Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (32970)	2/19/2009 12:19:02 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Steve, I am struggling to understand your argument. "President Bush proved that additional government spending does not stimulate the economy." I'm not sure you can make that argument. Spending increased at the fastest rate in a very long time. If government spending were the answer there would be no economic recession. that stimulation was partially responsible for the massive housing boom. I can't connect the dots here, please help me out. Most people are of the opinion that the Carter era Community Reinvestment Act after Clinton stripped the lending standards out was responsible. President Bush used the massive home ownership as an applause line in more than a few speeches, but to blame him for what he inherited is not fair. Most people also are aware of the push from President Bush, John McCain and other Republicans to rein in the fraud at Fannie and Freddie. Nobody can deny that ranking democrats demagogued them as they acted to thwart any attempt for regulatory oversight or fiscal prudence. They didn't want to slow the massive democrat donation machine. The problem was not with the stimulation - it was from idiotic recklessness by everyone along the food chain. That fits the definition of a bubble. Partisans on both sides can point to the problem and find blame to heap on their favorite whipping posts. That aside, my point was that since republicans spent See above comment. "Wasting money on partisan projects and social engineering while running up the largest deficit in history (of any nation, ever)." No longer works to use this argument. Republicans could have if they had of held the Bush spending in check - now in my mind they hold no credibility. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me. The only one with any credibility is Ron Paul. Tom Coburn is my favorite Senator. I have communicated this to his office. I am not sure why you blame me for the excesses of President Bush. I was regularly contacting my Representative and Senators to complain about the spending. Neither of my Senators were particularly concerned about my opinions. Republicans lead by Ted Stevens and Dan Young made drunken sailors look fiscally conservative. It appears the lesson was not entirely lost on them. Republicans in California are preventing democrats and the RINO Governator from implementing massive tax increases. Republicans in Kansas have refused the democrat Governor's request to shuffle funds so she would not have to balance the budget. Porkulus only had three RINO votes. I have to admit that fiscally Ron Paul is starting to look good. If he was not wanting to capitulate to terror I might support him.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (32970)	2/19/2009 2:56:17 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

No longer works to use this argument. Republicans could have if they had of held the Bush spending in check - now in my mind they hold no credibility. If a drunk tells you that drinking to much can cause problems, his general lack of credibility shouldn't be extended to the argument. If Bush spent like a drunk drinks, that doesn't mean that its a good idea for Obama to continue this practice, or that the argument should be ignored just because it comes from people who voted for Bush. Arguments are faulty, conclusions aren't false, just because of the person making them. And even if you want to focus solely on the person, well many of the people making the arguments now, also complained when Bush's spending spree continued past the first few years. why would anyone think that democrats after being out of power for almost all of the last 30 years That simply isn't the case. They have had the White House 10 of the last 30 years, and they have controlled either the Senate or the House, or both for the majority of those years.