U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

@Frank Apisa,

And what risk is any President willing to take when he vetoes an appropriations bill and shuts down the government? Clinton did that in in 1995 and caught a lot of political hell and burned up a lot of political capital and accomplished little or nothing in the effort. Certainly that would be seen as reckless in the midst of a cold war threatening nuclear annilation of much of the country--and with enemies who would likely take advantage of any perceived weakness.

It isn't as easy as you seem to wish to make it seem. There is no way to veto an appropriations bill without hurting a great many people in the process and/or disrupting critical services that the government is obligated to provide.

The President can certainly lead in such matters and use the bully pulpit to appeal to the people. But he cannot so easily control the process as some wish to believe. Presidents don't deserve all the credit or all the blame for the economic fortunes and/or setbacks that the public sometimes tries to assign to them. The government is three parts but those three parts not only are part of a team but also ensure separation of powers.

I do wish President Obama would use the bully pulpit to appeal to the people and Congress to dump everything out of this current spending package that will not increase economic activity in the private sector and create private sector jobs. Everything else should be dumped.

I expect he will do that when hell freezes over.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Democrats are engaging in fear mongering to facilitate the legislative enactment of programs the country would otherwise reject.

I agree that this is happening.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

what our Congress is about to do to us is unprecedented, it is irresponsible, it is destructive, and every responsible American patriot regardless of their political affiliation or ideology should be saying NO.

You say that with authority, as though you have the macroeconomic expertise to predict the complex interactive effects of such a bill. How do you arrive at your conclusions?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

My conclusions are based on long experience that spending money that you don't have for things that you don't absolutely have to have results in grief. My conclusions are based on a hard held belief that no person, no organization, no entity, no nation can spend itself rich. The only reliable method by which to become rich is a) to take it from and thereby impoverish others or b) create wealth.

My conclusions are backed up by the opinion of the CBO and dozens of experts who have analyzed the stimulus package as it has been advertised and I have posted several of these elsewhere during the various discussions of this issue.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Democrats are engaging in fear mongering to facilitate the legislative enactment of programs the country would otherwise reject.

mushroom cloud?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I'll agree that Republicans talking about fear mongering is hypocritical considering how much they defended Bush's fear mongering. It does not make them wrong however.

But objective people who criticized it's use by both republicans and democrats should not be labeled as such.

Of course, I fall into that objective group.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I'll agree that Republicans talking about fear mongering is hypocritical considering how much they defended Bush's fear mongering. It does not make them wrong however.

But objective people who criticized it's use by both republicans and democrats should not be labeled as such.

Of course, I fall into that objective group.

Good post!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

My conclusions are based on long experience that spending money that you don't have for things that you don't absolutely have to have results in grief.

Were you saying this when the Shrub was spending money as though there were no tomorrow? I don't recall it . . .

0 Replies

Yep. You'll find no place where I justified it anywhere and many posts of mine where I declared complete disgust and disappointment with a GOP controlled Congress that could have chosen to be responsible and practice what they preach but didn't.

I also know from long experience that two wrongs do not make a right and the fact that the GOP blew it when they had the chance to get it right is not justification for the Democrats to blow it now.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I'd be interested to see the quotes. Whether or not you justified it is not the point, the point is whether or not you condemned it. It would be a simple matter for you to quote your posts of condemnation with links so that they can be reviewed.

You final remark assumes the Democrats are going "to blow it" . . . i was unaware that you are prescient.

0 Replies

Whatever.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Well the details of the bailout package do make interesting reading.

Most of the $100 billion or so grants to state governments come with many strings attached. In the main this is the Democrat program for things like K thru 12 education, welfare, infrastructure and environmental policy masquerading as a stimulus package. The specified funds are for two years only - what will happen after that? How will the states wean themselves of the new source?

Presumably they will enjoy rising tax receipts to help cover the shortfalls. But you do point out an important danger of Baselining.

