A second round of stimulus checks?

[WPB Dawg Fan]

Pres-Elect Obama has asked for a second round of stimulus checks....and he would prefer them to be in the mail BEFORE he takes office on January 20th.

 

I have to admit, this is definitely pointed at the poor and middle class, because these checks don't make a dent in a rich persons wallet. So I give him kudos for the proposition.

 

I know the government had discussed it before...but the fact his first 'act' as being Pres-Elect was to put his political weight behind it is a good thing. Hope he keeps that type of issue in his focus.

[Mr. T]

who is going to pay for it?

 

china loaned us the money on the last one.

 

why should we even work, lets have obama pay our bills.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Yeah, he'll have that budget balanced in no time.

[Westside Steve]

I thought it was a bad idea when Bush did it.

Still is.

 

Meet the new defecit hawk, same as the old deficit hawk.

 

WSS

[We need Tom Tupa]

Yes, both sides are supporting giving people money. Shocking. Especially since almost all of them took their stance before the election.

 

We are already almost $300 billion in debt for stimulus packages this year. What's another $100 billion or so, right?

 

Wasn't he going to balance the budget?

[We need Tom Tupa]

No, I dont expect a balanced budget right away. But how far are we willing to dig ourselves into debt to ease people's ability to spend for a month? So far you seem okay with $300 billion. How about $500? 6?

[calfoxwc]

Heyl with the deficit. SHOW US THE $$$$$.

 

Then balance the budget, after Obama pays off everybody's mortgages.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Wow, Obama really knew what he was doing putting Buffet's name out there. People are really under the impression that he has some expertise in fiscal policy. There are even people lobbying for him as Treasury Sec. Hilarious.

 

Bush's budget was terrible. The Right is the first to point it out. That was the one area that conservatives never supported him on. You might want to use a better benchmark than the worst budgeting Republican in modern history. Although I do appreciate the Dem's desire to load up as much of the next "stimulus" package onto his record so Obama can be free and clear of it.

 

Let's do some quick arithmetic, shall we? Iraq cost about $10 billion a month. The first stimulus package was around $150 billion. So there go 15 months in Iraq. The bailout bill was bogged down with about $130 billion in spending and tax cuts. There go another 13 months, not to mention the potential cost of the bailout itself (anybody have a clue what the ceiling is on that?). Now Pelosi is asking for another $300 billion. 2 and a half years in Iraq worth. And just for good measure, let's not forget the $25 million loan to Detroit (at a cost of almost $10 billion). So we have almost 5 years in Iraq spending in just 12 months of economic "stimulus" packages that few people think will do much to "goose" whatever it is we are trying to goose. Adding on the 16 months it will take for Obama to get us out of Iraq by most optimistic estimates, the fact that he will be sending all the troops right over to Afghanistan instead of bringing them home, and the 55,000 troops he is leaving behind in Iraq, and I am left wondering how far up his ass I would have to stick my head to expect the deficit to do anything but explode. Oh, and this is BEFORE he starts rolling out tax cuts and new spending to go along with the quickly shrinking tax receipts that accompany a struggling economy. Brilliant.

 

But, hey, if Buffet says so...

 

By the way, what ever happened to those Dems that thought it was irresponsible of W to send out rebate checks in the 2001-2002 recession when we could use the money to pay down debt? They get hit on the head by something?

[Mr. T]

Bush's budget was terrible. The Right is the first to point it out.

 

sum it up democrat controled congress! bling!!

[We need Tom Tupa]

Wow, Obama really knew what he was doing putting Buffet's name out there. People are really under the impression that he has some expertise in fiscal policy. There are even people lobbying for him as Treasury Sec. Hilarious.

 

Bush's budget was terrible. The Right is the first to point it out. That was the one area that conservatives never supported him on. You might want to use a better benchmark than the worst budgeting Republican in modern history. Although I do appreciate the Dem's desire to load up as much of the next "stimulus" package onto his record so Obama can be free and clear of it.

 

Let's do some quick arithmetic, shall we? Iraq cost about $10 billion a month. The first stimulus package was around $150 billion. So there go 15 months in Iraq. The bailout bill was bogged down with about $130 billion in spending and tax cuts. There go another 13 months, not to mention the potential cost of the bailout itself (anybody have a clue what the ceiling is on that?). Now Pelosi is asking for another $300 billion. 2 and a half years in Iraq worth. And just for good measure, let's not forget the $25 million loan to Detroit (at a cost of almost $10 billion). So we have almost 5 years in Iraq spending in just 12 months of economic "stimulus" packages that few people think will do much to "goose" whatever it is we are trying to goose. Adding on the 16 months it will take for Obama to get us out of Iraq by most optimistic estimates, the fact that he will be sending all the troops right over to Afghanistan instead of bringing them home, and the 55,000 troops he is leaving behind in Iraq, and I am left wondering how far up his ass I would have to stick my head to expect the deficit to do anything but explode. Oh, and this is BEFORE he starts rolling out tax cuts and new spending to go along with the quickly shrinking tax receipts that accompany a struggling economy. Brilliant.

 

But, hey, if Buffet says so...

 

By the way, what ever happened to those Dems that thought it was irresponsible of W to send out rebate checks in the 2001-2002 recession when we could use the money to pay down debt? They get hit on the head by something?

