If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   New report indicates Obama's stimulus package could cost as much as $1 trillion, which is equal to roughly 5% of the entire US GDP. This should end well   (reuters.com) divider line 135
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

773 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2008 at 9:08 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-14 10:40:50 AM
Random Reality Check: It might make good sense to wait until Obama's programs are actually announced and implemented


Obviously. I hope he is smart. I think he will be.

It is the rest of his party I'm worried about.

Lusiphur: super-asshole mode: activate


I like clicking on your profile. It makes me laugh.
 
2008-12-14 10:49:36 AM
eddyatwork: I'd rather have regular people getting the money than rich farks who promptly gave themselves bonuses for getting a trillion dollar bailout.

This.
 
2008-12-14 11:00:34 AM
Scary yes, Bust's fault for being a jackass, Yes. He wasted a surplus and tried to make greed respectable! I do not like all of this debt, but we have no choice!
 
2008-12-14 11:02:41 AM
Phil Herup: I like clicking on your profile. It makes me laugh.

Glad to be of service, sir. And I enjoy talking to you for much the same reason, except I can only take it for so long. Eventually it makes me want to gouge out my eyeballs to make the stupid go away.

I still can't quite figure out if your an alt or really just that dense.

Anyway, keep up the wonderful work. Driving the fail-train is a dirty job, but you do it with such penache.
 
2008-12-14 11:17:14 AM
ExperianScaresCthulhu: eddyatwork: I'd rather have regular people getting the money than rich farks who promptly gave themselves bonuses for getting a trillion dollar bailout.

This.


Hey fark heads.

We tried that already. The guy you hate did it, remember? It didn't work

Now all of a sudden Obama wants to do it and its GENIUS!!!!!
 
2008-12-14 11:18:25 AM
Phil Herup: Obviously. I hope he is smart. I think he will be.

It is the rest of his party I'm worried about.


The question of the day should be, Will the Obama Administration be able to force its will on Congress in the same manner as the Bush Administration was capable of doing?

My guess is that this will not be an issue for them, at least, initially.
 
2008-12-14 11:20:04 AM
Lusiphur: I enjoy talking to you for much the same reason, except I can only take it for so long. Eventually it makes me want to gouge out my eyeballs to make the stupid go away.


Sorry, but your stupid goes back a little further than your eyeballs. Follow the optic nerve back to the brain and commence curettage. Care must taken around the brain stem though. You need that part.

I afraid there is no cure for the smug though, you'll have to live with that, as will the rest of us.
 
2008-12-14 11:20:36 AM
so...I guess they really do have bigger packages.


This just isn't going to work.
 
2008-12-14 11:25:28 AM
deltabourne: We tried that already. The guy you hate did it, remember? It didn't work

Now all of a sudden Obama wants to do it and its GENIUS!!!!!


Define "didn't work" because if you were someone that got enough money to stave off your house being foreclosed on, you might just think the Bush Spending Initiative did wonders.

However, if you were looking for an investment in infrastructure would make a put people to work and also stimulate the economy, well then, we wouldn't know - because the Bush Administration never attempted anything like that.

Glad to see you're on top of the current events.
 
2008-12-14 11:27:58 AM
sirgrim 2008-12-14 09:18:01 AM
I, for one, would much rather have a few extra inflated dollars in my money market account than improved roads and schools.

High five.


I know you are joking, but this does seem to be a new talking point among the drooling Right. Expect to hear about how investing in infrastrutcture is a bad idea because it doesn't yield profits in the days to come from the spittle-spouting retards.
 
2008-12-14 11:32:05 AM
Random Reality Check: My guess is that this will not be an issue for them, at least, initially.


Yeah, I think Mr. Obama will keep the status quo for a while. I have more faith in him than Congress. Hopefully he will be successful and Pelosi can sit back and do what she is best at. Nothing.
 
2008-12-14 11:32:54 AM
CaptainFatass: Expect to hear about how investing in infrastrutcture is a bad idea because it doesn't yield profits in the days to come from the spittle-spouting retards.

Wow they're going to aim for a new low in the old intelligence quotient department. Until about a decade ago I wouldn't have thought it possible.

Recently I have come to believe that there might not be a lower boundary.
 
2008-12-14 11:33:08 AM
Random Reality Check: However, if you were looking for an investment in infrastructure would make a put people to work and also stimulate the economy, well then, we wouldn't know - because the Bush Administration never attempted anything like that.

No, but it turned out awesome in the 40's and 50's. Especially the 50's when returing GI's with no job prospects and barely a high school education were put to work on the nations infrastructure. And all the research grants to Bell Labs and Xerox and the like ushered in this current era of American technologcal superiority that we're still enjoying today. If it wasn't massive influxes of federal capital into private research, we wouldn't have the internet, at least not in the advanced form we have it today. We would still be using 486's. Cars would still be made out of steel instead of safer, cheaper, and lighter aircraft grade aluminum. And we wouldn't have the Tempurpedic Sweedish Sleep System, with visco-elastic memory cells.

We need another round of massive physical infrastructure upgrades and, almost more importantly, another round of "Race to the moon" type of pure technical grants.
 
2008-12-14 11:37:34 AM
Phil Herup: Random Reality Check: My guess is that this will not be an issue for them, at least, initially.


Yeah, I think Mr. Obama will keep the status quo for a while. I have more faith in him than Congress. Hopefully he will be successful and Pelosi can sit back and do what she is best at. Nothing.


I don't see Speaker Pelosi that way. I see her as more of a Tom Delay kind of leader, secretly twisting people's arms behind their back to get her way and her pleasure.

The question will be how well Obama can keep the popularity ratings up. Nobody wants to go up against a popular president. This is how President Bush managed to capitalize on 9/11.

If Obama can keep his numbers up, I think he is going to get most, if not all of his programs pushed through - the questions are, will they be effective and will the rest of the world allow this to happen without interruption...
 
2008-12-14 11:39:34 AM
Random Reality Check 2008-12-14 11:32:54 AM
CaptainFatass: Expect to hear about how investing in infrastrutcture is a bad idea because it doesn't yield profits in the days to come from the spittle-spouting retards.

Wow they're going to aim for a new low in the old intelligence quotient department. Until about a decade ago I wouldn't have thought it possible.

Recently I have come to believe that there might not be a lower boundary.


Yeah, I know. They must think that the CEOs of the country are going to chip in to fix our bridges, streets, etc. Even though they biatch about having to bail out those corrupt bastards in the next sentence.
 
2008-12-14 11:41:55 AM
Lusiphur: Random Reality Check: However, if you were looking for an investment in infrastructure would make a put people to work and also stimulate the economy, well then, we wouldn't know - because the Bush Administration never attempted anything like that.

No, but it turned out awesome in the 40's and 50's. Especially the 50's when returing GI's with no job prospects and barely a high school education were put to work on the nations infrastructure. And all the research grants to Bell Labs and Xerox and the like ushered in this current era of American technologcal superiority that we're still enjoying today. If it wasn't massive influxes of federal capital into private research, we wouldn't have the internet, at least not in the advanced form we have it today. We would still be using 486's. Cars would still be made out of steel instead of safer, cheaper, and lighter aircraft grade aluminum. And we wouldn't have the Tempurpedic Sweedish Sleep System, with visco-elastic memory cells.

We need another round of massive physical infrastructure upgrades and, almost more importantly, another round of "Race to the moon" type of pure technical grants.


I am all for this kind of investment.
In fact, I don't think $1 trillion is enough.
 
2008-12-14 11:44:39 AM
CaptainFatass: They must think that the CEOs of the country are going to chip in to fix our bridges, streets, etc.

You mean they're not?

Don't you know that the money we give those CEOs will trickle down in such a way as to create new wealth? I believe that new wealth will build those bridges and a brighter future for us all - or so I've been led to believe.
 
2008-12-14 11:46:23 AM
Random Reality Check: In fact, I don't think $1 trillion is enough.

Exactly. If the reward is worth it, and the alternative is stagnation and eventual death, sometimes it pays to borrow money. Now, you have to be careful of what you do with it, but I would gladly shoulder my share of any debt necessary to herald in another round of growth like we saw in the 60's and 70's.
 
2008-12-14 11:48:25 AM
Random Reality Check: I don't see Speaker Pelosi that way.


She is a vacuous tool. She did absolutely nothing. Tom Delay took dumps that were more effective than her. You are going to actually get to see how worthless she is now.

/she has huge boobs though.
 
2008-12-14 11:49:01 AM
winterwhile: Dem-o-rats don't care, its all about repaying Chairman Obama's election to Unions and supporters.

Throw the money away, same result

Change you can believe in


You mean the majority of voters?

That's how Democracy works. You can't howl "Democracy" while invading a country while complaining about Democracy at home.
 
2008-12-14 11:52:21 AM
Why are people quoting and responding to DIA when he never posted in this thread?
 
2008-12-14 12:00:55 PM
Only 2x the cost of the Iraq War and for a domestic reason? Bring it on.
 
2008-12-14 12:03:37 PM
drfunke: so...I guess they really do have bigger packages.


This just isn't going to work.


I see someone already beat me to the "Wow, Obama has a HUGE package" joke.
 
2008-12-14 12:09:47 PM
Bring on the inflation!
 
2008-12-14 12:12:33 PM
Sleeping Monkey: So to get us out of Bush's recession, Obama plans to spend 1/5 the amount of the money that Republicans borrowed to get us into the recession in the first place?

Where were all the concerned fiscal conservatives over the last 8 years while we gave borrowed Chinese money away to war profiteers?


Ever heard of Hooverism? Check it out and it's retarded cousin Neo-Hooverism which is what the Republican Party is pushing these days.
 
2008-12-14 12:16:49 PM
Random Reality Check: I am all for this kind of investment. In fact, I don't think $1 trillion is enough.

How much then? If you think a trillion is good, wouldn't ten trillion be better? Or is the "right" amount $5 trillion?...dare I suggest $20 trillion? Wouldn't that launch us into the greatest era of prosperity ever known to man? Please explain the logic you use to arrive at your opinion.
 
2008-12-14 12:28:25 PM
Il Douchey: Fear_and_Loathing: Take that trillion, give an equal portion to every citizen, and let's see what happens.

It wouldn't matter. Gov't stimulus is like taking a bucket of water out of one side of the lake and pouring it into the other side of the lake in hopes of raising the level.


That is the best anology I have ever read for government economic policies.
 
2008-12-14 12:34:21 PM
People are taking out T-bills with virtually no interest right now. It is the last safe place to put money, figuring zero return is better than a loss. That means the government is getting tons of essentially no interest loans. What better time for the federal government to relieve the burden on local governments and to spend money on infrastructure than when it is getting such a deal on loans?
 
2008-12-14 12:40:29 PM
Cubansaltyballs Why are people quoting and responding to DIA when he never posted in this thread?

Looks like a bannination and deletion of all his posts, and all posts referring to his posts.

For some reason we're not allowed to talk about it. Heck, I'll probably get zapped for saying this.
 
2008-12-14 12:42:58 PM
Axolotl: Looks like a bannination and deletion of all his posts, and all posts referring to his posts.

For some reason we're not allowed to talk about it. Heck, I'll probably get zapped for saying this.


What did he say? It couldnt be any worse then some of the douchebags around here.
 
2008-12-14 12:44:40 PM
eddyatwork: I'd rather have regular people getting the money than rich farks who promptly gave themselves bonuses for getting a trillion dollar bailout.

Listen you farking morons. The 1 trillion stimulus Obama is talking about isn't money for banks or wallstreet. It's money for infrastructure improvements and alternative energy products. You know, to create jobs.

You guys hear "bailout" and start parroting the same old crap like braindead morons.
 
2008-12-14 12:49:16 PM
Who IS DIA?

DoucheInArse?
 
2008-12-14 12:52:56 PM
I wouldn't matter. Gov't stimulus is like taking a bucket of water out of one side of the lake and pouring it into the other side of the lake in hopes of raising the level.

Actually it's like taking water out of one side and putting it in the other side in hopes of making some water move. They aren't trying to grow the economy, they're trying to get it moving again.

Also, they aren't talking about bailouts, they're talking about stimulus. Just instead of handing out money they're going to build stuff and hire people.
 
2008-12-14 12:52:56 PM
Cubansaltyballs: What did he say? It couldnt be any worse then some of the douchebags around here.

No idea, must've happened before I got here myself. Following IshadymilkmanI's reference above, I'd assume he posted the pic on Drudge with a bunch of folks waving hands in front of an Obama poster with some highly objectionable comment.

As you say, given the usual stuff that goes on here, hard to imagine what was so bad. D_I_A is a troll, but not a full retard.
 
2008-12-14 01:06:29 PM
Axolotl: I'd assume he posted the pic on Drudge with a bunch of folks waving hands in front of an Obama poster with some highly objectionable comment.


Yeah that pic is gone.

It was not that big of a deal. I can't remember if there was a comment.
 
2008-12-14 01:06:37 PM
1 trillion? seriously?
the whole reason most people voted for obama is because the media told us he can turn stones into stacks of hundread dollar bills!
i think weve been bamboozled! great googley moogley!

www.motherjones.com
 
2008-12-14 01:11:05 PM
iceberg theory: 1 trillion? seriously?
the whole reason most people voted for obama is because the media told us he can turn stones into stacks of hundread dollar bills!
i think weve been bamboozled! great googley moogley!


Sadly, the Obamabots will either ignore this or find some way to spin it into a positive so they can continue happily drinking their kool-aid.
 
2008-12-14 01:15:01 PM
Notabunny: Reagan/Bush1 raised our debt from about 30% of GDP to well over 60% of GDP.
Clinton lowered it.
Now Bush2 has raised our debt to over 70% of GDP, and increased the debt owed to foreign nationals from 31% in 2000 to 46% today. (that's about $9k per individual American owed to some other country)

A $1T investment in reversing 20 years of failed economics theory seems reasonable now, doesn't it.


