Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 90's Return It's Not Spending, It's Investing!  
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

According to Speaker Pelosi this 700 billion, actually more like 800 billion, bailout won't slow their plans for "investing" next year!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27010330

An increasing number of House Democrats, looking at Obama’s campaign momentum, assume he will be president. But many do not believe his and their spending desires will be limited by huge debt, borrowing costs and inflation.

Turning to new spending, Pelosi used the word “invest” or “investment” five times in response to a question, using it in the accepted Capitol Hill sense: federal spending on items that Congress deems useful and likely to encourage economic growth.


Now that's change! Can some one please tell them to stop!!!!!!!!! I don't think my wallet can handle much more change!!!

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1360 times:

I seriously doubt that a return of the 90s with President Clinton's budget surpluses is about to return. W made sure of that.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
I don't think my wallet can handle much more change!!!

Then exchange your coins for paper money! Big grin



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1346 times:



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 1):
I seriously doubt that a return of the 90s with President Clinton's budget surpluses is about to return.

Considering that all the "surpluses" were only on paper and never a reality, I would agree. BTW, we didn't even have those until the GOP took charge of the Congress. Unfortunately those that replaced the members of '94 lost their way and forgot their principles.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 1):
Then exchange your coins for paper money!

Once Congress is finished I'll be lucky to have only coins.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1340 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
Considering that all the "surpluses" were only on paper and never a reality, I would agree. BTW, we didn't even have those until the GOP took charge of the Congress. Unfortunately those that replaced the members of '94 lost their way and forgot their principles.

Oh, the surplus was real, but based on the dot-com boom, when internet companies that were still losing money were valued at ridiculously high ratios and launched on the stock market, creating trillions in new, taxable value via employees and shareholders. But that was a one-time thing.

The House of Representatives did a pretty good job in the 90s, thanks largely to the leadership of Newt Gingrich who, for all his other failings, was a proper fiscal conservative and kept his party compatriots in line. Once he left, things started going downhill. Since Newt left, there has been no conservative leadership in the House.

The irony is that the Clinton-era surpluses were created by a combination of a fortuitous creation of a new industry along with fiscal conservatism, in spite of a democratic president, while the Bush-era deficits were developed by fiscal liberalism, by republicans who forgot their conservative principles, as you said.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1331 times:



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 1):
I seriously doubt that a return of the 90s with President Clinton's budget surpluses is about to return. W made sure of that.

Like RJ said , it was a paper shuffle ... but I will give President Clinton credit for at least making it a priority to do it. Sadly the republicans missed the opportunity to really bring sanity to the spending apparatus of the Fed , and I dont see it getting any better.

I heard one pundit call the bail out a 700 Billion $ "Botox injection" I am afraid it may just prolong the inevitable down turn. Letting the poorly run financials fail or get bought up would have been better.

And now we are facing leadership who's only answer to every problem is some Federal program that will cost whatever.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1309 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Oh, the surplus was real,

I have to disagree, it was a surplus on paper only. As long as the Federal government continues to include Social Security surplus funds into the general fund replacing them with IOU's then the budget will never be truely balanced nor in surplus. The projected surpluses (still only on paper) were lost in the .com bust and the follow on mild recession.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
The irony is that the Clinton-era surpluses were created by a combination of a fortuitous creation of a new industry along with fiscal conservatism, in spite of a democratic president,

As well as the end of the cold war and in the Clinton administrations dramatic down sizing of the military which the GOP led Congress stupidly went along with.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
while the Bush-era deficits were developed by fiscal liberalism, by republicans who forgot their conservative principles, as you said.

Fiscal liberalism along with the return of war. Take away one or the other and the budget is close to being back in balance save those pesky SS funds.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1305 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 5):
have to disagree, it was a surplus on paper only.