Whoops, I overlooked the request to double the loan to Detroit, at a cost of $8-$10 billion. There goes another month. And the potential cost of the bailout is rising rapidly as Congress attempts to expand it beyond the financial industry.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Wow, Obama really knew what he was doing putting Buffet's name out there. People are really under the impression that he has some expertise in fiscal policy. There are even people lobbying for him as Treasury Sec. Hilarious.

 

Bush's budget was terrible. The Right is the first to point it out. That was the one area that conservatives never supported him on. You might want to use a better benchmark than the worst budgeting Republican in modern history. Although I do appreciate the Dem's desire to load up as much of the next "stimulus" package onto his record so Obama can be free and clear of it.

 

Let's do some quick arithmetic, shall we? Iraq cost about $10 billion a month. The first stimulus package was around $150 billion. So there go 15 months in Iraq. The bailout bill was bogged down with about $130 billion in spending and tax cuts. There go another 13 months, not to mention the potential cost of the bailout itself (anybody have a clue what the ceiling is on that?). Now Pelosi is asking for another $300 billion. 2 and a half years in Iraq worth. And just for good measure, let's not forget the $25 million loan to Detroit (at a cost of almost $10 billion). So we have almost 5 years in Iraq spending in just 12 months of economic "stimulus" packages that few people think will do much to "goose" whatever it is we are trying to goose. Adding on the 16 months it will take for Obama to get us out of Iraq by most optimistic estimates, the fact that he will be sending all the troops right over to Afghanistan instead of bringing them home, and the 55,000 troops he is leaving behind in Iraq, and I am left wondering how far up his ass I would have to stick my head to expect the deficit to do anything but explode. Oh, and this is BEFORE he starts rolling out tax cuts and new spending to go along with the quickly shrinking tax receipts that accompany a struggling economy. Brilliant.

 

But, hey, if Buffet says so...

 

By the way, what ever happened to those Dems that thought it was irresponsible of W to send out rebate checks in the 2001-2002 recession when we could use the money to pay down debt? They get hit on the head by something?

Whoops, I overlooked the request to double the loan to Detroit, at a cost of $8-$10 billion. There goes another month. And the potential cost of the bailout is rising rapidly as Congress attempts to expand it beyond the financial industry.

 

I'm not sure I get the comparison. Isn't a government's top priority supposed to be its people? Its homeland? What difference does it make how many month's worth of Iraq money has been spent on issues here at home. That's the way it's supposed to be.

[We need Tom Tupa]

I compare to Iraq because Shep referenced it as a way Obama was going to save money. And it is the only place Obama has claimed he will cut any real spending. Although it isnt clear to me how much money you save by using the exact same number of troops in another conflict.

[Westside Steve]

I compare to Iraq because Shep referenced it as a way Obama was going to save money. And it is the only place Obama has claimed he will cut any real spending. Although it isnt clear to me how much money you save by using the exact same number of troops in another conflict.

 

 

A conflict, ironically, in which there is almost no benefit to the US.

At least Iraq is oil rich and we seriously can't afford to have it traded in Euros.

 

Not to mention a rallying cry against W had been the deficit.

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

Obama wont be able to save us any money, with all of his new programs he wants it will cost us double that of the bank BailOut!

[We need Tom Tupa]

Wow, Obama really knew what he was doing putting Buffet's name out there. People are really under the impression that he has some expertise in fiscal policy. There are even people lobbying for him as Treasury Sec. Hilarious.

 

Bush's budget was terrible. The Right is the first to point it out. That was the one area that conservatives never supported him on. You might want to use a better benchmark than the worst budgeting Republican in modern history. Although I do appreciate the Dem's desire to load up as much of the next "stimulus" package onto his record so Obama can be free and clear of it.

 

Let's do some quick arithmetic, shall we? Iraq cost about $10 billion a month. The first stimulus package was around $150 billion. So there go 15 months in Iraq. The bailout bill was bogged down with about $130 billion in spending and tax cuts. There go another 13 months, not to mention the potential cost of the bailout itself (anybody have a clue what the ceiling is on that?). Now Pelosi is asking for another $300 billion. 2 and a half years in Iraq worth. And just for good measure, let's not forget the $25 million loan to Detroit (at a cost of almost $10 billion). So we have almost 5 years in Iraq spending in just 12 months of economic "stimulus" packages that few people think will do much to "goose" whatever it is we are trying to goose. Adding on the 16 months it will take for Obama to get us out of Iraq by most optimistic estimates, the fact that he will be sending all the troops right over to Afghanistan instead of bringing them home, and the 55,000 troops he is leaving behind in Iraq, and I am left wondering how far up his ass I would have to stick my head to expect the deficit to do anything but explode. Oh, and this is BEFORE he starts rolling out tax cuts and new spending to go along with the quickly shrinking tax receipts that accompany a struggling economy. Brilliant.

 

But, hey, if Buffet says so...

 

By the way, what ever happened to those Dems that thought it was irresponsible of W to send out rebate checks in the 2001-2002 recession when we could use the money to pay down debt? They get hit on the head by something?

Whoops, I overlooked the request to double the loan to Detroit, at a cost of $8-$10 billion. There goes another month. And the potential cost of the bailout is rising rapidly as Congress attempts to expand it beyond the financial industry.

oops, thread killer.

[Mr. T]

i think that congress will be sending out the checks soon! they love to spend.