Clinton did not lower our debt... He merely had a surplus in his budget which was budgeted to run in the red. We still lost money to debt during the Clinton years, he just didn't spend the full proposed budget.
 
2008-12-14 01:15:51 PM
the_vegetarian_cannibal: Sadly, the Obamabots will either ignore this or find some way to spin it into a positive so they can continue happily drinking their kool-aid.

It was fine with you when his name was Bush and it was called a tax cut.
 
2008-12-14 01:22:56 PM
moothemagiccow: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Sadly, the Obamabots will either ignore this or find some way to spin it into a positive so they can continue happily drinking their kool-aid.

It was fine with you when his name was Bush and it was called a tax cut.


Not disagreeing, but rather pointing out that by saying that, he'll say something along the lines of, "Thanks for proving my point, libtard!"

/I is a libtard
//can I pet the bunny, George?
 
2008-12-14 01:31:53 PM
Dammit. Lets stop. We need to stop throwing massive amounts of money around. Lets think about it a minute, come up with a clean, transparent plan, get at least some semblance of agreement and oversight in it (not everybody is going to agree) and implement the plan.

Lets not have 20 different plans with 20 different goals throwing money around like a monopoly game gone mad.
 
2008-12-14 01:32:52 PM
deltabourne: We tried that already. The guy you hate did it, remember? It didn't work

I wasn't eligible to get the $600 last year. All I know is I better get paid this year. If my generation's future is going to be farked by greedy assholes with a uranium-level credit card, I'd at least like to be able to enjoy myself.
 
2008-12-14 01:34:11 PM
moothemagiccow: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Sadly, the Obamabots will either ignore this or find some way to spin it into a positive so they can continue happily drinking their kool-aid.

It was fine with you when his name was Bush and it was called a tax cut.


Another B-Bu-But Bush!!!

Heh, typical lib response, avoiding the issue at hand with a distraction. Your boy's not even in office yet and you guys are already scrambling to be first in line to defend him.

media.townhall.com
 
2008-12-14 01:41:28 PM
Skail: Fear_and_Loathing: Take that trillion, give an equal portion to every citizen, and let's see what happens. Most would spend it paying off debt, some on big screen TV or other crap.

Others might send their kids to college. In the end, it makes more sense than funding those that got rich screwing with the system.

In the end, cash would flow and debt would be reduced and life would get prosperous.

Sounds good. Extreme inflation couldn't possibly happen with this plan!


Actually, the worry these days is about deflation, which can be just as bad as inflation when it starts spiraling out of control. Prices go down (sounds good in the short run) but then that means that the entities selling these goods and services are taking in less money, which translates as job losses, which leads to more deflation, etc.

I agree that we need to try to jump start the economy right now and not be all that concerned about going into debt for it. As I have heard explained, worrying about more debt at this time is like worrying about a patient's cholesterol while he is in cardiac arrest. Get his heart started first, then work on the other long term issues.
 
2008-12-14 01:41:28 PM
Will the last person to get laid off, turn off the assembly line?

Thank you.
 
2008-12-14 01:41:41 PM
MyRandomName: Clinton did not lower our debt... He merely had a surplus in his budget which was budgeted to run in the red. We still lost money to debt during the Clinton years, he just didn't spend the full proposed budget.


My statement referenced debt as it relates to GDP. (new window) I think that's a more informative way to compare and contrast performances separated by years or decades.

When Bush1 left office, our debt was 66.2 of GDP
When Clinton left office, our debt was 57.4% of GDP
The current projection for Bush2 is over 70%.
I'm wasn't a math major, but that seems to back up what I said.

Just to stir the pot, when Ford left office our debt was 35.8% of GDP.
After Carter, 32.6%.
 
2008-12-14 01:42:31 PM
Has anyone pointed out yet that we actually NEED infrastructure improvements? Fixing roads, bridges, etc. is not a bad thing. If we can get needed stimulus out of it, all the better.
 
2008-12-14 01:46:56 PM
Argh2: Has anyone pointed out yet that we actually NEED infrastructure improvements? Fixing roads, bridges, etc. is not a bad thing. If we can get needed stimulus out of it, all the better.


It's like serendipity.
 
2008-12-14 01:47:00 PM
Also, building roads and bridges is an undeniable role of government, one even the most fiscally conservative republican would agree to if they weren't blinded by ObamaRage?

This isn't the same as giving $700 billion to banks to cover their own stupidity
 
2008-12-14 01:47:09 PM
the_vegetarian_cannibal: Another B-Bu-But Bush!!!

Heh, typical lib response, avoiding the issue at hand with a distraction. Your boy's not even in office yet and you guys are already scrambling to be first in line to defend him.


Well, hey there, Mighty_Afternoon_Hellbent_Etc, welcome back!
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report