REPUBLICANS – UNITED THEY STAND BUT STILL THEY FALL

After eight years of disastrous deficit policies – six of those years under complete Republican domination – Republicans have now decided that party unity trumps all else – hey, they’ve got their groove on again.    They have turned into a bunch of whining, sore losers using their pulpits from an oft-empty congressional chamber to sputter their righteous indignation at the stimulus plan and its efforts to stimulate the economy.   Not one single Republican in the House voted for the Plan, and only three voted for it in the Senate.

They have determined that no matter what, they will not support the policies of President Obama.  But given the numbers, it doesn’t look like Republicans are really needed for most legislation.

Ironic isn’t it how Republicans watched and cowered for six years as their party’s president virtually ignored their own touted fiscal conservative policies.  Now that their backs are up against the wall, they have decided to fly home to roost on those policies,  railing against the stimulus plan as if their lives depended on it.  And, perhaps they do – their political lives that is.  They are hedging their bets that the stimulus plan won’t work and that the failure will lead to a comeback in 2010.

The danger, of course, is that if the plan works even partially, the Republicans stand to garner the continued wrath of the American voter – as was reflected in the last two election cycles which saw both the House and Senate revert to Democratic control – a repudiation of the Republican party and its posititons.  They could lose even more seats and could very well see the historical writing on the wall.  Republicans have become the obstructionists, and I am betting they will pay dearly for their new-found party unity ploy.

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Economics, Republican Party, Republicans, U.S. Presidency and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to REPUBLICANS – UNITED THEY STAND BUT STILL THEY FALL

  1. So if the past eight years were “disastrous deficit policies”, what exactly do you call the ‘stimulus’? Is the deficit important or isn’t it, or does it depend on whether a (D) or an (R) is after the name of the President?

  2. Sonic Charmer:

    I call the stimulus a combination. The deficit and the national debt are both important, but I suppose you are okay with the eight years of Bush and his policies. Now that President Obama is trying to do something – without the aid of Republicans – Republicans are all indignant about the stimulus. What hypocrites!

    The Iraq War will cost a trillion dollars that we don’t have, but where were the Republicans when it came to that expenditure?

    In 2006, when Repubs still controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Senate Republicans defeated an effort to impose budget rules. Republicans haven’t cared about the deficit for years, and now, all of a sudden, they have decided to scream because they are no longer in power. Pure and simple.

  3. The deficit and the national debt are both important, but I suppose you are okay with the eight years of Bush and his policies.

    I was okay with some of his policies and not others. My point is just that it gives me whiplash to see a post in which Bush running a deficit is labelled “disastrous” and yet at the same time a massive spending bill by his successor is lauded.

    Now that President Obama is trying to do something – without the aid of Republicans –

    By “without the aid of Republicans” you mean “ignoring the objections of Republicans”, correct?

    How (and, indeed, why) exactly are Republicans supposed to “aid” Obama in his effort to do something they disagree with?

    Republicans are all indignant about the stimulus. What hypocrites!

    What’s hypocritical about the position that the government shouldn’t spend a boatload of money on a bunch of pork?

    The Iraq War will cost a trillion dollars that we don’t have, but where were the Republicans when it came to that expenditure?

    They were saying that it was regrettable but necessary. Now they are saying the current spending is not necessary. Is that so hard to understand?

    Senate Republicans defeated an effort to impose budget rules. Republicans haven’t cared about the deficit for years, and now, all of a sudden, they have decided to scream because they are no longer in power. Pure and simple.

    I think you may be misinterpreting. Objections to the stimulus don’t have to be merely ‘because it increases the deficit’. I speak only for myself, I suppose, but my objection to the stimulus is that it’s a big load of wasteful, craven pork that will be a burden on the private sector, massively increase corruption in government, and prolong the recession, on net doing more harm than good.

    If it swelled the deficit but I actually thought it would do more good than harm – if I actually thought it had any chance whatsoever of helping us out of the recession faster – I’d have no objection. Just like with the Iraq endeavor.

  4. Sonic Chamber:

    By without the Republicans, I mean just that. If they want to object, let them object until the cows come home.

    I am saying I think it is hypocritical of them to have supported Bush’s spending policies for years, and now because we have a switch in letter -(R) replaced by a (D)- behind the name of the president, they act like they are indignant and righteous in their protests.

    Didn’t they disagree with Bush when he was trekking down the path of ballooning deficit spending? Where was their so-called conscience then?

