Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
January 27, 2009 - 1:25pm
#1
The CBO has just costed out the Democrat Bailout program at $1,100,000,000,000 Trillion!!
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
$1,100,000,000,000 Trillion is alot.
What kind of bailout was Bush's first 750 billion?
Democrat, as well, I bet.
I'm sure everyone except those with their heads deepest in the sand understand whose at fault over the last eight years. But it's even worse than that. Every time the economy tanks and inflation goes up, that's a hidden tax that takes money right out of my pocket and yours. Thanks GW for doing such a great effin job.
NOT!
Neat definition...a crooked treasury secretary and a printing press economy is 'desperate measures'.
I think it was defined as 'bipartisan' though most republicans voted against it, and 'final' though we are back at the trough.
Yeah, those Democrats Bush and Paulson sprung it on us!
And two congressional democrats voted for it for every RINO...
The latest waste of our money may get a straight partisan vote, give or take a blue dog or RINO or two.
You spend it, you take responsibility....
This is an interesting bit of number crunching by a fellow on the Powerline Forum called 'Jackson33'
Shut the fuck up, Ethan. This blame game by people whose only wish is that they can still urinate in the morning or can't decide if they should attend the Art Appreciation Seminar or the campus tour is getting fucking old. Next?
Would you rather have Herbert Hoover at the helm who felt that things would just work themselves out if we all just sat back and relaxed?
If you don't like that fellows numbers, try the CBO's
http://readthestimulus.org/
Money for Nothing
Another tidbit...only 12% of the 'stimulus' plan is for stimulus and only 3% for infrastructure. The plan routs the vast majority of the money to government growth and democrat pork.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
Porkfest here we come....
Only $90billion in stimulus spread over several years but here is a chart of the welfare:
So you're entitled to express your opinion but I'm not? Interesting.
I've heard the "blame game" argument before and it's silly. The fact is GW Bush was arguably the worst president we've ever had, and his eight years has left the USA in terrible shape. You're damn right I blame him. And I blame everyone who voted for him, or told others to vote for him - Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all the other nitwits who lack the cajones to admit now that they were terribly wrong.
IMO, the entire bailout should be paid for by those who voted for GW both times. The rest of us get the tax refund conservatives are so fond of.
--Ethan
as would Carter and Clinton
None of those folk are pushing a $1.1 trillion dollar porkfest (twice the cost of the war in Iraq). Will we hear Pelosi, Obama, Reid, Kennedy, Franks, Rangel and the media sycophants admit in a couple of years that this plan simply pissed away a trillion dollars?
I doubt it.
As the top 20% pay 96% of the taxes used to fund this pork, I think your wish is being answered for never has one party stolen so much from the voters of the other to simply buy votes.
Ethan, I love that idea !
People who voted for GWB the 1st time were merely ill informed .
Those who voted for him the second time are morally complicit in an illegal war and the murder of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens.
This is why people that don't know shit about American history should stay out of such topics. Truman was the worse president. And that was before the Internet, Air America, and The Democratic Underground.
Exactly. Here's more to ponder:
The 9-11 terrorists killed a bunch of American citizens which is a terrible thing. But GW Bush has killed many more US citizens. That is, our soldiers. GW knowingly sold us the Iraq war on false premises, and not even staunch conservatives can argue otherwise. So that makes GW a bigger terrorist and murderer of US citizens than the Saudis who hijacked the three planes.
--Ethan
Who was the very worst is beside the point. And I did say "arguably." The fact is GW Bush was TERRIBLE. And it will take a lot of smart people many years to undo all the damage he has done. Most pathetic of all is GW doesn't even know what a buffoon he is. I don't expect him to grovel for our forgiveness - though surely he should! - but he could at least acknowledge that he screwed up big-time. Of course, he never will because he's not only stupid, he's arrogant too.
My favorite line in Obama's acceptance speech was that he'll restore science to its rightful place. A bit of that philosophy wouldn't hurt around this audio forum either.