Quote:

While the bank bailouts are justifiable only to the extent they protect others from worse cascading effects, the rest is just governments (and politicians) taking care of themselves.

I don't agree with this.

Quote:

If their real intent is to stimulate consumer confidence, bank lending and capital investment there are far simpler and more direct ways to accomplish that -- corporate tax cuts (we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world)

This is patently false. While our corporate tax rates may be the highest, our effective Corporate taxes paid certainly are not.

I would also add that economists generally put corporate tax cuts on the lowest levels of real stimulus effect for every dollar spent. Why do you counsel doing something which will not stimulate the economy?

Quote:

accelerated depreciation of new plant & equipment & the creation of a new banking entity to manage the "toxic' securities, somewhat like the resolution Trust Company with which we managed the Savings and loan crisis of two decades ago.

Accel. depreciation is a good thing and I have read that they are considering this.

On the other hand, perhaps you will recall that the assets we got in the S&L scandal were gotten from failed banks, which had gone under, for the most part. Is that what you are advocating here as well?

Quote:

Democrats are engaging in fear mongering to facilitate the legislative enactment of programs the country would otherwise reject.

Ironic coming from a Republican, accusations like this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Whatever what? Does that mean you don't intend to link posts which show you condemned the Shrub's spending programs? Or does it mean that you consider yourself prescient, but no obliged to prove it?

This is a case, by the way, in which the fault rests solely with the administration of the executive branch. From the first mid-term election of Clinton's administration, from January 1995, the Congress was controlled by the Republican Party. Nevertheless, a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress managed to run surpluses, which is starkly contrasted with the astronomical climb of the national debt under the Shrub. This is definitely not a case in which the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad can slip out from under responsibility by blaming the Congress.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

wioyo9 said

Quote:

The only truth I see is that we will NEVER EVER be able to trust this US Congress, to either understand the depth of the problem, pass responsible spending/stimulus programs to re-energize the economy, nor oversee their plan to insure it is working.

if you don't believe in the US form of democracy, move elsewhere and see what you get. it was the people who you supported for eight years that led the country into this clusterfuck, so be a man and deal with it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Whatever what? Does that mean you don't intend to link posts which show you condemned the Shrub's spending programs? Or does it mean that you consider yourself prescient, but no obliged to prove it?

This is a case, by the way, in which the fault rests solely with the administration of the executive branch. From the first mid-term election of Clinton's administration, from January 1995, the Congress was controlled by the Republican Party. Nevertheless, a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress managed to run surpluses, which is starkly contrasted with the astronomical climb of the national debt under the Shrub. This is definitely not a case in which the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad can slip out from under responsibility by blaming the Congress.

I generally agree with this. I believe the real danger to the public comes when either party controls both the White House and the Congress. There just isn't enough self discipline to preven them from using public money to currey favor while they go after the issues that most concern them. Divided government, such as existed in Clinton's second term appears to be our best bet.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

You must have voted for Obama. If you think the deficit will go away, you smoked a little too much in college.

1 Reply

@haviland,

Welcome Havi....I laughed at your post, not your fault, you don't know who Gungasnake is, but he's the last person on this planet who would have voted for Obama.

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

Once again, you presume incorrectly. Are you that much of a partisan sheep to think that everyone must be an idiot like you?

There is no problem with the FORM of govt here in the US and I never implied there was, you moron.

The problem is with the PEOPLE we as citizens vote into the US Congress that is the problem.

I am sure you are quite satisfied with the performance of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. If so, you are part of the problem.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Kuvasz...

...obviously what Woiyo is saying is that if the ignorant American public would just vote in people like Woiyo...our problems would all be over.

What is wrong with you that you cannot understand how incredibly brilliant and perceptive that is???

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Once again, Frank, take the challenge and tell us WHY YOU feel the US Congress, as a body, should be applauded for the efforts over the past 5 years?

You real good with sarcasm, but very lame on providing you opinion.

1 Reply

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know