    As to the Iraq war – are you kidding? Regrettable but necessary? Democrats and Republicans – as well as the American public – were lied to and manipulated into giving Bush his approval to use troops. I didn’t think there was anyone left who still believed that we went in for weapons of mass destruction. And, no, it was not necessary, but it was the Republicans for three and a half years who kept the money flowing with little or no oversight of where it was going.

    Exactly what is it about the Iraq war that you think is necessary? They didn’t attack us, they had no weapons of mass destruction (which Bush knew but ignored), they were not harboring Al Qaeda, they were not a threat, etc. So what is it that you think made that war necessary?

    And, you are right, that is your opinion about the stimulus – right down the Republican party line. I acknowledge it creates spending, but I believe – my opinion – that the spending included in the stimulus will create jobs in many sectors. I disagreed with some of the items that were included.

    But, I will ask you again, where were the protests and the outrage from the Republicans at the Bush policies?

  5. Norma says:

    So happy to see the Republicans finally got a spine on this ridiculous spending package. Let him fail all by himself–of course, he’ll still blame Bush.

    “After eight years of disastrous deficit policies” And what was your pension doing? If it was so disastrous, why is everyone, including the Dow so upset that those years are over?

  6. Z Man says:

    After spending a trillion dollars on a “regrettable, but necessary” war in Irag, the republicans are saying this stimulus package is not necessary? Under what conditions would they want to spend? Bush pushed and passed a $150 billion rebate program a year ago with near unanimous approval in congress, at a time when only a hint of the disaster to come was known. A similar costly program was passed with bi-partisan support after 9/11. Where were the naysayers then?

    You can be sure that once some of this spending kicks in, Souder and Lugar will be on the local TV news bragging they helped extend unemployment benefits, made college more affordable for Hoosier families, and led the fight for alternative energy.

  7. Norma:

    I don’t have a pension, and, if I remember correctly, pensions took a hit throughout the Bush years. I had a friend who passed away three years ago at the age of 64. She had a pension and investments – in one year she lost $20,000, and that was in the Bushie years.

    And, just imagine where the pensions would be right now if Bush and his cohorts had managed to privatize social security. Say what you want about the social security system, but had privatization occurred Americans by the thousands would be in dire straits right now.

    I don’t think Obama will fail – he may have ups and downs, but I think the American public is willing to cut him some slack after the eight years of Bush fiascoes. When Bush left office, he was seen as one of the most unpopular presidents in American history and with one of the lowest approval ratings – 22% – in history.

    I guess there is no accounting for blind loyalty – I bet that 22% are just waiting until Bush rises from the ashes in the history books.

  8. I am saying I think it is hypocritical of them to have supported Bush’s spending policies for years, and now because we have a switch in letter -(R) replaced by a (D)- behind the name of the president, they act like they are indignant and righteous in their protests.

    Again, there’s nothing “hypocritical” about opposing one sort of spending and not another. People support spending on things they believe in and not on things they don’t believe in; this is right and normal, not “hypocritical”. If I support spending on Thing X does this mean I have to support spending on other things Y and Z, regardless of how stupid Y and Z are, so as not to be “hypocritical”? That is ridiculous, I’m sure you can see that.

    This critique would be like me calling the left “hypocritical” for supporting spending on education but not on ‘star wars’ missile defense. Is that, too, “hypocritical”?

    Didn’t they disagree with Bush when he was trekking down the path of ballooning deficit spending? Where was their so-called conscience then?

    1. For what it’s worth, most conservatives opposed a lot of Bush’s domestic spending boondoggles.

    2. Regardless, a big chunk of what he said was for bolstering the war effort. Like I said: conservatives regretted that this ballooned the deficit but believed the spending was necessary.

    But the ‘stimulus’ bill is something that conservatives not only find unnecessary, but believe will be actively harmful. So there is nothing “hypocritical” about opposing it. I support deficit spending when I believe it’s necessary, but not when it’s not. Get it?

    As to the Iraq war – are you kidding? Regrettable but necessary?

    No, I’m not kidding. That is my opinion. Ok?

    I didn’t think there was anyone left who still believed that we went in for weapons of mass destruction.

    What? I don’t recall saying “we went in for weapons of mass destruction”. Personally, “WMDs” were a distracting & misleading side issue as far as I was concerned.

    Exactly what is it about the Iraq war that you think is necessary?

