly the right time for partisan bickering. I would have passed the bill with all its pros and cons, pointed out that it wasn't perfect and start working on amending the bill and preparing a second contigent bill. They could also have avoided all of it if they worked with Republicans from the very start.
Click to expand...


You know Econ, I enjoy an intelligent response. Your attempts to poo poo the flaming hypocrisy of repubicans concerning deficit spending is a fail but it was an enjoyable read. You just don't to get to gloss over the fact that republicans pretending to care about deficits as we were hurtling towards a depression by saying it was "very questionable." If you truly know your economics, you know it was "very wrong" and "very likely going to cause a depression" and "very only to help them politically" and "very intentional". And if you could, please elaborate what you think the democrats are doing that is "reckless". Just so you know, I don't think putting some adequate controls on spending is a bad thing. And with a president like trump, its a requirement. And please explain why the 2-3 day delay on the stimulus is critical but trump calling it a hoax for 6 weeks isn't. Oh and don't forget, he's not using the war powers act to get more masks and ventilators.
 
Idontbelonghere said:
You claim that debt doesn’t matter as it pertains to the national economy. Is that the case for your personal economy of one?
Click to expand...

I said no such thing.

Well, now you know why I didn't answer your question...it's based on your inability to understand what you read.

You are dismissed. (see my sig)
 
Vern said:
don't get me wrong, I fully support the effort. Its what they should be doing but I just cant help but suspect its only because a republican is president. I don't see any protests, claims of hyperinflation,dollar collapse, market to zero. And not only are republicans no longer worried about deficits as they hope to prevent a depression, they seem to be mad that they cant spend it as fast as they want to. Golly, that's not how I remember them during the Great Bush Recession. And the ongoing negotiations only show more republican hypocrisy. Democrats are not "conspiring to obstruct" the stimulus. they are simply trying to put some adequate controls on how the money is spent. This would be common sense even if Trump wasn't president. Its even more important with him in office.
Click to expand...

Did you also notice the democrats are standing in the way so they can take advantage of trillions of dollars meant for relief to use on liberal wish list that have nothing to do with the Virus or the economic aid?

Democrats playing liberal politics at cost of citizens lives.

Democrats were not on the Hill today. Pelosi sent them home to let Republicans stew over their proposal. Not One Democrat showed up at the house to defend their list of demands before any American's see a dime of the stimulus money.

1. Increased fuel emission standards for airlines receiving funds and carbon offsets.
Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall require each air carrier receiving assistance under section 101, to fully offset the annual carbon emissions of such air carriers for domestic flights beginning in 2025.

2. Payment for up to $10,000 in student loans:

3. Same-day voter registration, early voting, voting by mail, ballot harvesting
REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR VOTER REGISTRATION
REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR REGISTRATION
PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT
AUTOMATIC MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO ALL VOTERS

4. Preserving collective bargaining powers for unions
Several provisions in the bill include carveouts for big labor, including labor protections, collective bargaining, and organizing, as well as overturning President Trump’s executive orders regarding federal employee unions.

5. The expansion of wind and solar tax credits

6. Requirements for federal and corporate gender and racial diversity data
The bill demands that corporate recipients of financial assistance are required to report racial and gender data regarding salaries, number of employees, supplier diversity, and membership on corporate boards. It also requires federal agencies to use businesses and financial institutions owned by minorities or women

7. Post Office Bailout
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE PAYMENT TO POSTAL SERVICE FUND

8. Automatic extension of nonimmigrant visas.

9. Restricting colleges from providing information about citizenship status

10. Money for Planned Parenthood
Democrats want the bill to prop up Planned Parenthood

11. Expansion of use of Minority Banks and Credit Unions

12. Prohibit stock buybacks & dividends for anyone accepting bailout money

13. Special rules for Min. funding for community newspaper plans

14. Required board diversity for all corporations who use bailout money

This is your Democrat party. They refuse to come to the House to defend any of it but refuse to sign the bill without it. They have offered a put up or shut up deal.

While American's drowned in their own fluids, the economy has come to a stop, People are locked up in their homes, Businesses are disappearing, and a national quarantine is being issued, Pelosi has sent her house members home and while holding American's hostage.

They don't care about your family members dying
They don't care about your financial means
They don't care about the economy crashing

They want their green new deal and are willing to kill you for it.

These are the bills that can't pass on their own and Democrats are demanding they be included if we want money to rescue our fellow American's in their most dyer time.

Nancy Pelosi Proposes 1,400-Page Coronavirus Bill Stuffed with Pork
 
Idontbelonghere said:
Rest assured that they will get the details figured out. ALL progressives are on the same side of this issue. It’s just a matter of working out the details, then preparing talking points to bastardize the other team.
Click to expand...

I'm not really an extreme lefty.
I'm OLD, which means I remember GOP and Dems fighting like cats and dogs all day long, then carving up all the lollipops they stole from babies while they were hugging them, then settling it so each side got something, and having drinks and cigars afterward.
That's as American as apple pie and that is how it needs to be right now. I'm just center-Left...
I'm not even all that politically correct.

I have an enormous problem with Party of Trump folks but I respect ordinary conservatives, even when I don't agree with them.
The current bunch booted all those old line cons out of Congress.

I hope you're right.
 
Idontbelonghere said:
Then it comes down what you choose to believe about this virus? For instance, if I believe that the virus is the threat we’re told it is, I might find wisdom in what you’re saying. If I don’t believe that this virus is the threat we’re being told it is, then Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on. Am I reading you correctly?
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

To accuse someone of hypocrisy, we have to catch them acting in plain defiance of beliefs they profess to have. If someone believes hundreds of thousands of lives might be at stake for failure to enforce sufficient social distancing, it is perfectly reasonable to overrule other priorities. If you personally believe the response of governments have been excessive, that would make their policy positions mistaken, not hypocritical.

And I don't think at this point that we can reasonably think the threat posed by the virus is exaggerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom