"When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things," he said. "No. 1, when they say, 'Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we've got this huge deficit?' - first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.

"I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

It's like he is getting debate points from his supporters here online! The national debt he encountered in no way excuses spending $800 billion, which will just add even MORE to the national debt that we can pass on to our grandchildren.

"Let's think big right now," the president urged House Democrats. "Let's not think small."

Worried that he thinks this about government as a whole and that he's not just thinking like this in terms of the stimulus package.

It would be hard to say anything other than "but... but... Bush" at this point.

8 years of "fiscal conservancy" had a major hand in this situation.

b b b but Barney Frank is still there. Nice try, Barry.

When you put people who can't afford it in mortgages, you fark up the entire nation. That's been going on since the Clinton years.

"...Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we've got this huge deficit?' - first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1. I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

Cry me a river...You asked for the job and the idiots gave it to you...and by the reasoning of the statement above we should all go ahead and spend more of what we don't have...

//47" widescreen FTW!
//Not very presidential so far...

"I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

That's funny. You'd think with Bush's sparkling charm, it would be in a flaming paper bag?

You mean the man responsible for cleaning up the mess made by eight years of an utter incompetent's failed leadership might mention that incompetent as he explains the vastness of the disaster left behind?

It reads like an angst-ridden letter from a homesick college freshman.

"The national debt he encountered in no way excuses spending $800 billion, which will just add even MORE to the national debt that we can pass on to our grandchildren."

what's your plan, may i ask?

"pass on to our grandchildren"

-that has been happening before you were born.

if america does not reclaim its manufacturing base...we are farked, plain and simple.

GaryPDX: That's been going on since the Clinton years.

I was under the impression that that bundling of loans and credit-default swaps were the major cause behind the financial collapse.

Being as such, shouldn't Bush's SEC people have caught that?

I mean they had 8 years to do it.

40yoVirgin: GaryPDX: That's been going on since the Clinton years.

I was under the impression that that bundling of loans and credit-default swaps were the major cause behind the financial collapse.

Being as such, shouldn't Bush's SEC people have caught that?

I mean they had 8 years to do it.

And they tried, several times over that 8 years..a wild guess who killed all efforts in Congress...just one guess is all it takes. That's right, Barney Frank. And do you know what makes those derivatives useless??

People who can't afford it being put into mortgages!!

BTW Freddie and Fannie are quietly back in business, stacking on more mortgages to people who can't afford it!!. It's BAD PAPER to begin with.

Bauer: -that has been happening before you were born.

Which does not justify continuing the practice solely for tradition sake.

Bauer: what's your plan, may i ask?

Well, not spending $800 billion and adding that to our long term debt would be a pretty good start.

i think pointing out that the republican party caused the problems we are trying to solve is a salient point, given that it is the republican party trying to stop anyone from doing anything to solve them.

Blade2567 2009-02-06 09:45:28 AM
"...Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we've got this huge deficit?' - first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1. I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

Cry me a river...You asked for the job and the idiots gave it to you...and by the reasoning of the statement above we should all go ahead and spend more of what we don't have...

//47" widescreen FTW!
//Not very presidential so far...

"the idiots"...you actually went there?

you'd be happier with mccain/palin?

//47" widescreen FTW!
//Not very presidential so far...

as opposed to your solutions?

-i see you have a nice motorcycle...

why do you not want others to have nice things?

i can't wait to hear your response.

what is your plan to get america going?

GaryPDX: 40yoVirgin: GaryPDX: That's been going on since the Clinton years.

I was under the impression that that bundling of loans and credit-default swaps were the major cause behind the financial collapse.

Being as such, shouldn't Bush's SEC people have caught that?

I mean they had 8 years to do it.

And they tried, several times over that 8 years..a wild guess who killed all efforts in Congress...just one guess is all it takes. That's right, Barney Frank. And do you know what makes those derivatives useless??

People who can't afford it being put into mortgages!!

BTW Freddie and Fannie are quietly back in business, stacking on more mortgages to people who can't afford it!!. It's BAD PAPER to begin with.

I never knew how much power one Congressman had, especially one in the minority for 6 years. Holy cow, he must deserve all the blame.

Pocket Ninja
You mean the man responsible for cleaning up the mess made by eight years of an utter incompetent's failed leadership might mention that incompetent as he explains the vastness of the disaster left behind?

THIS.

Obama has been President for two weeks. The Bush administration was a farking eight year disaster for our country. Yes, it's fair to blame the prior administration for the current clusterfark because, newsflash, it's their fault!

40yoVirgin: Being as such, shouldn't Bush's SEC people have caught that?

From the SEC webiste: The Securities and Exchange Commission has five Commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Their terms last five years and are staggered so that one Commissioner's term ends on June 5 of each year. To ensure that the Commission remains non-partisan, no more than three Commissioners may belong to the same political party.

the more you know..

WaltzingMathilda: I never knew how much power one Congressman had, especially one in the minority for 6 years. Holy cow, he must deserve all the blame.

Don't try to make sense of the way Gary and the rest of the Fark Independents^TM think. It will drive you crazy.

flavor of the month: i think pointing out that the republican party caused the problems we are trying to solve is a salient point, given that it is the republican party trying to stop anyone from doing anything to solve them.

Massive liberal pork pulled off the failed shelf from the last 20 years is NOT a solution.

WaltzingMathilda: I never knew how much power one Congressman had, especially one in the minority for 6 years. Holy cow, he must deserve all the blame.

Your ignorance of committees an Fannie/Freddie oversight control is astounding.

lunchinlewis: the more you know..

I was also under the impression that US Attorneys were also non-partisan positions as well.

And we all know how that turned out.

GaryPDX: Massive liberal pork pulled off the failed shelf from the last 20 years is NOT a solution.

I know those words, but that sentence doesn't make any sense.

GaryPDX: WaltzingMathilda: I never knew how much power one Congressman had, especially one in the minority for 6 years. Holy cow, he must deserve all the blame.

Your ignorance of committees an Fannie/Freddie oversight control is astounding.

Oh, Gary, how quick to the ad hominem. It's so not like you.

I have a mortgage that I secured in this past October. Guess who bought it? Fannie Mae. Just because they're in business doesn't mean they're buying bad paper. Keep blaming the poor people though.

GaryPDX Massive liberal pork pulled off the failed shelf from the last 20 years is NOT a solution.


Imagine a rapist complaining that the police spend too much time solving rapes. That's what you people sound like to me. Our infrastructure needs to be modernized, and infrastructure spending creates jobs.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: GaryPDX: Massive liberal pork pulled off the failed shelf from the last 20 years is NOT a solution.

I know those words, but that sentence doesn't make any sense.

Okay..let me rephrase. Stacking all the liberal pork wish list projects of the last 20 years into a pot and calling it a "stimulus Bill" is NOT a solution.

Better?

GaryPDX: And they tried, several times over that 8 years..a wild guess who killed all efforts in Congress...just one guess is all it takes. That's right, Barney Frank. And do you know what makes those derivatives useless??

Amazingly enough, Frank was THE driving force in the GOP controlled House between 2000-2006.

/The Community Reinvestment Act was last amended in 2005 when the GOP was still in power.
//Just saying.

40yoVirgin: I was also under the impression that US Attorneys were also non-partisan positions as well.

Exactly. And the Senate is complicit with their required approval for both. Just pointing out that the responsibility extends a little beyond the Oval Office.

GaryPDX: Your ignorance of committees an Fannie/Freddie oversight control is astounding.

This from someone who didn't know that each state has 2 senators and don't get "extra" senators if a third party comes to power.

The Onanist: GaryPDX: Your ignorance of committees an Fannie/Freddie oversight control is astounding.

This from someone who didn't know that each state has 2 senators and don't get "extra" senators if a third party comes to power.

Oh wow.

flavor of the month: GaryPDX Massive liberal pork pulled off the failed shelf from the last 20 years is NOT a solution.


Imagine a rapist complaining that the police spend too much time solving rapes. That's what you people sound like to me. Our infrastructure needs to be modernized, and infrastructure spending creates jobs.

We're broke. We don't have the money. Period. And especially for all that liberal stupid shiat in that Bill. And throwing borrowed or printed trillions around out of thin air isn't going to do shiat. Think of it like this, you go get another credit card because your credit cards are maxed out..is that smart? I don't think so. Propping up an over extended economy is insanity. It must adjust, it has to adjust and America just have to bite the bullet and deal with it.

flavor of the month...
"i think pointing out that the republican party caused the problems we are trying to solve is a salient point, given that it is the republican party trying to stop anyone from doing anything to solve them."

-fiscally...this.

The Onanist: GaryPDX: Your ignorance of committees an Fannie/Freddie oversight control is astounding.

This from someone who didn't know that each state has 2 senators and don't get "extra" senators if a third party comes to power.

You must have me confused with someone else, sport.

GaryPDX: flavor of the month: i think pointing out that the republican party caused the problems we are trying to solve is a salient point, given that it is the republican party trying to stop anyone from doing anything to solve them.

Massive liberal pork pulled off the failed shelf from the last 20 years is NOT a solution.

Sorry, but there just aren't any more Republican plans left to pull off the FAIL shelf. You used them all up. Trickle-down economics, deregulation, tax cuts to the wealthy, two preemptive wars, rampant cronyism, removal of oversight... that's pretty much all the bullets you guys ever had in the chamber. We tried them all. They all failed. Spectacularly, in fact.

So now you're going to let the other side take a whack at it. Not a thing you can do about it. Welcome to irrelevance.

You can hope it fails, just for spite, or not. I'm sure you will. Then, if the country goes down in flames, YOU WIN!!! YAY YOU!

Why does the spending have to come from the government? If I were running things, I would immediately reduce all taxes collected by the federal government by 50% and put that money back in the pocket of the consumer for one year. Each paycheck, the consumer gets more money. That's something that would actually effect each and every worker in this country, it'd be like they were getting a raise. They could buy clothes for their kids, groceries, pay some bills, whatever they felt they needed to do.

Ultimately it's the average taxpayer who is hurting, giving back money to whom it rightfully belongs should be the first step.

The Onanist: GaryPDX: And they tried, several times over that 8 years..a wild guess who killed all efforts in Congress...just one guess is all it takes. That's right, Barney Frank. And do you know what makes those derivatives useless??

Amazingly enough, Frank was THE driving force in the GOP controlled House between 2000-2006.

/The Community Reinvestment Act was last amended in 2005 when the GOP was still in power.
//Just saying.

Yea..isn't that amazing. Frank was the driving force..wow..gee. That's what I've been saying.,.guhhh. And that Act was started by the Dems during the Clinton years.

Soo..you're defending giving mortgages to people who can't afford it. It's still going on ya know..Fannie and Freddie are back in business.

KaponoFor3: Why does the spending have to come from the government? If I were running things, I would immediately reduce all taxes collected by the federal government by 50% and put that money back in the pocket of the consumer for one year. Each paycheck, the consumer gets more money. That's something that would actually effect each and every worker in this country, it'd be like they were getting a raise. They could buy clothes for their kids, groceries, pay some bills, whatever they felt they needed to do.

Ultimately it's the average taxpayer who is hurting, giving back money to whom it rightfully belongs should be the first step.

Sadly the national debt is so out of control we can't afford to drop income tax. The remaining federal taxes are too low and already allocated to domestic programs (FICA, etc.). I'd love an income tax break but I don't see it as viable without completely breaking our government ... and then what?

I know it sounds counterproductive to a big national debt to borrow and spend, and I know at least in Fark world the Keynesian model is hugely unpopular ... but I don't think your plan is possible. I don't know of any third option, but luckily I'm not in charge.

KaponoFor3: Why does the spending have to come from the government? If I were running things, I would immediately reduce all taxes collected by the federal government by 50% and put that money back in the pocket of the consumer for one year. Each paycheck, the consumer gets more money. That's something that would actually effect each and every worker in this country, it'd be like they were getting a raise. They could buy clothes for their kids, groceries, pay some bills, whatever they felt they needed to do.

Ultimately it's the average taxpayer who is hurting, giving back money to whom it rightfully belongs should be the first step.

The government doesn't trust you handle your own money...duhhh.

GaryPDX: Freddie are back in business.

You're going to keep repeating that aren't you? What does the fact that they're in business have to do with anything? They bought my mortgage and I know it's a valuable piece of paper. What does that have to do with poor people?

WaltzingMathilda: Sadly the national debt is so out of control we can't afford to drop income tax.

How much of the money we collect in income tax actually goes to paying national debt (genuinely curious as I have no idea)?

WaltzingMathilda: I'd love an income tax break but I don't see it as viable without completely breaking our government ... and then what?

I'd say the Fed do what California is doing -- furloughs. It would only be a temporary measure, and it would be immediate assistance that would help jump start the economy.

GaryPDX: The government doesn't trust you handle your own money...duhhh.

I don't think it's that as much as it is they think they can spend it better than I can.

KaponoFor3: Why does the spending have to come from the government? If I were running things, I would immediately reduce all taxes collected by the federal government by 50% and put that money back in the pocket of the consumer for one year. Each paycheck, the consumer gets more money. That's something that would actually effect each and every worker in this country, it'd be like they were getting a raise.

both your question and your suggestion completely ignore the most basic problem we are suffering from: a precipitous drop in demand.

why does the spending have to come from the government? because of the drop in demand, meaning that it isn't coming from anyone else.

why won't a tax break work? because of the drop in demand, which means no one is making money to be taxed in the first place.

and your third point completely ignores the other problem we have that is caused by this drop in demand: massive layoffs. the imminent problem isn't that workers aren't being paid enough, the problem is that the workers are losing their jobs.

KaponoFor3: Why does the spending have to come from the government?

Because there exists no other entity with the ability to spend this much money at once. You could reduce taxes to 0% for the next ten years and it would not effect spending one iota... with the current credit crisis, it would likely just increase savings or encourage people to buy down their debt. And while these actions would have a positive impact on the economy, it would be a very slow building influence that would result in a much deeper contraction before we started to see growth.

KaponoFor3: How much of the money we collect in income tax actually goes to paying national debt (genuinely curious as I have no idea)?

I don't know how much pays it down, but I know a lot goes to interest, which we shouldn't try to defer as the compounding effect would be enormous.

KaponoFor3: I'd say the Fed do what California is doing -- furloughs. It would only be a temporary measure, and it would be immediate assistance that would help jump start the economy.

God, I would hate for that to be an option we'd consider though. I would say maybe it's ok on a state level, but the fact that CA is doing it with such a huge economy scares me shiatless. I think maybe it's a good measure for Oklahoma, but not the Federal gov't.

burndtdan: both your question and your suggestion completely ignore the most basic problem we are suffering from: a precipitous drop in demand.

And I think you are missing the biggest point as well -- the drop in demand is due to people not having enough money to spend on non-essential items. A large part of the reason they don't have that money is because an insane portion of the money they EARN through hard work every day is taken in taxes, both federal and state.

The layoffs are a huge problem, but I don't think the answer is to make those people who have been laid off government employees (even if they are just temporary government employees)

GaryPDX: You must have me confused with someone else, sport.

You're right, it must have been a different GaryPDX. (^)

Code_Archeologist: You could reduce taxes to 0% for the next ten years and it would not effect spending one iota

I dunno if I can agree with that. You reduce taxes that much and I'd be shocked if consumer spending didn't dramatically increase. I'm sure some people would pay off debt and save, but is that really a bad thing?

Code_Archeologist: it would be a very slow building influence that would result in a much deeper contraction before we started to see growth.

Hasn't President Obama said its going to get worse before it gets better, stimulus package or not? Either way, I'd rather see the spending come from the average consumer than through the government. Maybe that's just my inherent belief that government is inefficient in its execution as opposed to a consumer.

GaryPDX: And that Act was started by the Dems during the Clinton years.

Actually, it was started in 1977, amended in 1995, and amended again in 2005. So you are saying that the GOP couldn't amend this even further in 2005 because of Barney Frank being fabulous. Is that what you are getting at?

KaponoFor3: Hasn't President Obama said its going to get worse before it gets better, stimulus package or not? Either way, I'd rather see the spending come from the average consumer than through the government.

I think the idea is, through massive investment in infrastructure (again, Keynesian Model), you kill both birds with one stone. YOu create a ton of jobs, all of which have taxable income, but you're also giving unemployed people money they wouldn't have otherwise had. That starts spinning the wheels without the government resorting to measures like furloughing employees to stay solvent.

I know I'm just repeating the reasoning behind the bill, but the idea is for the greater good, not to give people who can already make it a bit more expendable income.

WaltzingMathilda: YOu create a ton of jobs, all of which have taxable income, but you're also giving unemployed people money they wouldn't have otherwise had.

But aren't these jobs, at their heart, just temporary government jobs? Or are we assuming that the government will hire private contractors to work on these projects, and that the contractors will then have to hire more people to meet demand? Once these projects are done, won't these people just get laid off again?

The Onanist: GaryPDX: You must have me confused with someone else, sport.

You're right, it must have been a different GaryPDX. (^)

Headline:
Okay...I'm curious, for comments sake we had 3 Party's. Does that mean we have 3 Senators per State? Or just still 2?

Wow, that's like 4th grade social studies right there.

KaponoFor3: Hasn't President Obama said its going to get worse before it gets better, stimulus package or not? Either way, I'd rather see the spending come from the average consumer than through the government. Maybe that's just my inherent belief that government is inefficient in its execution as opposed to a consumer.

Yes it is going to get worse before it gets better. But the difference is between unemployment capping at about 10% under rapid government spending, or capping at 20%+ under tax cut driven recovery.

Government is inefficient at many things... but when it comes to economic stimulus, inefficiency is a feature not a bug. The stimulus is more than likely going to pump more money than is necessary into the system... there are going to be million dollar boondoggles created... there is going to be a lot of waste. But all that money wasted is still going somewhere... it is still going into the pockets of workers who are then cycling that money into the system. And that stimulates the economy and gets things growing again until it can run on its own two feet.

HulkHands: Wow, that's like 4th grade social studies right there.

Well yeah...at least when I was in school.