jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (6 posts)

How can Republicans condemn Obama's stimulus programs without condemning Bush's

  1. IDONO profile image82
    IDONOposted 5 years ago

    How can Republicans condemn Obama's stimulus programs without condemning  Bush's?

    Sure, we had some losers. Solyndra, etc. Bad choices. But the auto industry? Like it or not, the auto workers are working. They can avoid foreclosures, evictions and yes, food stamps and unemployment. Where did he get the money for his trickle down theory? Where did Bush get the money for his "trickle up" theory?Didn't Clinton have a surplus? Where did that 10 trillion go in 8 yrs? Trickle up? What's that? That money went to people who already had some form of income, including un reported income; behind in child support,etc. This wasn't stimulus. It was dinner and a twelve pack.

  2. Attikos profile image80
    Attikosposted 5 years ago

    I don't know about Republicans in general. Some people, though, do condemn both.

    Bush was not a stimulator. TARP was his administration's financial industry bailout, not a stimulus program. Porkulus was Obama's political payoff program, with stimulus as a cover story, doing some of that as a side effect. The three QE operations by the FRB are billed as stimuli but instead lean heavily toward feeding more liquidity into finance in the so far largely unrealized expectation it will be loaned out and will therefore function as stimulus.

  3. SportsBetter profile image79
    SportsBetterposted 5 years ago

    I condemn any stimulus by any president.  Any money created out of thin air increases the chances of a dollar collapse.  Since the government has no money there are only three ways they can generate it.  Tax, borrow, and print.

    They can only tax so much.  When they tax it takes money from productive sources and puts into non-productive areas.  When they borrow it increases the national debt.  When they print money it causes inflation and prices rise.

    So any stimulus actually hurts the economy.

  4. lostdogrwd profile image61
    lostdogrwdposted 5 years ago

    The Bush tax cut was a tax cut and money for the Rich of a trillion dollars a year and was 8 trillion of the 11 trillion he borrow to run the country meaning the rich did not paid there share to run the country and the put the debt on the people. President Obama continue the same debt and 4 trillion of the 5 trillion is STILL THE BUSH TAX CUT. and we the people electing between two rich person and putting BACK RICH SENATORS AND CONGRESS PEOPLE BACK IN OFFICE.how dumb and stupid and  of a country can we get. 12 trillion tax cut free money to the rich, two  unpaid for invasion, unpaid for banks bail out and  unpaid medicare b and  we the people saying we have to pay down the debt, what a bunch of damm  educated fools

  5. LandmarkWealth profile image81
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    Most Conservatives opposed all of Bush's so-called stimulus tax rebates along with TARP.  If you go back and play the news reports from late 2008 you'll notice that Pelosi and the Dem's sided with Bush on TARP and it was the conservative house republicans that tried to prevent it.  The Bush adm added more like 5 trillion not 10 trillion to the national Debt.  However this had nothing to do with taxes, but rather out of control spending.Tax revenues from the wealthiest Americans rose by about 35%.  And those same conservatives are just as opposed to Obama's excessive spending.  Anyone who thinks that Bush wasn't beaten up by conservatives for his spending wasn't listening.

    The auto industry is working, and at the same time costing the tax payers billions that will never be repaid.  GM and Chysler had  an unsustainable business model that couldn't survive without Gov't support.  That is nothing to be proud of.  It is more of a detractor than an economic contribution.  Companies like Ford and other foreign auto makers that build cars in the US with US workers are being prohibited from filling the void.

    While I applaud Clinton for cutting captial gains tax and using other supply side methods that his democrat colleagues call "Trickle Down", the reality is that his last year in office (2000) was the start of a disasterous recession that blew up all the surplus projections because the revenue never came in as projected.  That's all they were, was a projection.  The reality is that Clinton was not responsible for the 2000 recession anymore than Bush was for 2007/2008.  The 2000 recession was the result of an overzealous enthusiam based on a tech bubble.  Clinton benefited from the devleopment of the internet revolutionizing the world.  And when the tech bubble crashed in Clintons last year, a recession was left behind. However he did for most of his administration stay out of the way and let the markets work.

    Gov't induced stimulus is bad no matter who proposes it, because it can only create transient increases to aggregate demand.  It never has and never will work.  Business owners to not make signifigant increases in capital expenditures as a result of such artificial increases in demand.  In fact it makes business owners less likely to commit new capital because of the concerns around the increased tax liability on investment to pay for such a stimulus.  Gov't stimulus of any kind has one consistent effect.  It crowds out private investment.

  6. profile image0
    CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years ago

    "Didn't Clinton have a surplus? Where did that 10 trillion go in 8 yrs?" - Idono

    My friend, you must have missed the speech given by Donald Rumsfeld one day before 9/11. He gave a speech on the "War on Waste" and told the American people that the federal government lost between 3 and 7 Trillion dollars and they didn't know where it went. The next day we were told some 7th century arab launched an attack on the U.S. from a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan and everyone forgot what happened the day before.

    The truth is, the American people are addicted to entertainment, have a short attention span, have an even shorter memory, and are gullible to the core.