Spending isn't answer

Spending isn't answer

There are 47 comments on the GoErie.com story from Mar 8, 2009, titled Spending isn't answer. In it, GoErie.com reports that:

The new acronym in politics is "T.A.R.P.," and it might be better described as "The Absolute Reprehensible Project." In the early 1930s, a similar package called "The New Deal" was rammed through Congress.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at GoErie.com.

“Thoughts On Life”

Since: Dec 08

Erie and the World

#26 Mar 9, 2009
tombo wrote:
<quoted text>
They will never see the light, just like we'll never see it from their point of view. It's fun arguing though!
Almost forgot. Theere was a time when I agreed with their stuff, but I grew up and they never will.
tombo

Edinboro, PA

#27 Mar 9, 2009
Greywolf Borealis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, one of my favorite pastimes is calling these guys out on their illogic. Especially on Casella letters. He is so whacked out.
That guy is definitely a fringe player. Watch cable access (channel 2 on Time Warner) some time for a good laugh. The nutters are out in force on there.
Simon Says

Erie, PA

#28 Mar 9, 2009
Greywolf Borealis wrote:
<quoted text>
WWII Was the epitome of spending bills. And the ONLY Year the numbers receded during the recovery from the GD was 1937, when Roosevelt listened to the republicans and suspended the New Deal programs. It is you who is revising history to suit your narrow-minded views.
Unfortunately I have a job and can not blog all day like Blaawolf but it is unfortunate that you can not learn from the past mistakes of the socialist democratic party. I quoted FDR’s own chief financial advisor on the failed policy of the New Deal. There is no doubt that the New Deal drove us further into the depression and shortened our ability to recover. Of course there needs to be spending. The spending however should not be in the hands of the crooked gov. as they have never done anything better or cheaper then the private sector. The spending should be by all working Americans in the form of tax breaks. We saw Reagan bring us out of economic trouble through tax breaks and Bush W. inherited a depressed economy from Clinton too. I know everyone likes to forget this truth but Clinton left a depressed economy for Bush and we recovered through the only tried and true way………tax breaks. The Dems are the party of thieves. Take from the working man and give it to the bums! Yes we can!

“Thoughts On Life”

Since: Dec 08

Erie and the World

#29 Mar 9, 2009
Simon Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately I have a job and can not blog all day like Blaawolf but it is unfortunate that you can not learn from the past mistakes of the socialist democratic party. I quoted FDR’s own chief financial advisor on the failed policy of the New Deal. There is no doubt that the New Deal drove us further into the depression and shortened our ability to recover. Of course there needs to be spending. The spending however should not be in the hands of the crooked gov. as they have never done anything better or cheaper then the private sector. The spending should be by all working Americans in the form of tax breaks. We saw Reagan bring us out of economic trouble through tax breaks and Bush W. inherited a depressed economy from Clinton too. I know everyone likes to forget this truth but Clinton left a depressed economy for Bush and we recovered through the only tried and true way………tax breaks. The Dems are the party of thieves. Take from the working man and give it to the bums! Yes we can!
Simple Simon, take a vacation and read a few books on history. You are going to be very surpised. Your blessed tax cuts are what led to nearly 11 Trillion dollars in deficit spending by republican presidents and a national debt that neither you or I or our children will be able to pay off. It will take a couple more genreations than that. Reaganomics will NOT work. Period! Get your head out of ... the sand and learn something, SS.
spirt of 76

Edinboro, PA

#30 Mar 9, 2009
You are wrong. The New Deal DID pull us out of the Great Depression; Social Security pulled tens of millions of elderly citizens out of poverty; and government spending on nonmilitary projects does indeed add to a nation's prosperity as it has to ours. Finally it was the rabidly anti-socialist programs ushered in by Reaganomics and his ilk that is at the root of our current economic crisis.
Simon Says

Erie, PA

#31 Mar 9, 2009
Greywolf Borealis wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple Simon, take a vacation and read a few books on history. You are going to be very surpised. Your blessed tax cuts are what led to nearly 11 Trillion dollars in deficit spending by republican presidents and a national debt that neither you or I or our children will be able to pay off. It will take a couple more genreations than that. Reaganomics will NOT work. Period! Get your head out of ... the sand and learn something, SS.
Blaawolf, you remind me so much of Corbin Fowler. He is also void of reasoning abilities but has also all the time in the world to write the Erie Times. Perhaps instead of being on vacation so much (and eating yourself fat), you might try working. The Dem/Bum party is not real keen on working as it is easier to let someone else pay your way. The Working Party (aka, Rep’s) understand that we the people are better off with our own money than the alternative of the gov controlling our income. Spending money we don’t have is ALWAYS what leads to the deficit not tax cuts. If the socialist Dem/Bum party had not thought to rob the common man through social insecurity we could all retire rich. The New Deal was a disaster under FDR and the spendulous package under Obama will not work either. History has already played this hand out and the result was steady double digit unemployment and a record deficit at the time. And all Obama’s supporters say,“Yes we can (rob you blind)”!
amazed