--Ethan
FDR killed more Americans since you want to go down that road. Truman killed more men if you want to go down that road. Johnson killed more men if you want to go down that road. Shall we get into Woodrow Wilson too? Abraham Lincoln? Drunk drivers? AIDS? Katrina? Your straw man arguments suck. BTW, Obama's missile apparently killed a bunch of Afghan civilians. So we can add those deaths to his list. Face it, you don't know shit because it's too simple for you to understand and the last time you read a history book was your freshman year.
I would have been more impressed if he had not followed up with promises of making sacrifices at the alter of the Pop Religion, Global Warming....
I thought we were speaking of science, not mumbo jumbo.
Climate Change is a science as well as a pop religion.
The scientific side does not dispute that we have man made effects on the climate. There are disagreements on which man made causes are more important.
As usual, JIMV, you distort the facts to support your own horribly incorrect opinion.
Sorry, that caveat is not a tenet of my faith...
On a more pressing issue, the House passed the Porkfest on almost a party line vote...
Every dem who voted backed pork....
OK, they flushed the money down the toilet, they own the consequences....
Not one dime will go to single moms. The poster victim of the Democratic Party. 90% of runaways are raised by single moms. 70% of juvenile delinquents serving time for serious crimes come from single mom homes. 60% of convicted rapists were raised by single moms. Single moms cost the taxpayer $112 billion annually. Not to mention single moms are the number one murderer of their own children. You starting to see my point, Ethan? This is not your topic to excel. You sit on a toilet of total support for the torturer and complete contempt for the victim. Nitwits like you promote that the Virgin Mary was a single mom. Not true. You do believe in the Virgin Mary, don't you, Ethan?
BTW, Grant was the worse president but they weren't keeping score that far back. Didn't he save the Union too?
I'm glad you brought this up, Lamont. I move that we all house single moms in pairs. This will serve multiple purposes: we'll no longer have single moms, since all of them will be paired off and we'll save tax payer dollars through the economies of scale. All in favor, say "Aye".
Better yet, maybe you nuts can quit putting these tramps on a pedestal like its the right thing to do.
Well, after considering your well thought out, compassionate and logical objections, I agree. We will never put them on a pedestal singly. They will always be in pairs. So, there you go: your tax dollars at work. Please support the paired moms.
Besides, wasn't Fred Sanford a single dad? Is it ok to support single dads or you would deny your own pappy his hard earned money?
No, Fred was a widower. You see, you moron liberals don't even know the difference. Good luck with your daughters.
The Democrat talking point after yesterday
I didn't say Fred wasn't a widower, but regardless of how he got that way, he was still a single dad. He raised your sorry, bitter ass the best he could, and this is the thanks he gets: You go on a rampage trying to take away poor Fred's money. Is this the way to treat your own pappy? Your own flesh and blood? You should be ashamed of yourself, Lamont!
Damn single moms.
Damn abortions.
Damn birth control.
Damn sex ed.
Seems like the right only loves fetuses. Once you are born, screw y'all.
Jim,
As an unabashed liberal (to the far left of Ted Kennedy), I decided that it's time to lay all the cards on the table.
There is a liberal conspiracy that involves reshuffling of the wealth. We do this under the guise of tax breaks for the middle class, but really what we want is this: We want to take money from you. Yes, you - JimV. We want to take money from you personally and give it to me. Yes, me - AlexO. Take money from JimV and give it to AlexO. I think that if you were more understanding about my, AlexO's predicament and were to volunteer to fund me, we wouldn't have to go through this whole convoluted rigmarole. Alas, since you hoard all your money, we have no choice but to pry your greedy little hands open and share your ill gotten gains.
Now, for the good news: You know exactly where your money is going. It's going to me. How often do you get to know exactly who benefits from your tax dollars? How often do you get to talk to the beneficiaries of your forced generosity? Now, you know exactly where your money is going. I promise you that it's going to fund a good cause. In fact, I can think of no better cause where this money could be spent.
