Stimulus Bill cost us more than the War in Iraq and Afghanistan!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wyldgusechaz, Jul 7, 2009.

  1. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    And still we lose jobs. I said it before, government spending ala Keynesian theory does not work and John Maynard Keynes admitted such himself. The New Deal was a boondoggle and Obama's stimulus package is proving to be a boondoggle.

    Its what happens when you elect a guy who never had a real job assisted by guys who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

    The economy is now all Obama's and the Dems and it is tanking worse than Bush ever did. 9.5% unemployment squarely on the shoulders of "Progressives." I thought we were getting better but Obama is bungling this worse than can be imagined.

    Cost of 2 wars:

    COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War


    The Stimulus bill I believe was $787 billion.
     
  2. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    [Loony Tunes theme music]

    [/Loony Tunes theme music]
     
  3. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    guess we'd have had the money to pay for it if zippy w. had not had his disastrous 15 min. war?
     
  4. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    538
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    Maybe if Obama's predecessor hadn't broke the bank with the 685 billion boondoggle in Iraq, you all wouldn't be in the tank so deep at the moment.
     
  5. Cowabanga

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    373
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    northwest
    Verified:
    Photo
    I think you need to check your fact, because after this is all over, the final cost and estimate of this war is in the 3 trillion dollar margin, there is no way that this war is under a trillion dollar mark. You can not just stop everything once you have military over in another country and just leave them stranded. Starting and finishing a war is a process, not a shopping list at the supermarket.

    I rather have a 3 trillion dollar stimulus money than a 3 trillion dollar war on any day! I think its appalling that you would complain about investing in our future, instead of the waste in wars! But go ahead and be that person that thinks spending on war is the wiser choice, as oppose to enriching our children welfare and education. More power to you!
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    SpeedoGuy officially wins this thread.
    And, t-t-t-that's ALL, Folks!!!
     
  7. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    How like a rabid conservative to consider costs exclusively in dollars when 4,639 allied lives were snuffed out (over 31,000 injured), not to mention tens of thousands Iraqis, all lost to Bush's Boondoggle. Fuck the money, I'd gladly pay higher taxes to pay get those lives back. Pity it doesn't work that way.

    Now which cost more?
     
    #7 jason_els, Jul 7, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  8. bigguy11211

    bigguy11211 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    128
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, UK
    You seriously can't be trying to attribute the job losses announced subsequent to Obama coming into office as the result of his administration. Please tell me you're not that simple.
     
  9. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,097
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Exactly. The spigot is endless for the Department of Defense but anything else zero. All other spending is socialism.
     
  10. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    He is. :rolleyes:
     
  11. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    This premise idiotically overlooks the obvious: the stimulus plan entails moneys spent in the interest of...wait for it...stimulating growth in our economy again. It's a plan designed to see returns on the public investment made up front.

    As distinct from the moneys spent fighting Bush's War on Terror™, which are essentially tax dollars flushed down the toilet...or "lost" in transport...in either case, winding up in the coffers of well-connected contractors.
     
  12. pycoh567

    pycoh567 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    you guys realize this is all by design, no party is for the people, the government is not for the people, now get out there and protest!
     
  13. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence

    Yet you claimed government spending worked ever so well during George W. Bush's era. In fact, even as the U.S. economy declined, you hailed him as an economic wizard:


    Far from taxes=bad, they are needed to fund the two foreign wars of G.W.Bush, debt incurred from them and the government's budget. You and the elected Bush guy, "assisted by guys who don't pay their fair share of taxes", who extolled the wonders of Reaganomics are only fooling yourselves. Supply side economics do not work.

    10




    It was such a tragedy for Wylde to see an economic meltdown occur on the watch of his so called economic wizard. He even thought that Obama was president then. Poor, deluded soul. :no:

    http://www.lpsg.org/110805-this-is-going-t-fun.html







    In his opinion (circa May 2007) your computer costs more::rolleyes:


     
    #13 dreamer20, Jul 7, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  14. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,097
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Touche
     
  15. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You know, I thought I was rather erudite but you post confirms I know EXACTLY what is the truth.

    Thank you
     
  16. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    If you are going to quote me quote it all. George Bush was NOT a conservative. He never reigned in spending. His tax cuts created the largest federal revenue ever. That cannot be argued. Had he be a true supply sider, he would have balanced the budget. Then that would have been supply side at its best.
     
  17. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,097
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I'm VERY interested in what conservative has actually reigned in spending? It's amazing now that it's official the GWB presidency was a disaster how now they're saying 'we he wasn't really a conservative' even though he called himself as such and conservatives voted for him. He nominated ultra-conservative judges to the bench. But now it's time to dance away from the wreckage and say he wasn't a conservative.
     
  18. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,095
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    George Bush wasn't a Conservative, he was a "compassionate" conservative.....
     
  19. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,097
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Yes we know. Very compassionate to the plight of CEO's trying to make a few million but weighed down by pesky anti-trust laws and nuisance regulations. Those agencies virtually shut down during his reign of error.
     
  20. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    There was a letter I received in December. I wish that I was able to find it right now. That letter originated with a Southern California CPA. It was really interesting. The content of this letter discussesd the bail outs.

    The basic bottom line was that if we took the quantities of money and literally divided the amount of those bail outs by having the United States Government write checks to each and every United States Citizen we would have all received checkes in the area of about 3.8 million dollars.

    The research that this fellow did was extremely detailed and took into account people in prisons and others who would be exempted.

    I want to ask each one of you. If you were given a gift of about 3.8 million dollars what would you do and how fast do you think that this kind of bail out would fix the economy and our industrial might.

    We would fix real estate because the foreclosures would end. People would buy new vehicles because they would be able to afford them. Consumer goods sales would skyrocket in general because we would purchase those things we had been wanting and banks and loan companies would profit because loans would be paid off and new loans could be issued.

    Industry would become strong enough to be buying foreign industrial conglomerates instead of selling out to them.

    There is zero doubt that this would work.

    Now instead of something that would work we hand our tax dollrs to a bunch of banks, insurance companies and industies that have proven themselves unworthy of even our business.

    Giving the bail out to the american taxpayer would be the real bailout. Giving it to the already rich will be a bandaid as usual. Long term it is a proposition that works just perfectly for the rich few. Under the present kind of bailout the rich get richer and the poor cannot move up.

    Who do you think engineered this whole thing.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted