So the Republican Party was all for the Stimulus Package when Bush was pushing it

[Le Jacquelope]

but when Barack Obama got into office, they want to scream 'no more deficit spending'?

WTF?

 

[The_Trouvere]

The Republicans want the stimulus package to fail, so that they will be voted back into office. That means they want millions more Americans to lose their jobs and their homes.

 

[KellysCrack]

Hello..

Congress run by democrats...I believe that they had the majority in both the house and senate durring the last two years of GW's reign.

Who allowed that stimulus packed to go through???

 

[Lavared]

Give me the previous bill number and I'll tell you how many votes it got yea and nay by party. Or you can check it yourself here

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

The "GWBush we're in a hurry and have to vote yes right now or the sky will fall" TARP bill was just as wrong-headed as this one. Two wrongs don't make a right but, truly, a lot of Repubs have no room to talk since they so hurridly voted in the last one, AFTER, the wooden arrows and stuff were added.

I've never been so disappointed in one of my local congressmen as I was after he changed his vote after the pork was added. It kept him from getting my vote in the last election. That's the most I can do. I can't go up there and beat them up.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Give me the previous bill number and I'll tell you how many votes it got yea and nay by party. Or you can check it yourself here

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

The "GWBush we're in a hurry and have to vote yes right now or the sky will fall" TARP bill was just as wrong-headed as this one. Two wrongs don't make a right but, truly, a lot of Repubs have no room to talk since they so hurridly voted in the last one, AFTER, the wooden arrows and stuff were added.

I've never been so disappointed in one of my local congressmen as I was after he changed his vote after the pork was added. It kept him from getting my vote in the last election. That's the most I can do. I can't go up there and beat them up.

Heh. I like how Barack Obama told the Republicans he didn't want to be lectured about fiscal conservatism by a party that did not even practice fiscal conservatism.

 

[conservative1]

and that's what got the republicans into hot water with the people that voted them in!!

 

[Ham Murabi]

I think the Republicans would have supported a $300B stimulus of road building, bridge building and repairs.

 

[Ham Murabi]

I know it's a long shot, but maybe this will help you understand why the stimulus was not embraced by Republicans.
After reading this story, thinking people might wonder why the Democrats supported it.

NOTE: This story is suitable for business sections.

With BC-CNS-Stimulus-Economists-Box

Photo Available (thumbnail, caption below)

By DANIEL NEWHAUSER
Cronkite News Service

TEMPE (Monday, Feb. 16) _ Stephen Happel won’t be cheering when President Barack Obama tells Arizonans how his $787 billion economic stimulus will provide relief to one of the states hit hardest by the recession.

An economics professor at Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business, Happel says stimulus, while well intentioned, will do little to resolve the long-term economic problems America is facing.

“It’s heart over mind. It’s hope over reality,” Happel said in an interview. “The only way I can see that the Obama plan works is if it gives vast numbers of people hope that the recession is about to end.”

The president, scheduled to visit Mesa on Wednesday to discuss how his plan will help beleaguered homeowners, maintains that the stimulus is vital to jump-starting the U.S. economy. But Happel said that isn’t a popular argument in the school’s Department of Economics.

Happel said he prefers a hands-off approach: let the businesses that made bad decisions fail and then lower tax rates for consumers and small businesses and allow the market to right itself. And he opposes taking on debt to pay for the stimulus.

“A lot of it is robbing Peter to pay Paul,” he said. “The younger generation is going to take it in the shorts.”

In Happel’s corner: Edward Prescott, the W.P. Carey Chair of Economics and winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in economic sciences. Prescott said most anybody trained in macroeconomics, or the study of national or regional economics as a whole, opposes the bill.

“The intellectual support for the stimulus is just not there,” he said in a telephone interview. “Nobody’s coming out here saying there’s a tested theory that has worked.”

Prescott said he just doesn’t believe government intervention can create lasting economic progress and that much of the money could end up being misused.

“The more we have out of Washington and the more it is, the worse it is,” he said. “When things get centralized, they start being used for political reasons rather than economic reasons.”

The difference in opinion between the president and these economists highlights the distinctions between Keynesian theory _ economic thought pioneered by 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes that stresses government involvement _ and free-market economics.

Happel, Prescott and two other ASU economics professors joined more than 40 economists who signed an open letter published last week in newspapers including The New York Times and The Arizona Republic. Sponsored by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, the letter challenges Obama’s suggestion that most economists support the stimulus.

“When Barack said we’re all Keynesians now, I just wanted to get up in my chair and say, ‘I’m not Keynesian,’” Happel said. “We’re free-market economists here.”

Still, not everyone at the Carey School is vehemently opposed to the stimulus.

The dean, Robert E. Mittelstaedt Jr., said he supports some government intervention, but he thinks the stimulus is too big and too vague and won’t necessarily help.

“It’s like saying to a drug addict, ‘We’re going to help you by giving you a little drugs,’” he said. “All it’s doing is supporting the same habits that got us into this.”

Nevertheless, Mittelstaedt said, a healthy academic debate reinforces the American political system.

“The best part of universities is you are going to have a lot of bright people around and you’re not always agree, but you can never say there’s not good discussion,” he said. “We would do well to listen deeply to why people are for or against something like this.”

 

[Lavared]

Heh. I like how Barack Obama told the Republicans he didn't want to be lectured about fiscal conservatism by a party that did not even practice fiscal conservatism.

IF (big if here) the GOP would get their act together and

Become all about fiscal conservatism
Become perceived as more accepting of hispanic and black voters *
Decide once and for all if they're embracing Judeo-Christian ethics or not and stand by that decision

there would be no stopping them.

* I say perceived because I think most of the party is actual more accepting than they get credit for.

 

[Medikated]

but when Barack Obama got into office, they want to scream 'no more deficit spending'?

WTF?

TARP was a mistake as well, thats understood.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

IF (big if here) the GOP would get their act together and

Become all about fiscal conservatism
Become perceived as more accepting of hispanic and black voters *
Decide once and for all if they're embracing Judeo-Christian ethics or not and stand by that decision

there would be no stopping them.

* I say perceived because I think most of the party is actual more accepting than they get credit for.

Yeah, there'd be no stopping them from going right off a cliff.

Name me one country that runs on true Republican fiscal conservatism.

Republicans won't embrace Judeo-Christian ethics - they're too busy bolstering nations that oppose that ethic. Judeo-Christian ethics won't even exist in 100 years after China has beaten it to death on the world stage via "free trade". God is unprofitable. Republicans can't support any faith in the end except capitalism.

 

[Moxon4]

"It’s heart over mind. It’s hope over reality,” Happel said in an interview

I think that pretty much explains everything that Obama has done...

I have yet to see any economist say they think this will work, I'm glad the GOP is actually trying to show some fiscal restraint, unfortunately they still haven't learned that people voted them out for spending like Liberals.

 

[_Misty_]

Give me the previous bill number and I'll tell you how many votes it got yea and nay by party. Or you can check it yourself here

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

The "GWBush we're in a hurry and have to vote yes right now or the sky will fall" TARP bill was just as wrong-headed as this one. Two wrongs don't make a right but, truly, a lot of Repubs have no room to talk since they so hurridly voted in the last one, AFTER, the wooden arrows and stuff were added.

I've never been so disappointed in one of my local congressmen as I was after he changed his vote after the pork was added. It kept him from getting my vote in the last election. That's the most I can do. I can't go up there and beat them up.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts will.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

"It’s heart over mind. It’s hope over reality,” Happel said in an interview

I think that pretty much explains everything that Obama has done...

I have yet to see any economist say they think this will work, I'm glad the GOP is actually trying to show some fiscal restraint, unfortunately they still haven't learned that people voted them out for spending like Liberals.

So why didn't the GOP show this fiscal restraint for the last 8 years? Why didn't they show it when they voted alongside Bush for the first stimulus package/bailout?

 

[phrodeau]

So why didn't the GOP show this fiscal restraint for the last 8 years? Why didn't they show it when they voted alongside Bush for the first stimulus package/bailout?

You ought to know, being a Republican yourself.

 

[MeeMie]

So the Republican Party was all for the Stimulus Package when Bush was pushing it

Quite the contrary.

