Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/12/09 04:18 PM, Slick-Rob wrote:

We Republicans tried a REAL Stimulus package which gave money straight to the taxpayers and didn't have over 9,000 earmarks. (insert DBZ joke here) It didn't work did it? And neither will this one, which has a whole bunch of crap that WILL NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY!!! How is $50,000 for the National Foundation for the Arts, a STIMULUS? Tell me why a 3 Trillion Dollar Bill is necessary.

You mean like the last couple of stimlus bills and tax give aways that did that as well and showed itself to do nothing at all.

The funny thing, is people keep putting faith into an idea that has been shown by history to both not work and to actually drag out or extend recessions. Stimlus spending hasn't shown itself to be an effecient form of government "guided" economic action.

A government can't force the economy to react, a government can make it easier for the government to controll itself.

At 3/13/09 09:41 PM, Slick-Rob wrote:

At 3/12/09 04:43 PM, Patton3 wrote:

You're missing the point. My point is that throwing money all over the place at things that, although nice, add more to the national debt are not needed. Didn't Obama say he was going to reduce the national debt?

Oh yes, investing in seismic monitoring stations is just an unnecasary little project, to hell with it.
This thing isn't even a stimulus, it is a reinvestment plan. Meaning it's going to have good long term effects, rather than "helping" the economy for a few years.

Ummm... because it is that damn huge. And they're asking for more.

Yet with those two links it comes out to around 1.5 trillion in total, and you stated it was 3 trillion.

At 3/13/09 09:41 PM, Slick-Rob wrote:

You're missing the point. My point is that throwing money all over the place at things that, although nice, add more to the national debt are not needed. Didn't Obama say he was going to reduce the national debt?

Actually, he said he was gonna cut the deficit in half. Of course, ATM he's more than DOUBLED the deficit. I'm thinking at the end of his 1st term he'll drop the deficit to where it used to be and say, "You see there? It's half of what it was in '09!"

At 3/17/09 10:11 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/13/09 09:41 PM, Slick-Rob wrote:

You're missing the point. My point is that throwing money all over the place at things that, although nice, add more to the national debt are not needed. Didn't Obama say he was going to reduce the national debt?

Actually, he said he was gonna cut the deficit in half. Of course, ATM he's more than DOUBLED the deficit. I'm thinking at the end of his 1st term he'll drop the deficit to where it used to be and say, "You see there? It's half of what it was in '09!"

Haha, agreed. I love that at least someone out there is paying attention to the fact that this money has to come from somewhere.

its sad to hear that your oppinion is already bias and swayed to one side or another. while i wouldnt call myself a liberal i certainly wouldnt call myself a conservative.

it seems like your the one who has given up, as all political party enthuasts do when their party isn't in power. while i disdain your oppinion of Obama as it has been decided by you extremely early that he isnt doing his job. i must say that you gotta have a stiff upper lip. in 4 years if the electorial college doesn't like our president then he will be cased out and a new president will take his place. and if the people in the senate and HoR decide that they are rich enough and don't want a huge sum of power then we will also see a shift in power.

dont "give up" just because your losing, becuase in the game of politics, nobody ever wins.

At 3/10/09 04:20 PM, Patton3 wrote:
I try not to listen to anyone, anymore, who only presents one side of the story. So, I don't listen to AM rodio, FOX, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. I do, however, enjoy listening to Bob Schieffer and wn.com.

I know for a fact that the New York Times has an editorial section that represents both Democratic and Republican Views. If you want a highly comprehensive, unbiased news source, then go back and check out the Times.

The sad fact of the matter is that even if President Obama screws up (which he will), he will still find a way to spin it off as the "Republican's fault". If you notice, in a lot of his speeches he talks about the faults and screw ups of previous presidents that have now "resulted" in the economy crisis today (though, it was Clinton who initiated the Housing plans). Due to the broad anti-republican rhetoric, it will be easy for people to blame Republicans for Obama's screw-ups by saying "Well Bush made it all bad in the first place".

Why are you aiming your thoughts only to your political comrades? Wouldn't you agree that the best thing that you can do about a president's policy that you do not like is hope? I think that the economy will get back on it's feet, and if it does not Obama will be looked upon badly. I think that Obama will be a common scapegoat for this sort of thing. If we do end up in a depression, I think that the worst thing you can do is take sides, we need to stick together as a country to fix things.

At 3/20/09 09:22 PM, Gateau wrote: The sad fact of the matter is that even if President Obama screws up (which he will), he will still find a way to spin it off as the "Republican's fault". If you notice, in a lot of his speeches he talks about the faults and screw ups of previous presidents that have now "resulted" in the economy crisis today (though, it was Clinton who initiated the Housing plans). Due to the broad anti-republican rhetoric, it will be easy for people to blame Republicans for Obama's screw-ups by saying "Well Bush made it all bad in the first place".

Anti-Republican rhetoric? Where we're standing right now, Republicans need to stand up to the plate and recognize that they carry a good-sized chunk of the blame for the difficulties we're facing today.
As well, you stated that Obama often cites past administrations for causing this shit-hole we're in at the moment. Which seems well-founded, you can't exactly say it's the current administrations fault for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and digging us into this economic hole.
Oh, and news flash, when he cites past administrations as the cause of many problems we face as a nation, he is including the Clinton administration for enabling some of our economic problems. So how can you say he's piling all the blame on the republican party?

I guess the two major points of your thread are:

1. Acknowledgment of the decline of the GOP

and 2. The spending of the Obama Administration.

Well as to 1:

This can be attributed to two factors, the first being a rise in democratic voters, with the second being the rise of the popularity of the Libertarian Party. Obama and other inspirational liberal leaders are getting a lot of previous non-voters and youth out and voting, this past election had the largest voter turnout in US history. The Libertarian party is taking almost purely disgruntled former republicans and conservative youth, thus hurting the GOP.

For 2, let me start by asking, where the hell were you when the Bush administration turned a surplus into a trillion dollar+ deficit? Obama's spending has been smart and not overdone, you need to spend money to make money (See:stimulus plan). These are investments for the future, not blind spending with little oversight like that of the Bush Admin. We're not gonna get ourselves out of this hole without investments in education, the economy, infrastructure, etc.

At 3/9/09 05:56 PM, fli wrote: Yup...
High school graduating senior who thinks he who knows everything--
one probably who's jocking over pasty Limbaugh cock cause it's the supposedly smart thing to do...

One more for the status quo...

Check...
N-E-X-T...

1. You're a fag.

2. OP, I totally hear you, and guys like this need to realize the truth.

i wish there could be another reagan
he was amazing, but it is unlikely another one will come along to fix this mess were in.

At 3/22/09 03:46 PM, dobo69 wrote: i wish there could be another reagan
he was amazing, but it is unlikely another one will come along to fix this mess were in.

Didn't Reagan oversee a major recession in the 1980's? As I recall not much got fixed during his terms in office.

At 3/22/09 06:52 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 3/22/09 03:46 PM, dobo69 wrote: i wish there could be another reagan
he was amazing, but it is unlikely another one will come along to fix this mess were in.

Didn't Reagan oversee a major recession in the 1980's? As I recall not much got fixed during his terms in office.

Let's not forget that he also invaded Grenada, but overall, he was pretty good.