THAT is a conspiracy? They have been doing that for decades. No conspiracy there, just in your face government greed.
A refreshing bit of honesty. I once went to a Portland Maine public city council meeting about the desirability of the states plan to create a system of universal health care. The sticking point was with paying for the scam. A woman got up to speak to the issue. She said 'she' would gladly pay more in taxes to give everyone better health care. Putting aside the issue of 'better', I rose to remind the good woman that less than a month earlier when she was speaking for more money to education, she advised the council that she personally did not pay any taxes and was on the dole.
That is the normal state of the argument...the folk demanding universal anything funded by taxes are seldom the folk who pay those taxes.
Fred never asked for a dime of whitie's money.
You can give these tramps all the sex education you want and they will still want a baby. Why? Because having a baby pays money. We live in an age where a father will proudly brag about his slut daughter for getting knocked up because she is a "single mom". The truth is she's a scag that doesn't know who the father is and could care less. We just pay for the whole damn thing. But she's a "single mom". Basically, the entire Democratic Party's platform. "The Republican tax cuts will hurt single mothers the most." Yeah, I hope so.
Yeah, entrepenurial reproduction.
More like a welfare check for the mom and room and board at some juvenile detention center for the kid. Still comes out of your pocket. What's the deal, Buddha? Your daughter get banged and she can't tell you who the father is?
The average age of the baby daddy for teenage pregnacies is 25.
I think a huge part of sex ed should not only include pregnancy avoidance, but also the installation of bullshit meters.
Teenagers aren't so bright - we should do all we can to educate them and arm them against sperm.
They aren't teenage tramps, they are young people who are being taken advantage of, then being tossed aside.
You may want to dehumanize them by describing it as an act of fiscal opportunity, but they represent lost opportunity for the country.
Buddha, that was an extremely eloquent and succinct description of the problem of teenage pregnancy and it's cost to both our society and the individuals involved.
Thank you for that.
JIMV, when did you sell and relocate to that tax friendly state?
The only victims are the kids and the taxpayer. BTW, the average age of a "single mom" is 27. It's not just a teenage pregnancy problem. You have to factor in dumb tramps like Sheryl Crow to come up with an average like that. And it is a fiscal problem. 90% of welfare recipients are the heralded "single mom". To add insult to injury only 4 percent of college graduates have illegitimate children. That is not counting the ones that got into college free because they started out as a "single mom". I'm not too old to remember hearing "single moms" on the dole in college complaining about having to get up at 5 in the morning to study. How about having to pay for your own fucking tuition you stupid tramp? Give me a break. These people go against Darwin's Theory, another jewel of liberals, so make up your mind.
Put my Maine house on the market in Dec 2006. Sold in May and took Amtrack's Empire Builder west in June 2007. Been here since.
Saved $4K in state and local taxes the first year.
My brother in California who is about to retire is going down the same rails. Not a moment too soon. Good ol' California. How far can California fly on one engine? Straight to the scene of the crash. And all those poor people that moved to California for help? Well they get an IOU for the time being. Nice work.
Yes, you should stay away from California.
It's win/win.
If Cali seceded, they'd actually gain revenue.
If he is Conservative, Idaho, Wyoming or Utah are good relocation sites...If democrat Colorado comes to mind.
Lamont, did you grow up in a single mom household? You seem very angry at single moms. Was your mom single? Did she not love you the way and as much as you wanted to be loved? Did she not sing to you? Did she not feed you? Were you a crack baby? Are you trying to get back at your mom by taking away cash from all other single moms?
BTW, if there was cash in producing babies and raising and having them raised by single moms, you would see many big companies knocking off dads, establishing baby farms where children would be raised by single moms. Since we don't see big businesses engaged in this business model, I think that's it's fair to say that there ain't all that much cash in being a single mom.
Indeed. The abstinence program worked about as well at achieving its declared goal as did tax cuts that favored the wealthy. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Idaho!
Pages