Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

[Cap'n Cat]

Reppies, danefan.

Z's a mean fvcker, ain't he?

[AZGrizFan]

OK. I read it. He's playing a numbers game. He's blaming the deficit in 10 years on a president who hasn't beenin office for 10 years. How the FUCK does that work?

Seems to me like he's blaming it on the policies put in place in the last years of the Bush Admin. Seeing as how slow gov't beurocracy is, don't you think its takes a few years (5+) for the real economic effect of programs like the Bush tax cuts and Prescription Drug plans to hit the deficit? Isn't that why they do 10-year deficit projections?

I don't know the answers to these questions. What I do know is that its easy to blame the guy who is currently on the "hot seat" regardless of whether it's his policies that actually created the problem. If the criticism was that he hasn't done enough to right the ship from the spending policies of the past, then I could go along with it. But that doesn't appear to be the criticism. The criticism is that he has exploded the deficit, yet I haven't seen anyone prove that it's actually his policies which created this massive deficit. I haven't heard anyone but Obama try to prove otherwise either.

These are all questions that most Americans, including myself, don't have the slightest idea about, yet the notion of this "exploding" deficit is shoved down our throats by people like Fox News all day long.

If that's the case, then Bush has Clinton to blame for the first 6-7 years of his administration. In the military, we have this thing called "assume the watch, assume the problems." Once you assumed the watch (a la Obama on 1/21/09) YOU own it. You can't continue to blame your predecessor, as Obama is in this case for an unprecedented TEN YEARS. That is just mind boggling. Even Bush, as stupid as he was (apparently) didn't try to do THAT. The difference between Bush's expenses (the war) and Obama's expenses (entitlement programs) is that Bush's END when the war is over (or we give up, as we did in this case). Obama's will live on in perpetuity.

[Cap'n Cat]

Seems to me like he's blaming it on the policies put in place in the last years of the Bush Admin. Seeing as how slow gov't beurocracy is, don't you think its takes a few years (5+) for the real economic effect of programs like the Bush tax cuts and Prescription Drug plans to hit the deficit? Isn't that why they do 10-year deficit projections?

I don't know the answers to these questions. What I do know is that its easy to blame the guy who is currently on the "hot seat" regardless of whether it's his policies that actually created the problem. If the criticism was that he hasn't done enough to right the ship from the spending policies of the past, then I could go along with it. But that doesn't appear to be the criticism. The criticism is that he has exploded the deficit, yet I haven't seen anyone prove that it's actually his policies which created this massive deficit. I haven't heard anyone but Obama try to prove otherwise either.

These are all questions that most Americans, including myself, don't have the slightest idea about, yet the notion of this "exploding" deficit is shoved down our throats by people like Fox News all day long.

If that's the case, then Bush has Clinton to blame for the first 6-7 years of his administration. In the military, we have this thing called "assume the watch, assume the problems." Once you assumed the watch (a la Obama on 1/21/09) YOU own it. You can't continue to blame your predecessor, as Obama is in this case for an unprecedented TEN YEARS. That is just mind boggling. Even Bush, as stupid as he was (apparently) didn't try to do THAT. The difference between Bush's expenses (the war) and Obama's expenses (entitlement programs) is that Bush's END when the war is over (or we give up, as we did in this case). Obama's will live on in perpetuity.

Oh, God!

That's bullshit, Z, and you know, especially being a banker. It's flippin' reinvestment designed to stimulate all sorts of fvcking commerce. When that happens, people go back to work, tax revenues increase, individuals, municipalities, states and Feds can pay their debts. It ain't gonna go on forever. Conk lies and voodoo.

Same thing happened during Clinton's time. There came to be a boom (for which he is not responsible, we've decided, you and me) and the leftover Reagan debt was turned into a surplus, much of it due to the scenario described above.

Now, my wrists are hurting. Don't know if that's due to typing out brilliant replies to your inane kneejerk Conky posts, or it's from fisting myself during self pleasure. Either way, you'd help me if you just agree with me all the time.

[UNI88]

If that's the case, then Bush has Clinton to blame for the first 6-7 years of his administration. In the military, we have this thing called "assume the watch, assume the problems." Once you assumed the watch (a la Obama on 1/21/09) YOU own it. You can't continue to blame your predecessor, as Obama is in this case for an unprecedented TEN YEARS. That is just mind boggling. Even Bush, as stupid as he was (apparently) didn't try to do THAT. The difference between Bush's expenses (the war) and Obama's expenses (entitlement programs) is that Bush's END when the war is over (or we give up, as we did in this case). Obama's will live on in perpetuity.

Oh, God!

That's bullshit, Z, and you know, especially being a banker. It's flippin' reinvestment designed to stimulate all sorts of fvcking commerce. When that happens, people go back to work, tax revenues increase, individuals, municipalities, states and Feds can pay their debts. It ain't gonna go on forever. Conk lies and voodoo.

Same thing happened during Clinton's time. There came to be a boom (for which he is not responsible, we've decided, you and me) and the leftover Reagan debt was turned into a surplus, much of it due to the scenario described above.

Now, my wrists are hurting. Don't know if that's due to typing out brilliant replies to your inane kneejerk Conky posts, or it's from fisting myself during self pleasure. Either way, you'd help me if you just agree with me all the time.

First, I disagree with AZ on Bush's expenses being primarily the war and not an entitlement program. His final big expense, the financial bailout, was also a (corporate) entitlement program. Of course those of you claiming that Obama prevented another Great Depression with his initiatives and budget might want to rethink that because IF any of the major spending initiatives of the last 12 months prevented a major depression it was injecting cash into the financial system for which credit should go to Bush.d

Second, I agree with AZ that once a war is over the expenses slow down and stop but government social initiatives almost never die. Once the government starts to do something it rarely ends the program regardless of need or logic. I would love to see the CBO, GAO or some other entity do an audit of all of the federal government programs to determine whether they are still effective and/or needed.

[AZGrizFan]

If that's the case, then Bush has Clinton to blame for the first 6-7 years of his administration. In the military, we have this thing called "assume the watch, assume the problems." Once you assumed the watch (a la Obama on 1/21/09) YOU own it. You can't continue to blame your predecessor, as Obama is in this case for an unprecedented TEN YEARS. That is just mind boggling. Even Bush, as stupid as he was (apparently) didn't try to do THAT. The difference between Bush's expenses (the war) and Obama's expenses (entitlement programs) is that Bush's END when the war is over (or we give up, as we did in this case). Obama's will live on in perpetuity.

Oh, God!

That's bullshit, Z, and you know, especially being a banker. It's flippin' reinvestment designed to stimulate all sorts of fvcking commerce. When that happens, people go back to work, tax revenues increase, individuals, municipalities, states and Feds can pay their debts. It ain't gonna go on forever. Conk lies and voodoo.

Same thing happened during Clinton's time. There came to be a boom (for which he is not responsible, we've decided, you and me) and the leftover Reagan debt was turned into a surplus, much of it due to the scenario described above.

Really? REALLY? How many people are going to go back to work because of the $3 BILLION spent on the "Cash for Clunkers" program? I'll tell you: ZERO. All they did was throw money at a problem, create a short-term "buzz" that'll die down if they EVER stop throwing money at it....the dealers get fat for a few weeks, some people who probably didn't need a new car got one, a few loans were made, and that's the end of it. $3 billion wasted. Nobody went "back to work"....no jobs were "created"....a few sales tax dollars were raised. Big fuckin' WHOOP. But dealers got their pockets lined for a few weeks....and they're ALREADY bitching about the money running out. So, which industry is next? Do we throw money at the airlines? Do we start a "Cash for Cushions" program in which we subsidize (as a nation) the cost of an airline ticket by $250 for each flight? Or maybe we subsidize the cost of new airplanes so the airlines can replace their aging fleets with more fuel efficient models? Do we thrown $5-$10 billion at THAT problem? Do we subsidize the packaged foods industry by giving moms a $1.00 rebate for every can of chicken noodle soup they buy? Or do they only get the rebate on Top Ramen?

Seriously, where do we stop it? Why is the AUTO industry considered so special...

[polsongrizz]

So, which industry is next? Do we start a "Cash for Cushions" program in which we subsidize Welfare Moms and Hookers?

FIFY

[AZGrizFan]

So, which industry is next? Do we start a "Cash for Cushions" program in which we subsidize Welfare Moms and Hookers?

FIFY

We already subsidize those groups.

[polsongrizz]

FIFY

We already subsidize those groups.

True, but with this new program they would actually get off their azzes and onto their backs to earn a little sumpn sumpn.

[Cap'n Cat]

Oh, God!

That's bullshit, Z, and you know, especially being a banker. It's flippin' reinvestment designed to stimulate all sorts of fvcking commerce. When that happens, people go back to work, tax revenues increase, individuals, municipalities, states and Feds can pay their debts. It ain't gonna go on forever. Conk lies and voodoo.

Same thing happened during Clinton's time. There came to be a boom (for which he is not responsible, we've decided, you and me) and the leftover Reagan debt was turned into a surplus, much of it due to the scenario described above.

Really? REALLY? How many people are going to go back to work because of the $3 BILLION spent on the "Cash for Clunkers" program? I'll tell you: ZERO. All they did was throw money at a problem, create a short-term "buzz" that'll die down if they EVER stop throwing money at it....the dealers get fat for a few weeks, some people who probably didn't need a new car got one, a few loans were made, and that's the end of it. $3 billion wasted. Nobody went "back to work"....no jobs were "created"....a few sales tax dollars were raised. Big fuckin' WHOOP. But dealers got their pockets lined for a few weeks....and they're ALREADY bitching about the money running out. So, which industry is next? Do we throw money at the airlines? Do we start a "Cash for Cushions" program in which we subsidize (as a nation) the cost of an airline ticket by $250 for each flight? Or maybe we subsidize the cost of new airplanes so the airlines can replace their aging fleets with more fuel efficient models? Do we thrown $5-$10 billion at THAT problem? Do we subsidize the packaged foods industry by giving moms a $1.00 rebate for every can of chicken noodle soup they buy? Or do they only get the rebate on Top Ramen?

Seriously, where do we stop it? Why is the AUTO industry considered so special...

Man, bitch, you gotta work on this very serious problem of yours which gets you into trouble here. You're putting words in my posts. Did I ONCE mention the auto industry?

NO.

Didn't stop you from going into a twenty minute rant over it, however.

Balance and emotional control next time, eh, Z?

Jesus.