    To be clear, what I actually said above was that the DEFICIT SPENDING allocated to the war was ‘regrettable but necessary’.

    I acknowledge it creates spending, but I believe – my opinion – that the spending included in the stimulus will create jobs in many sectors.

    And if I believed this then I, too, would support the stimulus bill. But I don’t.

    So what this boils down to is a difference of opinion over the efficacy of the spending, as in, will it benefit or harm the country? Conservatives tend to think the latter. I certainly do. Therefore, I oppose it.

    It should be possible for you to understand and respect (as I do) that people sincerely disagree with you about what the effects of the bill will be, rather than jumping to calling them “hypocritical” because they supported spending X but not Y.

    But, I will ask you again, where were the protests and the outrage from the Republicans at the Bush policies?

    And I say again,

    1. there were plenty of Bush spending policies that conservatives opposed and said so,

    2. meanwhile, there were other Bush spending policies (on Iraq for example) that conservatives didn’t oppose, so why would they have “protest and outrage” over it?

    I’m scratching my head here. It can’t really be the case that you think one either has to support ALL SPENDING ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER or NO SPENDING ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Can it?

  9. Z-Man,

    Under what conditions would they want to spend? Bush pushed and passed a $150 billion rebate program a year ago with near unanimous approval in congress, at a time when only a hint of the disaster to come was known. A similar costly program was passed with bi-partisan support after 9/11. Where were the naysayers then?

    This is like saying, “you don’t want to bleed the patient NOW? Under what conditions would you want to bleed the patient?” To people who don’t believe bleeding the patient will help worth squat in the first place, the question makes no sense.

    I don’t view government “spending” as the answer to the current type of financial problem in the first place. So there’s your answer. And by the way, yes I totally opposed it when Bush did it as well. I spoke and wrote vociferously against the bailouts of last fall, check my blog if you don’t believe me.

  10. Sonic:

    You are right – I can see there is no making you see the hypocrisy in what the Republicans have now decided to do.

    You chalk it up to they agreed with deficit spending under Bush but have now decided that they don’t agree with it under Obama. So let me get this straight, you don’t believe there is any political motive behind the Republicans – every last one of them in the House – opposing the stimulus plan?

    “there were plenty of Bush spending policies that conservatives opposed and said so”

    If they disagreed, they certainly didn’t show it in voting against Bush. So maybe instead of calling them hypocritical, I should call them spineless. But of course, then you would deem all the democrats spineless for passing the current stimulus package.

    So, you are right, this is a standoff on this issue.

    As to whether I support all spending or no spending – come on. Of course, I support some spending and not other spending. I support spending when it goes to education, health care, infrastructure, etc. I don’t support spending when it goes to wars that are not necessary (in my mind). But my taxes are used for those items I support and those items I don’t.

    So I certainly agree that we disagree, but I will still call the Republicans hypocritical – my opinion, and I am entitled to that by your analysis.

  11. You chalk it up to they agreed with deficit spending under Bush but have now decided that they don’t agree with it under Obama.

    You still don’t seem to get it. It’s not that they agreed with “deficit spending” qua deficit spending. It’s that in that case they agreed with what the spending was for.

    You do understand that what money is ACTUALLY SPENT ON can (and should) affect whether people support it, right?

    So let me get this straight, you don’t believe there is any political motive behind the Republicans – every last one of them in the House – opposing the stimulus plan?

    I don’t know what you would mean by “political motive” exactly. I reckon they opposed it on the substance of what the bill said (just like (D)s supported it on the substance of what the bill said). You don’t think so?

    If they disagreed, they certainly didn’t show it in voting against Bush.

    And?

    Politics is a compromise. No politician does things that one agrees with 100%. If each voter were required to “vote against” any politician who did something they disapproved of, there’d be no one left to vote for.

    So maybe instead of calling them hypocritical, I should call them spineless. But of course, then you would deem all the democrats spineless for passing the current stimulus package.

    “spineless”? Huh? I have more respect for sincere differences of opinion than that.

    Of course, I support some spending and not other spending. I support spending when it goes to education, health care, infrastructure, etc. I don’t support spending when it goes to wars that are not necessary (in my mind).

    Exactly! So there’s no contradiction and nothing “hypocritical” when you complain about one form of spending you dislike (unnecessary wars) but not forms of spending you approve of (education).

    I’m glad you finally get it.

    but I will still call the Republicans hypocritical – my opinion, and I am entitled to that by your analysis.

