How does it feel America?

[Pandora]

But if you insist on spending money, give it back to the people to spend as they see fit as opposed to the very narrow list the goernment picks.

That sounds too much like a tax break and you know how dems hate those.

Besides, the people are far too stupid to know how best to spend their money, that is what government is for

 

[Revere]

I predict Obama will give the Chinese something else for the trouble.

 

[GenSeneca]

I predict Obama will give the Chinese something else for the trouble.

He could give them our Constitution, we're not using it.

 

[Pandora]

I predict Obama will give the Chinese something else for the trouble.

like what?

 

[Pandora]

He could give them our Constitution, we're not using it.

oh, good one!

 

[dogtowner]

He could give them our Constitution, we're not using it.

oh, good one!

touche !

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Can you tell us in your infinite wisdom what party controlled Congress for most of Bush's term, and who was in charge of the committee that controlled banking regulations?

From the G.W.B. GOOGLE Search {very, very simplistic to do}

Bush signed a $170 billion economic stimulus package which was intended to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses. The Bush administration pushed for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003,[107] and after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate. Many Republican senators, as well as influential members of the Bush Administration, feared that the agency created by these regulations would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices.[108][109] In September 2008, the crisis became much more serious beginning with the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers[110] and a federal bailout of American International Group for $85 billion.[111]
Many economists and world governments determined that the situation became the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.[112][113] Additional regulation over the housing market would have been beneficial, according to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.[114] President Bush, meanwhile, proposed a financial rescue plan to buy back a large portion of the U.S. mortgage market.[115] Vince Reinhardt, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, said "it would have helped for the Bush administration to empower the folks at Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC to look at these issues more closely", and additionally, that it would have helped "for Congress to have held hearings".[109]

from BODODIE: You should do some homework instead of pulling stuff out of your body that belongs in a septic tank.

FACT CHECK> 2004 Election also from the GOOGLE search:

In the election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.7% to his opponent's 48.3%).[82] The previous President to win an absolute majority of the popular vote had been Bush's father in the 1988 election. Additionally, it was the first time since Herbert Hoover's election in 1928 that a Republican president was elected alongside re-elected Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.

It wasn't until the senate elections in 2006 that the Democrats took control, due to many Americans being so unhappy with the lies/spending/job losses/unemployment/recession...but that's just the facts and I know you wouldn't want to be spreading falsehoods
So the simple math would be 8 - 6 = 2 years that the democrats were in control...I'll let you mull that over for a while before I push the FLUSH handle...LMAO

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Pandora, a passing acqaintence with economics tells you of the multiplier effect.

If you spend a $ someone recieves it and they spend it etc. This is how spending stimulates the economy. It creates jobs which create wealth.

Your approach of stopping spending and hoping for a miracle in terms of an upsurge in manufacturing is just bizarre. What would actually happen is that more manufacturers would go bust.

A passing acquaintance with "keynsian" economics hardly justifies such a condescending tone. No economic philosophy has been proven so wrong so often and so spectacularly as this keynsian crap.

If the money was just appearing in the hands of the government in the first place, you might have had something there, but then again if they could do that without devaluing the currency I imagine just about any kind of system would work. They must first remove a dollar from circulation in the economy, before they can then give it to somebody else. The economy is stimulated by the individual who receives the dollar he did not earn, but it is all also damaged on the other end where the money was taken. When you consider that in the middle of that little deal Robin Hood kept a pretty little chunk for himself, there is in fact a net negative. Government cannot create wealth, it can only move it around. Only business can create wealth, and they would do it too, if the government could just get out of their way.

 

[rationalist]

Oh dear. If people have money they buy things. These things have to get made and assuming a fair amount of the stuff is made in the US then your economy is stimulated. It is really common practice to borrow money to grow.

It is quite simple.

What is your suggestion?

Spend nothing and pray?

 

[bododie]

The Bush administration pushed for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003,[107] and after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate.

WHO stopped the regulating? It was Barney lisp. A fact that you convenienty left out. Barney was screwing Frank Raines. Can you tell us who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time this tryst was occurring?

 

[Pandora]

Oh dear. If people have money they buy things. These things have to get made and assuming a fair amount of the stuff is made in the US then your economy is stimulated. It is really common practice to borrow money to grow.

It is quite simple.

What is your suggestion?

Spend nothing and pray?

That is exactly right. IF people have money.

If the government would quit taking so much of the peoples money, people would have money but the government takes peoples money and gives it to groups they like and the people can not buy things because the government took their money.

But that still does not answer the question

How is it that President Bush spending too much money is bad but when obama spends far more its good?

Both are bad and neither helped!

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Oh dear. If people have money they buy things. These things have to get made and assuming a fair amount of the stuff is made in the US then your economy is stimulated. It is really common practice to borrow money to grow.

It is common practice among businesses to do this yes. There are clearly agreed upon terms before such borrowing ever takes place. Both parties are willing participants for mutual gain in such an arrangement. But businesses that are spending to much and failing, do not borrow to keep themselves afloat, they cut operating costs. If our operating costs as a nation were sustainable, then borrowing to invest in upgraded highways and bridges would be reasonable. Your analysis is to simplistic. You see that businesses borrow to grow, and you therefore assume that it is simply the borrowing of money that makes the growth happen. Unfortunately for the keynsian "economists" (word used grudgingly) there is a little more to it than that.

It is quite simple.

You are right, it is simple. You can imagine then my frustration at the fact that so many people cannot wrap their minds around it. You borrow money to boost yourself into action that you would eventually have taken anyways. You do not borrow money to keep your head above water temporarily because you refuse to cut operating costs. That is NOT how it works, sorry.

What is your suggestion?

Cut the budget.... down to about a third of where it is right now. Abolish the progressive income tax. Fund the Federal government with a 6 or 7% consumption tax. If the states want to have their own 40% tax on people who they think are to successful, that is fine. If the individual states want to adopt universal health care than fine, do it. I'll move somewhere that is to smart to do it, and then laugh as your little socialist economy crumbles, and there is no federal money taken from me to plug the holes in your budget. Federalism is my answer.

Spend nothing and pray?

You should be warned that I have a superpower. I can look at strawmen, and light them on fire with my mind. It only works on strawmen though, so to avoid a firehazard, stop making them.