What is money but a concept? Look, the dot-coms raised trillions of real dollars in the stock market, and paid real salaries to their employees, on which they paid real taxes. On top of that, they paid real taxes on capital gains, which were inflated but could only be realized if other people are willing to pay real money for their shares.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

RJ, sorry to tell you but it seems like there's not much difference between the two parties anymore. They have been infiltrated by so many politicians in the truest sense of the word that they'll do whatever is a) in their own best interest b) sure to make them re-electable and c) improve the well being and finances of their closest friends.

The longer we try to blind ourselves and imagine that one party is better than the other the longer it'll take us to vote somebody decent in. In my humblest opinion, it barely matters whether there's an R or a D in front of their name anymore.

Do I sound cynical? I hope not.  Wow!


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1293 times:



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 7):
The longer we try to blind ourselves and imagine that one party is better than the other the longer it'll take us to vote somebody decent in. In my humblest opinion, it barely matters whether there's an R or a D in front of their name anymore.

You are right, of course. But there are 'true believers' out there, on both the left and the right.

To me, there are two basic political philosophies. 1) Liberalism, where people believe that government is a positive tool for correcting injustices and imbalances, and should be used as such at every opportunity. And 2) Conservatism, which believes that government is by nature a blunt instrument, and that whatever the government does there will be numerous and undesirable side-effects, therefore we should be very reluctant to embark on any new program, until assured that there is no other choice possible.

I am a staunch conservative, and it frustrates me to no end to see Republicans, who are supposed to be conservative, betray their principles. The recent disaster with Fannie and Freddie, and the financial houses it dragged down with it, will one day be taught as a textbook case of what happens when government attempts to "help".

If the population were told by the press what really happened, and what the historic causes were, conservatism would become the most popular philosophy for the next couple of generations. knowing this, and fearing it, the mainstream press has successfuly promoted the idea that corrupt CEOs and private enterprise was at fault. Very sad.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1278 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
What is money but a concept?

True but if you are artificially injecting the feds income with money that is supposed to be set aside for later use in the SS system, then you cannot say your books are balanced.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 7):
RJ, sorry to tell you but it seems like there's not much difference between the two parties anymore.

Correct.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 7):
Do I sound cynical?

No.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
I am a staunch conservative, and it frustrates me to no end to see Republicans, who are supposed to be conservative, betray their principles.

I am a staunch fiscal conservative and it just galls me to see that anyone that calls themselves a conservative voted for this bail out package.

Even worse is to not hear a single one of them call Pelosi on this. This is not investing, this is spending. Sen. Obama has said on the campaign trail today that despite the bail out package he does not intend to slow the pace of his spending on new programs, and increased spending on programs already in place. I just can't understand how they can look at a crowd with a straight face and say that. Even worse, how can the crowd not boo anyone promoting the idea of ever increasing spending? People who complain that we have reached the tipping point on oil production and global warming seem to turn a blind eye to the tipping point when it comes to government spending.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can The Warriors Pull It Off? posted Mon Apr 30 2007 21:22:07 by Yellowstone
I See $1.89/gal, And Then The Dems Screw It posted Fri Jan 19 2007 00:32:00 by GuitrThree
T'is The Season - Let It Snow posted Thu Nov 30 2006 19:42:29 by Garri767
I Caught The Hoe At It! posted Sun Nov 5 2006 14:35:42 by Kazzie
The Crucible? Like It? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 00:58:54 by Cadet57
The SuperThread Made It To 2006 Replies! posted Sat Jan 21 2006 23:25:30 by Btriple7
"jack" Radio Sucks And The Ratings Show It! posted Wed Aug 24 2005 01:38:12 by Zippyjet
The Exorcist-Does It Still Scare You? posted Sun May 15 2005 22:24:39 by Flymusic
Crazy Frog & Sweety The Chick. Does It..... posted Sat Apr 2 2005 00:21:40 by SQNo1
Succession To The Throne: Should It Be Open To... posted Fri Mar 11 2005 11:32:25 by Pe@rson