TARP I was enacted by a lame duck president, broken from eight constant years of persecuting criticism by the loonie left, much to the criticism of most conservatives who believed in the principles of the Republican Party.

President Bush truly believed the premise for TARP I was required, but was powerless to stop the loading on of PORK that Nancy and friends succeeded with adding to the finished product, while she grasped his balls tightly in her clenched fist, and pushed through another wasteful spending budget in the interim.


I guess you forgot that the first try at TARP did not pass, largely because Republicans wouldn't vote for it?

Here's a reminder:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=28824589#post28824589

 

[Moxon4]

So why didn't the GOP show this fiscal restraint for the last 8 years? Why didn't they show it when they voted alongside Bush for the first stimulus package/bailout?

Because whenever any party stays in power too long they do that. One reason I am for term limits, constantly sending new people should help

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Because whenever any party stays in power too long they do that. One reason I am for term limits, constantly sending new people should help

We have term limits for the Presidency. Bush managed to rape the budget with the war in Iraq within that time.

 

[_Misty_]

Because whenever any party stays in power too long they do that. One reason I am for term limits, constantly sending new people should help

uh....we have term limits

you must be thinking of the draft

 

[Moxon4]

We have term limits for the Presidency. Bush managed to rape the budget with the war in Iraq within that time.

I don't think the problem is the President, the problem lies within Congress. There are a large number of them that have spent so much time in Washington that they've totally forgotten why they were elected. I think that not letting people sit in their seats for 40 years is a good thing, more competitive elections are good things for Democracy, and for both parties because both sides need new blood.

Keep in mind Congress gave him all the power for the War, and negotiated all of the budgets with their personal pork projects inside of them. I think we should have a constitutional amendment that doesn't allow for unbalanced budgets at the Federal level, since most states have to operate under that law.

 

[Moxon4]

uh....we have term limits

you must be thinking of the draft

The President is term limited, Congress is not.

 

[JohnnySavage]

We have term limits for the Presidency. Bush managed to rape the budget with the war in Iraq within that time.

The war in Iraq was a tiny, tiny part of the increase in the National Debt under Bush.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I don't think the problem is the President, the problem lies within Congress. There are a large number of them that have spent so much time in Washington that they've totally forgotten why they were elected. I think that not letting people sit in their seats for 40 years is a good thing, more competitive elections are good things for Democracy, and for both parties because both sides need new blood.

Keep in mind Congress gave him all the power for the War, and negotiated all of the budgets with their personal pork projects inside of them. I think we should have a constitutional amendment that doesn't allow for unbalanced budgets at the Federal level, since most states have to operate under that law.

Please edit:

Keep in mind the Republican-dominated Congress gave him all the power for the War, and negotiated all of the budgets with their personal pork projects inside of them. I think we should have a constitutional amendment that doesn't allow for unbalanced budgets at the Federal level, since most states have to operate under that law.

Let's remember who was the majority in Congress up until 2006...

 

[Moxon4]

Please edit:


Let's remember who was the majority in Congress up until 2006...

Just remember that 29 D Senators were for it, as well as 82 D House Members, so don't act like they were completely innocent.

Also, since the Dems have had control were they anything but a complete rubber stamp for what Bush did? Bush couldn't have asked for a more amenable Congress than what he got in 2006.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Just remember that 29 D Senators were for it, as well as 82 D House Members, so don't act like they were completely innocent.

Also, since the Dems have had control were they anything but a complete rubber stamp for what Bush did? Bush couldn't have asked for a more amenable Congress than what he got in 2006.

Since 2006 the Democrats couldn't get anything done because of Bush's veto and the GOP's willingness to defend his veto. Please be sure to include that half of the truth in your 'explanations'.

American people know what I'm talking about here. It's part of why the GOP Congress received even lower ratings from the citizenry than the Democrats in Congress, and why the GOP lost ground in Congress in the last election.

Let me repeat that: you guys lost ground in Congress in 2008. Is it because the evil Democrats silenced your mighty Talk Radio, or are the Republicans finally going to man-up and admit they defeated themselves?