United States

#32 Mar 9, 2009
Greywolf would have us think that cutting taxes causes deficits. Spending is this issue. Why is it that when tax rates are cut we end up with more revenut to the fed? It is because of the econmic growth that follows.
Ted

Oil City, PA

#33 Mar 9, 2009
Well stated MrCasella. That is a good messages for both Parties!
Ted

Oil City, PA

#34 Mar 9, 2009
Neighbor wrote:
The New Deal didn't end the depression? What did, then?!
Repubs jumping up & down yelling no? Got any other bright ideas to get the country of the hole, ace?
This country is in SERIOUS doo-doo. Business as usual is not an option. I'm not crazy about the stimulus package, either...but I don't have any better ideas, do you?
...or are sarcastic letters to the editor the best that you can come up with?
Obama has talked about replacing the Tens of Thousands of vehicles in the Federal auto fleet.
Well, why not engineer a new green vehicle and give GM an exclusive 5 year contract to fill the Gov's need. After that, all companies can bid.
That would give...
-the Gov new fuel-efficient green vehicles
-GM the kind of help that just might save it
-"We the People" a chance to fix two birds with one stone.

How's that for practicle?
Ted

Oil City, PA

#35 Mar 9, 2009
Jedstone wrote:
Greed is an implicit characteristic of capitalism and "regulations" are what kept this greed in check. Just like laws keep criminal behaiviour to spread rampant, regulation are the laws that attempted keep corporate greed in check.
Yes, they weild disproportionate power and influence exactly because the policies created by the "free market" ideals were created to favor them and move the base of power that laid in a goverment which was as it should be, elected and controlled by the people, and moved it to the hands of a corporations and the wealthy controlling this institutions.
That's why republicans denigrate "the goverment" and render it incompetent whenever they are in charge of it.
Great point! Why do that when someone like George Soros can just buy a party and a candidate!
Ted

Oil City, PA

#36 Mar 9, 2009
Hap wrote:
I know a lot of intelligent conservatives who buy this line. It is easy to believe something when it justifies larger profits for yourself. Usually the arguments go: An unfettered capitalism is good for everyone, eventually the markets correct and we all benefit. BUT WHY ARE THE POOR JUST GETTING POORER AND POORER OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. Well it's just because they deserve it, it resulted from their own choices. It's good for them and if it isnt it's their fault.
Heck, it's more like 50 years now that the Dems have been using the Help the Poor lifeline - and still it isn't solved. The Dems ran most of the 3 parts of Gov for most of these years and still no solution.

I don't think the Dems really want to solve this - then they would loose the use of that Lifeline RallyCry.

“Thoughts On Life”

Since: Dec 08

Erie and the World

#37 Mar 9, 2009
Simon Says wrote:
<quoted text>
Blaawolf, you remind me so much of Corbin Fowler. He is also void of reasoning abilities but has also all the time in the world to write the Erie Times. Perhaps instead of being on vacation so much (and eating yourself fat), you might try working. The Dem/Bum party is not real keen on working as it is easier to let someone else pay your way. The Working Party (aka, Rep’s) understand that we the people are better off with our own money than the alternative of the gov controlling our income. Spending money we don’t have is ALWAYS what leads to the deficit not tax cuts. If the socialist Dem/Bum party had not thought to rob the common man through social insecurity we could all retire rich. The New Deal was a disaster under FDR and the spendulous package under Obama will not work either. History has already played this hand out and the result was steady double digit unemployment and a record deficit at the time. And all Obama’s supporters say,“Yes we can (rob you blind)”!
Hey, Simple, I happen to know Corbin and he's a hell of a lot more intellignet than you seem to be with your knee jerk commments. Go to the library and check our some history books and try to learn something.
By the way, you remind me of Rush Limburger with your marrow-minded conservatism.
Joe Kerr

Northfield, OH

#38 Mar 9, 2009
Greywolf Borealis wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple Simon, take a vacation and read a few books on history. You are going to be very surpised. Your blessed tax cuts are what led to nearly 11 Trillion dollars in deficit spending by republican presidents and a national debt that neither you or I or our children will be able to pay off. It will take a couple more genreations than that. Reaganomics will NOT work. Period! Get your head out of ... the sand and learn something, SS.
Wow Gaywolf, you really are missing a few marbles. The deficit is now the fault of giving people back their own money! What school of thought did this come from? Sounds like propaganda. The deficit is created by spending money that we don't have (that is why it is called a deficit smart guy). Lower taxes has been the proven solution to any economic crisis. Unfortunately the party of thieves (Dems) do not want to create wealth but rather wish to create equal results. To bad for C students that the strategy of the thief party is not in place. Just imagine, the C student could drop the A student down so that both could receive a B grade!
john paul