    You are entitled to make unsupported and uncivil statements, sure. Knock yourself out.

  12. Iceironman says:

    Sonic may be me reincarnated!!!!!!!

    The people here dont really like reasoning sonic—give it up.

    I went away from this site for awhile so as to not go mental with the back and forth and bush bashing. I came back after the election hoping for a positive spirit–after all they won–repubs cant block anything. But no. I saw a bumper sticker on the way home from vacation in Jan. It read “Piss of a liberal….Work hard and be happy” I think that sums it up. Bitterness toward repubs and bush is rediculous at this point. I can understand the point on the pork bill from both sides, I feel govt was spending for years, no big deal, pork here, pork there. Now that Americans are tightening the belt the govt is getting ready to losen theirs and sit at the table and eat our food. They may even need sweat pants to make room for all of the pork we are supplying them. DId govt overspend w/bush–yes and conseritives hated it. And if anything this should prove why we shouldnt do it.

    What I find painfully funny is that the people of Elkhart IN survived building luxury items for the rich. No rich or upper middle class moving money = no jobs for the middle class the libs so despratley try to act like they care about. Does that make sence? Or should Johny the 24 year old making 35000 a year step up and purchase that 150000 rig out of Elkhart? Of course with all of these banks that were loaning money to johny and then passing the note to Freddie or Fanny, I guess that it would be possible for him to get that motorhome, stop making payments, and then claim preditory lending.

    God bless America!

  13. Sonic:

    “And I say again,

    1. there were plenty of Bush spending policies that conservatives opposed and said so”

    They said they disagreed, but then didn’t act on it. That is my point. The Republicans may have bucked at some of Bush’s spending, but did they stand up and say no with a vote?

    “You still don’t seem to get it. It’s not that they agreed with “deficit spending” qua deficit spending. It’s that in that case they agreed with what the spending was for.”

    Are you telling me that all that deficit spending was something worthwhile to the Republicans? Care to provide examples of other worthwhile items other than bloated defense budget, Afghanistan, and Iraq? But what happened to the Republicans and their belief in a balanced budget? Did they just throw that out the window when it came to Bush’s spending fiascoes?

    As to your statement:

    “You are entitled to make unsupported and uncivil statements, sure. Knock yourself out.”

    Oh please, uncivil and unsupported? My statements are uncivil and unsupported to you. Where is your support for all your statements – other than just calling it pork and saying you don’t agree with the stimulus.

    I love how you and Iceironman have now decided to gain a conscience on spending. At least, if you felt this way for a long time, no one knew since your blog is fairly new – 2008 – right?

    I know the stimulus is a spending plan, but I guess – in your mind – it just depends on which side spends it.

  14. The Republicans may have bucked at some of Bush’s spending, but did they stand up and say no with a vote?

    Certainly not as often as I’d have liked.

    Are you telling me that all that deficit spending was something worthwhile to the Republicans?

    “all”? Um, no. I guess I had in mind the war expenditures, cuz that’s what I thought you were referring to. I would guess that accounts for a large part of Bush’s deficit spending however.

    Care to provide examples of other worthwhile items other than bloated defense budget, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

    Other than those things which accounted for a huge portion of Bush’s spending? Well no, I guess not. But isn’t that enough? 🙂

    But what happened to the Republicans and their belief in a balanced budget? Did they just throw that out the window when it came to Bush’s spending fiascoes?

    Seems like it, yes; seems like they threw it out when spending on stuff they believed in (like war expenditures). Personally, I don’t think anyone really believes in a ‘balanced budget’ per se. See my post on that.

    I love how you and Iceironman have now decided to gain a conscience on spending. At least, if you felt this way for a long time, no one knew since your blog is fairly new – 2008 – right?

    So if I were to tell you sincerely that I opposed Bush’s Medicare-expansion spending, for example, you would doubt me because I didn’t have (this particular) blog at that time? So you’re calling me a liar, based on nothing. Weird.

    Anyway, let me clarify something. I don’t claim to have a “conscience on spending” and never did. I’ve tried to get this point across about a dozen times now, but let me try one more: what matters is WHAT THE SPENDING IS FOR, not “spending” per se.

    I don’t care about a balanced budget per se. I don’t care about deficit spending per se. I don’t have a “conscience on spending”. What I care about is that the spending, if there’s going to be spending, is for THINGS I SUPPORT and not things I don’t support. Get it yet?

