Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Sep '10 00:18
    The Washigton Post:

    Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent, to $3.2 trillion, in 2009, "the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy."

    "The rise in spending was the largest since the Census Bureau began compiling the data in 1983. The Washington region was among the biggest beneficiaries of the government’s spending"

    http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/census-bureau-federal-domestic-spending-in-2009-was-3-2-trillion-federal-spending-up-16-largest-increase-ever/

    "It’s the Iraq War that caused the deficits. It’s the Bush tax cuts that caused the deficits. The CBO said the deficits were caused by government spending but the Democrats continue with the same ol’ tired lies to cover their historic, record-setting spending sprees."
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Sep '10 00:29
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent, to $3.2 trillion, in 2009, "the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy.[/b]
    Cutting the aid to the unemployed, in the teeth of the recession, would have been a disaster. Some are now saying the stimulus package should have been bigger, and handled differently. The $3.2 trillion figure, if true, rather makes nonsense of whodey's claim that the stimulus alone was $100 trillion. But perhaps he will be releived to find it's far less than $100 trillion.
  3. 02 Sep '10 00:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    Cutting the aid to the unemployed, in the teeth of the recession, would have been a disaster. Some are now saying the stimulus package should have been bigger, and handled differently. The $3.2 trillion figure, if true, rather makes nonsense of whodey's claim that the stimulus alone was $100 trillion. But perhaps he will be releived to find it's far less than $100 trillion.
    No one said anything about cutting aid to the unemployed.
  4. 02 Sep '10 00:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    Cutting the aid to the unemployed, in the teeth of the recession, would have been a disaster. Some are now saying the stimulus package should have been bigger, and handled differently. The $3.2 trillion figure, if true, rather makes nonsense of whodey's claim that the stimulus alone was $100 trillion. But perhaps he will be releived to find it's far less than $100 trillion.
    welfare for bankers. they hardly need it.
  5. 02 Sep '10 00:46
    we need a gakkk! smiley. something with the eyes of but with the mouth upside down and the eyebrows of
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Sep '10 00:51
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    No one said anything about cutting aid to the unemployed.
    Fair enough. Your OP attributes the rise in spending to it. What would you have cut exactly at the time that the recession hit?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Sep '10 00:53
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    welfare for bankers. they hardly need it.
    Yes, as I say, it was handled incorrectly, although I cannot see how the body politic in the U.S. could have resisted the 'temptation' to give it to the institutions that it did.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Sep '10 00:54
    Originally posted by FMF
    Fair enough. Your OP attributes the rise in spending to it. What would you have cut exactly at the time that the recession hit?
    "Waste and fraud" seems to be the standard right wing answer.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Sep '10 01:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    "Waste and fraud" seems to be the standard right wing answer.
    And forcing drivers to buy natural gas propelled cars.
  10. 02 Sep '10 01:05
    Originally posted by FMF
    Fair enough. Your OP attributes the rise in spending to it. What would you have cut exactly at the time that the recession hit?
    Unemployment benefits are given out by the states. 26 weeks I believe. The Feds jumped in and extended it to 90 something weeks ( I forget exactly how many).
    The "stimulus" bill. We were sold on the idea (I am paraphrasing) "if we don't act now unemployment could hit 8%". What are we at now?
    The bail outs.
    cash for clunkers,etc.
    The spending needs to stop. There are politicians crying for more.

    As it says in my link,

    "Federal spending is what causes deficits. Tax cuts do not. In other words, when you have a decrease in tax revenues (tax cuts) you do not go out and spend more money than you have in your pocket. The bank (taxpayers) are on a budget. Congress needs to learn how to balance a budget."
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Sep '10 01:07
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    "Federal spending is what causes deficits. Tax cuts do not. In other words, when you have a decrease in tax revenues (tax cuts) you do not go out and spend more money than you have in your pocket. The bank (taxpayers) are on a budget. Congress needs to learn how to balance a budget."
    Yes. But you are side-stepping the tricky question. What would you have cut exactly at the time that the recession hit?
  12. 02 Sep '10 02:00
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Unemployment benefits are given out by the states. 26 weeks I believe. The Feds jumped in and extended it to 90 something weeks ( I forget exactly how many).
    The "stimulus" bill. We were sold on the idea (I am paraphrasing) "if we don't act now unemployment could hit 8%". What are we at now?
    The bail outs.
    cash for clunkers,etc.
    The spending nee ...[text shortened]... . The bank (taxpayers) are on a budget. Congress needs to learn how to balance a budget."
    how much did those extra weeks of benefits cost?
  13. 02 Sep '10 02:33
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    how much did those extra weeks of benefits cost?
    33.9 billion, I believe.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Sep '10 03:23
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    33.9 billion, I believe.
    Yes, but as you say - that's something you wouldn't have cut. So what exactly would you have cut as the recession was biting hard?
  15. 02 Sep '10 03:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes, but as you say - that's something you wouldn't have cut. So what exactly would you have cut as the recession was biting hard?
    Apparently you are not reading along. How about Spending for starters.