Mini-Bailout, For EVERYONE!

[PLC1]

That would make more sense if the democrats did not also have back room meetings with big companies.

The solution is not to think that since pubs feed corporations that we can elect democrats and all will be well.

The solution is to tie the hands of congress so that neither party can engage in such shenanigans. We might even consider writing a constitution that forbade congress from doing anything that was not in a specific list of allowable things. We might even consider that with a little more flexibility congress could do things that cost us all equally and benefited us all equally.

That sounds good. The difficulty is that it is the same Congress and their partisan politics we'd have to depend on to pass laws against partisan politics.

I'm betting on continuation of shenanigans.

 

[Dr.Who]

That sounds good. The difficulty is that it is the same Congress and their partisan politics we'd have to depend on to pass laws against partisan politics.

I'm betting on continuation of shenanigans.

To paraphrase a wise man: we are their bosses.

 

[PLC1]

To paraphrase a wise man: we are their bosses.

Good point, and it's time we started acting like it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Good point, and it's time we started acting like it.

I am confused as to how we as a country can do that.

the democrats do a fairly good job of voting against republicans that advance statism and the republicans do a fairly good job of voting against democrats that advance their own kind of statism. Neither side does a good job of voting against those in their own party that advocate systems of greed and out of check growth.

When a congressmen is particularly bad the system works to get rid of him, but overall both parties grow more and more out of control.

If we vote for a third party that pretty much is a vote against the party which is the least of two evils.

If we want our media to expose the shenanigans to the light of day they only do it when it is sensational or when it advances their own agenda. Which is horrible since they are supposed to be unbiased.

What is left is to speak out ourselves. And then we discover that there are actually people out there who advocate outright socialism and even a few who are fascist and they don't do to bad a job of arguing against us, or at least keeping us from persuading too many others.

The country has moved steadily toward socialism for a long time now. If we measure it in terms GDP the European Socialisms are at about 47% of GDP and in the US we have reached about 40% of GDP. We are only seven points behind them! (The most efficient mathematical % in terms of GDP, ignoring ideology is 17%.)

The people of the country have realized that they can vote into their pockets the wealth of others. The only thing that is certain to hold this back now is that as the others lose wealth there won't be as much to take. By then the standard of living will be equally and blandly low.

I won't give up. I will keep advocating what is best. If P. Obama commits some atrocious blunder while instituting socialism the trend could be reversed - just like the Bush trend was reversed when he became unpopular. But will he do that?

If you have some better idea I am all ears (eyes).

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If P. Obama commits some atrocious blunder while instituting socialism.....

You mean, like, (actually) investing in our Future.....rather-than helping the 1%ers purchase a 4th & 5th vacation-home, with tax-cuts?​

 

[Dr.Who]

You mean, like, (actually) investing in our Future.....rather-than helping the 1%ers purchase a 4th & 5th vacation-home, with tax-cuts?​

Uh, no. That would not be an example of an atrocious blunder.

I mean like signing the "fairness doctrine."

or

Bringing our GDP controlled by government even higher than that of France.

or

Admitting to the next "Joe the Plumber" that he thinks we should become a socialism.

 

[Dr.Who]

You mean, like, (actually) investing in our Future.....rather-than helping the 1%ers purchase a 4th & 5th vacation-home, with tax-cuts?​

Thee 1%ers never received more back than they paid in. Anyone who gets more back than they pay in is a sponge.

The 1%ers only got back a proportionate amount back based on what they paid in.

 

[BigRob]

Why doesn't the government just agree they have to shrink the size of government and cut taxes at the same time. This stimulus package is a joke and will only increase government.

That was the Republican alternative to the stimulus. It was almost completely ignored sad to say. Most people don't even know they offered an alternative.

 

[Andy]

You mean, like, (actually) investing in our Future.....rather-than helping the 1%ers purchase a 4th & 5th vacation-home, with tax-cuts?​

Apparently the liberal version of "investing in our future" is to saddle the next generation with another $2 trillion in debt, over the $11 trillion we're dealing with.

While your worried about some rich guy buying a 5th home, our own children will be living in a socialist ghetto of refrigerator boxes.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That was the Republican alternative to the stimulus. It was almost completely ignored sad to say. Most people don't even know they offered an alternative.

yea that happens when you lose...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Apparently the liberal version of "investing in our future" is to saddle the next generation with another $2 trillion in debt, over the $11 trillion we're dealing with.

Aw, c'mon, Skippy....take a deep breath....the "conservative"-records will never be threatened.

​

 

[Dr.Who]

Aw, c'mon, Skippy....take a deep breath....the "conservative"-records will never be threatened.

​

The graph is misleading. The Clinton years resulted in an increase in the debt as shown previously here or on another thread.

The graph should show an increase in debt under Bush 1, and increase under Clinton, an increase under Bush 2, and will no doubt show an increase under Obama.

To take out just three of the four and pretend that Clinton lowered the national debt is just not right.

But even if we did pretend that the unaudited books of president Clinton resulted in less public debt that does not change the fact that the debt has only increased since the revolution and has not once decreased.

 

[Dr.Who]

Apparently the liberal version of "investing in our future" is to saddle the next generation with another $2 trillion in debt, over the $11 trillion we're dealing with.

While your worried about some rich guy buying a 5th home, our own children will be living in a socialist ghetto of refrigerator boxes.

Those boxes will all come with free insulation paid for through carbon taxes. So what are you complaining about, ya big whiner?

 

[BigRob]

yea that happens when you lose...

No said the bill had to be debated seriously in Congress, but it could least get a mention that it existed.

 

[Andy]

Aw, c'mon, Skippy....take a deep breath....the "conservative"-records will never be threatened.

​

What are you talking about? Obama already broke all the records with his "stimulus" (read partisan payoff) bill. With one single stroke of the pen, Obama added nearly directly on our debt, because we don't have the $787 Billion required to fund that bill, nor the extra $300 Billion to fund the continuation of the bank bailout he approved.

In just 28 days of being in office... Obama managed to increased the total national debt by 10%. That is a record that overshadows anything that happened in the passed 20 years. Name one president that managed to increase the national debt by $1 trillion in less than a month?