    I know the stimulus is a spending plan, but I guess – in your mind – it just depends on which side spends it.

    NO!

    It depends on WHAT THE SPENDING IS FOR.

    Why do you force me to repeat myself over and over again? You can’t be this dense.

  15. Sonic:

    No one is making you repeat yourself over and over again – you are choosing to return and do so. As to uncivil comments – seems to me you are getting uncivil when you label me as dense. At least as uncivil as you when you intimated that my comments about spineless Republicans were uncivil.

    Good Lord – you are paranoid. I am not calling you a liar. I am just wondering why, if you have been so opposed to some of Bush’s policies, you didn’t start your blog long ago.

    “What I care about is that the spending, if there’s going to be spending, is for THINGS I SUPPORT and not things I don’t support. Get it yet?”

    I understand your point – if the spending is for something you think is worthwhile or support, then the deficit doesn’t really matter. So we are back to square one. I think the stimulus is worthwhile, so the heck with deficit spending. It’s called a standoff at this point.

    You can try to demean me by your cutesy little comments, but it won’t work.

  16. I am just wondering why, if you have been so opposed to some of Bush’s policies, you didn’t start your blog long ago.

    You can’t be serious. People start or don’t start blogs for numerous reasons. The fact that I didn’t Choose To Start A Blog at the time of Bush’s spending proposal on such-and-such is evidence of exactly diddly-squat. There are many opinions I have held or not-held before having any blogs whatsoever. The fact that I held those opinions pre-blog doesn’t mean I didn’t actually have those opinions. Think about it 🙂

    I understand your point – if the spending is for something you think is worthwhile or support, then the deficit doesn’t really matter. So we are back to square one. I think the stimulus is worthwhile, so the heck with deficit spending.

    Exactly! Now we’re getting somewhere. Thank you!

    So this gets back to my first comment of this thread: why did you refer to Bush’s “disastrous deficit policies” – implying that it was the deficit that bothered you – when the truth is, as you’ve just acknowledged, you (like me, and like most people) don’t really care about “the deficit” per se. What you (like me, and like most people) care about is what the spending is for.

    Obviously what you really meant to say is not that there were eight years of “disastrous deficit policies” but, rather, that there were eight years of “spending you largely disagreed with”. Because, as you and I both acknowledge, once spending comes along that you agree with, “the deficit” is no longer a concern at all. So wasn’t it, at the very least, a bit misleading to phrase your criticism as being based on the “deficit”?

    This was precisely the point I tried to make with my first comment. Thanks for illustrating it so perfectly! 🙂

    Best,

  17. Iceironman says:

    Sonic, most people would think you are a lawyer with your poetic justice, back at cha. I would never put you in that catagory. You are sooooo much better. I guess I never had the patience to go round and round. At the end of the day, how the hell does this bill help?

  18. Iceironman:

    Wow, nice stab at lawyers. Talk about Sonic Charmer calling me uncivil for a mere comment about “spineless.”

  19. lastpersonleft says:

    Arriving late to the thread, my humble comment is simply…
    “Disastrous” was way too kind of a word! Much like in the 1920’s, the Republicans of today have destroyed the economy. The “stimulus” or “bailout” or whatever any one wants to call it is simply an attempt to fix the mess that Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush2 got us into. Period end.

  20. Iceironman says:

    Come on Char. If you cant laugh at lawyers who can you laugh at.

  21. Michael Adkins says:

    We cannot put all the blame on poor old George. The Republican Party must bear its fair share of blame. He didn’t pass the bills that came through the GOP controlled Congress. Republican lawmakers walked hand in hand with Bush on their disastrous path. Let’s not forget that the Reagan Era deserves credit for our current mess. Besides his trickle down theory of economics Reagan gave us a philosophy that tax and spend was bad but borrow and spend was just fine.
    Before Reagan there were two reasons to add to the national debt. One was to fight a war and the other was to counteract recessions. In 1982 the national debt was 35% of the Gross Domestic Product. After more than a quarter century of almost uninterrupted economic growth and the end of the Cold War the debt-to-GDP ratio more than doubled, just so we could maintain an inflated current life style.
    Since 1948 the debt-to-GDP ratio has declined under every Democratic administration and increased under every single Republican presidency, with the greatest spikes under Reagan and George W. Bush.
    Let’s all be honest and admit that being Republican and fiscally responsible do not go hand in hand.