United States

#39 Mar 10, 2009
The 11 Democrats Who Voted Against Obama’s Economic Plan
Allan Boyd (D-FL)…Bobby Bright (D-AL)…Jim Cooper (D-TN)..Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)..
Parker Griffith (D-AL)Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)Frank Kratovil (D-MD)’’Walt Minnick (D-ID)..
Collin Peterson (D-MN)..Heath Shuler (D-NC)..Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Walt Minnick (D-Idaho)
The measure began with a tight focus on job creation and infrastructure improvements, but ballooned into a ‘something for everything’ spending proposal," Instead, he called for more restrained spending on "worthwhile programs."----------

the omnibus was briefly blocked late last week due to the Democratic defections and continuing sharp debate over the bill’s earmarks

14 Democrats was convened by Evan Bayh, senator for Indiana, to discuss how the president be might reined in.

Two Senate Democrats urged President Obama Wednesday to veto a $410 billion spending bill and said they are going to vote against it, criticizing it for its cost and for including too many personal pet projects.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) pledged to vote against the omnibus also had said that those who vote in favor of the bill "jeopardize their credibility."

I don't think we should pass it [spending bill] this way," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said on CNN's The Situation Room Wednesday. "[I'd like] to have the president veto it and say 'clean it up, do it over.'"

top Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, predicted that party leaders would likely prevent any pay freeze…. But, some top Republicans clearly like the idea of a pay freeze. are strongly backing the idea of forgoing a COLA for members and senators, arguing that the troubled American economy demands some sacrifice by members of Congress.
Who going to win the democrats or the republicans on this issue..

Members of Congress will earn an annual salary of $174,000 in 2009. Party leaders make more; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will get $223,500 this year, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), will earn $193,400
Billy

Niles, OH

#40 Mar 10, 2009
We are not suffering as a nation because we have floated money to the banks to cover bad debts. Banks don't operate on a large surplus of cash and without the money to lend, our economy shuts down. Doing nothing isn't an option and republican legislators whining is not going to improve anything.
CRANK

Erie, PA

#41 Mar 10, 2009
When you have an addiction to spending money, and you don't have any money to spend, you have to resort to spending other peoples money. When they don't willingly give it to you, and you resort to just taking it, it is generally referred to as stealing.
Go Figure

United States

#42 Mar 10, 2009
T.A.R.P. could be considered to be the Pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow for some but giving so much money away with little or no guidelines has to be irresponsible. The stimulas package giving billions away to states and local govts. is a waste also. First the banks have to be made responsible and saving the T.A.R.P. money in order to buy your competitor, like Bank of America and a few others did is not the intended purpose of the bail out.

How is going to bail out all the business that are losing jobs. The key to a spending society is to create more spending. The govt. could have devided the stimulas bill between each household in this country and sent each a nice fat check which would have done far more then giving it to big business let alone putting it in the hands of politicans!!
CRANK

Erie, PA

#43 Mar 10, 2009
Yep spending other peoples money, that they don't have, to buy stuff you don't need and can't use, and above all, prevent any business entity from making a profit from, is the way to prosperity. As for jobs, we don't want jobs. We don't value business. God forbid they might make a profit. Greedy b*st*ards. What we need is bigger welfare checks, and more illegal aliens to unload ships of imported stuff.
Martha

United States

#44 Mar 10, 2009
Billy wrote:
We are not suffering as a nation because we have floated money to the banks to cover bad debts. Banks don't operate on a large surplus of cash and without the money to lend, our economy shuts down. Doing nothing isn't an option and republican legislators whining is not going to improve anything.
Then fix the banks and get the economy moving.
Stop giving our tax dollars to every Earmark that the Dems feel got slighted the past 8+ years!
Hap

West Chester, OH

#45 Mar 10, 2009
The Bush tax cuts will ultimately cost at least 2 trillion, the Iraq war at least 1 trillion. The stimulus will be a much smaller burden, especially when you bear in mind that by helping the economy, it will also raise tax reciepts, offseting at least a third of the measures cost.
All this stuff about burdening future generations is pure hypocracy. The tax cuts in the DeMint(R) amendment, which was supported by 36 republicans - would have cost 3.1 trillion over the next ten years. That's FOUR TIMES as much as the Obama stimulus. Paul Krugman

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The New Deal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The New Deal Goes South (Jul '13) Jul '13 Terry 1
News Wonkblog book club: "Fear Itself" (Jul '13) Jul '13 Holly 1
News 'New Deal' on hep C (Mar '13) Mar '13 Zellers pharmacy 1
News The Taliban vs. Teenage Girl, Richard Hell, The... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Alex 1
News Political Book Club: A Reading List (Mar '13) Mar '13 Dean 1
News Wynne Liberals plan to continue ONTC fire sale (Mar '13) Mar '13 Dean 1
News Book review: 'The Great Deformation: The Corrup... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Dean 1
More from around the web