Republican Jim Bunning stops some overspending

Damocles said:
Bunning doesn't give a crap, he's one of the ones that are, (How did Onceler insist I should say it?.. oh yeah!), "retiring" after this term.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, if he didn't give a crap why not just let it go through like the rest? Maybe he is a coward as he doesn't have to worry about reelection but that still doesn't mean he doesn't give a crap.

Honestly with the way they are spending, I don't know about you, but I will take any stoppage of any spending I can get.
 
Obfuscate said:
LOL, I mean honestly Onceler I like you more than most on this site but you simply can't believe this nonsense. Keynesian economics is doing now what it always does, delay recovery and drag out recessions. I predicted this over 1 1/2 years ago here when they first started these bailouts and Keynesian nonsense and it's going exactly as I predicted.
Click to expand...

I disagree; I know how you feel about Keynesian economics, but the logic has always been sound to me. The market drops. Businesses become fearful, and reign in spending. People get laid off. Consumers spend less, because they lost their jobs or are afraid of losing them. Businesses lose more money because of less spending. The market drops some more. Businesses become more afraid. Rinse, cycle, repeat.

Absent outside stimulus, it's tough to stop that downward spiral.

The stimulus & bailouts did what they were supposed to do, imo. They created a holding pattern, and stemmed the bleeding, to allow for the possibility of recovery.

Just look at the reports from GM & Ford today....
 
Obfuscate said:
LOL, I mean honestly Onceler I like you more than most on this site but you simply can't believe this nonsense. Keynesian economics is doing now what it always does, delay recovery and drag out recessions. I predicted this over 1 1/2 years ago here when they first started these bailouts and Keynesian nonsense and it's going exactly as I predicted.
Click to expand...

Even if I did believe in Keynesian economics, on a practical level I amazed that so many people don't realize it can never work. I mean it relies on cutting back on spending in the "good" times. How many times has government ever cut spending regardless of what conditions are?

I've said this before:
In bad times Liberal Democrats increase spending under the pretext of stimulus, in good times Liberal Democrats increase spending under the notion that we are a rich nation and can afford to help others.
In the end any honest person realizes that they will just increase spending all the time and however easiest they can justify it.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree; I know how you feel about Keynesian economics, but the logic has always been sound to me. The market drops. Businesses become fearful, and reign in spending. People get laid off. Consumers spend less, because they lost their jobs or are afraid of losing them. Businesses lose more money because of less spending. The market drops some more. Businesses become more afraid. Rinse, cycle, repeat.

Absent outside stimulus, it's tough to stop that downward spiral.

The stimulus & bailouts did what they were supposed to do, imo. They created a holding pattern, and stemmed the bleeding, to allow for the possibility of recovery.

Just look at the reports from GM & Ford today....
Click to expand...

You understand that Keynes mandated that governments cut spending in better times yes? As probably one of the more honest lefties here, do you really, REALLY believe and can picture Democrats cutting spending when things are better?
You are essentially asking government to give up some of its power, there are very very few men who would do that and certainly no government.
 
Onceler said:
Businesses become more afraid. Rinse, cycle, repeat.
Click to expand...

Nothing scares business more than an active Government and large Government debts as they have no idea how it will affect them and their tax rates which is what puts them in the holding pattern or cutting back leading to the spiral you're afraid of. We have seen this as real unemployment hangs around 15% from the 4% when the downturn started. It's really too bad that a downfall that could be almost over will last probably 10 years like in Japan when they thought Keynesian economics would save them.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You understand that Keynes mandated that governments cut spending in better times yes? As probably one of the more honest lefties here, do you really, REALLY believe and can picture Democrats cutting spending when things are better?
You are essentially asking government to give up some of its power, there are very very few men who would do that and certainly no government.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, no, Democrats in control of everything likely would not make the needed cuts.

But I think split gov't can work. I think the gov't made great headway in the late '90's reigning in spending, trying to balance budgets & also increase efficiences.

The voters can demand it, as well. Whereas comments like 'deficit spending doesn't matter' went unnoticed in the "WOT" years, voters are very deficit conscious now, and spending is going to be a deciding factor in at least the next 2 elections.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Well this is a good question and he answered it with what I thought was a very good point:
""Why now?" Bunning said he's been asked, regarding his objection to the legislation. "Why not now?" "
And you know he's right, you have to start somewhere, ANY spending some people will always complain about being cut, there's never really a great place to start.
Click to expand...

There are awful places to start, like smack-dab in the middle of the biggest recession since the great depression. Republicans completely and totally forget about the budget during economic booms, when they should be cutting it, and suddenly get all panicky when they actually have an excuse to be running deficits. God, what fucking fools.
 
Obfuscate said:
Good, there are jobs out there but why take one that only pays what your unemployment is good for? Who wouldn't rather sit on their ass than work at KFC for the same wage. The country needs to realize we overspent and people were over paid and the new economy people are going to have to work for less. Unending unemployment just delays what has to happen and makes it harder to deal with when we have to pay it back.
Click to expand...

And that's what you fucking shitty Republicans have been telling American workers for thirty fucking years - work for less! Work for less! Work for less! Come on, we're not throwing enough money into the business furnace! Accept more paycuts!

And its fucking disgusting. The American people aren't going to stand for this bullshit any longer. Why the hell do you think that people have to go into debt to live a DECENT lifestyle? Because since conservatives have been in power, they've been working more and more and more and more adn being paid less and less and less and less for it. No, we're not going to accept ANOTHER paycut. Go fuck yourself.
 
Onceler said:
To be perfectly honest, no, Democrats in control of everything likely would not make the needed cuts.

But I think split gov't can work. I think the gov't made great headway in the late '90's reigning in spending, trying to balance budgets & also increase efficiences.

The voters can demand it, as well. Whereas comments like 'deficit spending doesn't matter' went unnoticed in the "WOT" years, voters are very deficit conscious now, and spending is going to be a deciding factor in at least the next 2 elections.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich had a lot in common. And by today's standard, Newt Gingrich was a very moderate Republican. I don't think any split government is going to work for any amount of time in the current environment.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not going to argue with anyone that the gov't overspends, and that cost-cutting has to be a priority going forward.

However, is this really the place to start? This is a token opposition, and unemployment benefits are the only thing keeping a lot of people afloat right now (and just barely). Cutting them off will only cause suffering, and compound the existing problems (which are exacerbated by things like foreclosures).

It's your typical pennywise, pound foolish thing in this instance.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
Obfuscate said:
Nothing scares business more than an active Government and large Government debts as they have no idea how it will affect them and their tax rates which is what puts them in the holding pattern or cutting back leading to the spiral you're afraid of. We have seen this as real unemployment hangs around 15% from the 4% when the downturn started. It's really too bad that a downfall that could be almost over will last probably 10 years like in Japan when they thought Keynesian economics would save them.
Click to expand...

All I can really do on this is hope that you're wrong about the 10 years. The "proof" for either of our positions is fairly hard to come by. I believe strongly that something like GM failing, at the time it would have failed without the bailout, would have sent the U.S. spiraling headlong into a severe Depression, that would have lasted a long time. I don't think we'd be recovering by now.

I don't think a comparison to Japan is apples to apples, either...
 
This country will implode from protectionism/racism, importing shitty manufacturing jobs, and exporting high tech and services jobs.
 
Okay, first I thought he was a jerk, then I learned that he was sticking to pay-go and offered that the spending portion be taken from the spendulous bill that first predicted that these people wouldn't need this anyway. You know the one that was sold on the premise that unemployment would only be 8.5% at its peak?
 
Where's Mottley been on this? Hasn't he been ranting for weeks about how Bush scrapped paygo? He should be in here praising Bunning!!

I guess he's too busy getting pwned in the werewolf game...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top