  22. Iceironman says:

    Mikey, you are so smart. You are right. Repubs. are to blame wholly for this mess. It is amazing you summed up Americas misfortune in three or four paragraphs. Im sure Harvard and Yale will be searching you out. I will continue to trust Democrats like Franks who told me Freddy and Fannie were fine not less than 2 months before the collapse.

    People, F, ing get over it, the D vs R thing is over. You better be smarter than that. You had better trace the money, and you better find out that it doesnt care whether it goes to a D or R. Im so tired of this third grade D v R crap as our country slips into a shiiiiii hole. Wake up. We can all agree on something, lets start here and now.

    Conservative and Republican are not the same. Most people want the govt to act conservativly now. All buiness are acting conserativly. Alaska has been conservative and it has Billions of dollars to spend, California, liberal, Im paying there 42 billion dollar deficiet

  23. Iceironman:

    And just for your information, Liberal and Democrat are not the same thing either although Republicans just can’t seem to utter any other words than “the Liberals this” or “the Liberals that.” Twisting all Democrats into Liberals is no different than saying all Republicans are conservatives. Obviously they weren’t conservative the last eight years, but now they have decided they have a common enemy – Obama and the Democrats.

    As to Barney Franks, how about Bushie saying for months and months that everything was just hunky dory – no problem on his watch! And McCain saying that the fundamentals of our economy were good just weeks before the Wall Street collapse.

    As to Mike’s comments – I guess the truth hurts.

    And getting over the D and R thing? Well, we just saw how badly the R’s want to work with the D’s. Forget it, it will never happen. And it is even worse now because the Republicans are out of power – period, and they are acting like children who had their toys taken away. Oops, better be careful, or I will have Sonic explaining the deficit thing all over again.

    Please, give me a break on the Palin Alaska band wagon. Alaska has 650,000 people. What kind of management skills does that take? We have dozens of cities larger than their entire state population.

    And by the way, you picked on California with a Republican governor, but almost all the states with Republican and Democrat governors are in trouble. I don’t think the economy knows the difference.

    Here’s a chart of the 46 states facing budget shortfalls:

    http://www.cbpp.org/9-8-08sfp.htm

    Wow even “You betcha” Palin’s state is in there for 2009. And Indiana with the Little Napoleon.

  24. Iceironman says:

    Yes bush said home ownership was at an all time high. Guess how that system worked out? Is it a liberal or conservative philosophy that wanted to get everyone into homes. Some banks not even checking income, because they could pass the paper on to Fanny or Freddie. Thanks for making my point on bush not being conservative, if he would have been more liberal maybe we wouldnt be in this mess?
    Alaska has 8 billion in the bank at least, they are good. Besides even if they dont make budget and go broke, the people can feed themselves. As they have 8+ billion in the bank, they didnt go for healthcare for all, they saved it. I think it would be easier to manage a state with billions upon billions of tax dollars, a tourist destination, and all the ag and commerce that Cali has. But thats right, they cant even pay the electric bill, and god forbid they cut the greed out of govt. Dirty secret is that if Cali was a business, they could make it work, too bad its govt, they never take the cuts necesary to make things work, they just steal more money.
    Like McCain, Obama, less than a few weeks later said the same thing. The fundementals are strong, until you introduce pressure to make loans to folks that could never pay it back. Argue all you want, you and I are paying for pressure to loan money to those who couldnt afford the loan.

    PALIN has 8+billion in the bank. Thats all. I cant believe you argue for larger govt spending after you have seen what bush did with his liberal spending and loaning practices.

  25. Iceironman:

    So all spending is liberal spending? Are you marching in lockstep with Sonic? Did you buy into the spending for the Iraq War? Is that liberal spending or conservative spending? Is it conservative spending when you agree with it, and liberal spending when I agree with it? If so, then you don’t look at deficit spending either.

    You are totally confusing issues here. The banks didn’t have to loan – no one put a gun to their heads to make them do it. Don’t give me that crap about the government forcing them to do it. Obviously they do what they want as can be seen by the policies they are following with the bailout money. They are doing what they darn well please and not loaning it out even though government has said the money was to provide credit to loosen up the market.

    The banks and financial institutions were greedy, and to blame it on anything else is to put your head in the sand. Getting people into homes is a good goal, but banks should have used common sense practices of verifying income, etc.

    As to Alaska, did you even look at the chart? Alaska does not have a surplus, so I am not sure why you are saying Alaska is in the black. Only four states are in the black for this year, and Alaska is not one of them.

    Obama did not say the fundamentals were strong – do not rewrite campaign speeches. McCain looked totally foolish and everyone knows it. He even admitted during the campaign that he knew almost nothing about economics.

    I think you should remember that California has been in crisis before when your beloved Ronald Reagan was in office:

    Here is a quote about the budget crisis in California when good ole Ronnie was governor:

    “Ashburn (currently in the legislature) has spent his recent days at the Capitol reading about the conservative icon (Reagan), who promised not to raise taxes when he ran for governor in 1966. He then did an about-face after being elected.

    “In 1967, when the state faced a similar budget situation, he proposed the largest tax increase in the history of California,” said Ashburn, 54. “I know Ronald Reagan meant it when he said ‘limited government and no tax increases,’ but politics is politics and governing is governing.”

    Come on – you talk about bridging the gap between D’s and R’s, but then you always come back to Republicans “good” and Democrats “bad.”

  26. Iceironman says:

    No, conservative good, liberal bad.

    Cali has more resources, yet cant get it right.

    Please read this article, concentrate on the reserves of 7 BILLION, I dont make this stuff up

    http://www.adn.com/news/government/story/671129.html

    Obama saying Fundemetals are strong, yes, in so many words

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b9_1222770790

    This is not D vs R this is how to be smart with money.

    War costs money, you think it was wrong, I think it is right. If cali would start drilling oil and stop the madness of the environmental wackos, they would be the top state in the union.

  27. Iceironman says:

    By the way, did you hear the tarp program was never meant to help people get loans, it was meant to help banks buy banks. I love big govt.

  28. Iceironman says:

    This is you govt taking over the banks. D or R, dont care, im againt it, you are for it?

    The U.S. Treasury told, not asked, U.S. Bank to participate in the program, which is a Darwinian attempt to “synthesize” weaker banks into stronger banks through consolidation, Davis said at the forum, held in Minneapolis. U.S. Bank (NYSE: USB) sold $6.6 billion in preferred stock with warrants to the U.S. Treasury in November through its capital purchase program.

    “There’s no A, R or P in TARP,” Davis said, adding that “troubled” is the only word in the phrase that’s accurate. “The ‘asset relief program’ has yet to occur.”

    The problems with the U.S. Treasury Department’s program are that its goals and rules have changed since its inception last fall, it’s poorly defined and it’s caused collateral damage to healthy banks.

  29. Iceironman:

    The video says nothing of the sort. It says “then after this immediate problem, we’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows.” More spin-crap by the Repubs. How does anyone get “the fundamentals of this economy are strong” in so many words out of this? It was added September 30, 2008, during the campaign.

    He was talking about the fundamentals of his plan to salvage the economy – unless the Obama haters are so blinded by that hate, they don’t even understand a simple statement. Nice try.

    Alaska will have a budget shortfall this year. They will have to dip into the reserve if they want to avoid the shortfall. Indiana has reserves – called our rainy day fund – we could tap to help alleviate the current crisis. It is $1.4 billion. Reserves and rainy day funds are different than deficits and shortfalls.

    I am not sure why you seem to have it in for California other than you perceive them as the evil hot bed of liberalism. Must be pretty disappointing to know that a Republican is at the helm. 🙂

    The drilling for oil thing is getting old. The oil companies already lease over 68,000,000 acres of on shore and off shore lands. The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

    http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1

  30. See the following:

    “The heart of the bill, however, remains a plan to provide the Treasury with $700 billion to buy troubled assets from financial institutions — an effort that proponents say will help ease the credit crunch by allowing banks to clear their balance sheets and lend money.”

    “Another important goal of TARP is to encourage banks to resume lending again at levels seen before the crisis, both to each other and to consumers and businesses.”The banks were to lend again. They have chosen not to in pursuit of enriching themselves through additional holdings.

  31. Iceironman says:

    Cali going broke is like a 22 year old that inherited 1 million and then blew it so the govt has to bail him out on welfare programs, and he wont work. Cali has more oppertunity for growth, tourism, business, agriculture, natural resources, etc, yet cant get it right. The oil thing is about making the state money so I dont have to give it to them. Just like that 22 year old on welfare, he should go to work with his able body. Not mooch off of me. But Cali will be a ghost town once they start raising taxes on the business there. What does calis rainy day fund look like? Probably like the 22 year olds savings account!

Comments are closed.