Thread: Scott Brown turns tail & votes with Dems. on Stim bill Jr.

Originally Posted by Hudson

The jobs bill was for $15 Billion dollars and would not, by any account, affect the deficit, much less the economy. By voting for it, he made on his promise to be bipartisan and not affect his standing within the Republican party.

If we have Zero dollars and we spend 15 billion, how much do we have after?

Brown's vote looks more like an "I ain't your bitch" move for his party in addition to keeping the voter base in MASSACHUSETTS liking him. He wasn't voted in to oppose the jobs bill it was to oppose O-Care and slap the Mass Democratic party in the face for it's hubris.

Originally Posted by jviehe

If we have Zero dollars and we spend 15 billion, how much do we have after?

We have had zero dollars since we started the war of independence. The Contential Congress rarely, very rarely paid the soldiers fighting for the war, and when they did, the paper was worth nothing.

Besides, this was not a stimulus bill of any sort.

Originally Posted by Hudson

We have had zero dollars since we started the war of independence. The Contential Congress rarely, very rarely paid the soldiers fighting for the war, and when they did, the paper was worth nothing.

Besides, this was not a stimulus bill of any sort.

We have had far more than zero dollars. Heck, the Treasury took in 226 billion just in January. Then the govt spent 289 billion. With this bill it will spend another 15 billion, which will affect the deficit, by 15 billion, negatively.

Originally Posted by jviehe

We have had far more than zero dollars. Heck, the Treasury took in 226 billion just in January. Then the govt spent 289 billion. With this bill it will spend another 15 billion, which will affect the deficit, by 15 billion, negatively.

And how much do you think the Treasury would have taken in if the financial sector had been allowed to collapse? IF the automakers had been allowed to go under? You need to keep things going, or things get even worse.

This is a major economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression (also a product of tax cuts and lack of regulation). An administration doesn't start from scratch, it takes over the situation that the previous administration left.
The most important thing now is to prevent the economy from collapsing, 10% unemployment is tough, but it's not a collapse.
It's easy to find fault with people who are doing what is necessary, because what is necessary is usually not popular. Right now the federal government has to provide the economy with the demand that the private sector and state governments can not.
If you want hypocrisy, look no further than the people who applauded tax cuts and decry the deficit.

Originally Posted by Oreo

Agreed- but I can think of a lot harsher words for Scott Brown than that.

Why? the bill is very small - a drop in the bucket compared to what has already been spent.

The test will be the gigantic health care mess that is trundling through Washington. If Brown votes for that trillion dollar trash heap of regulations and taxes and government intrusion, it's an entirely different story. This bill is a minor issue.

There is no major backlash in Massachusetts over this.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Brown's vote looks more like an "I ain't your bitch" move for his party in addition to keeping the voter base in MASSACHUSETTS liking him. He wasn't voted in to oppose the jobs bill it was to oppose O-Care and slap the Mass Democratic party in the face for it's hubris.

Exactly

Originally Posted by jviehe

We have had far more than zero dollars. Heck, the Treasury took in 226 billion just in January. Then the govt spent 289 billion. With this bill it will spend another 15 billion, which will affect the deficit, by 15 billion, negatively.

Adding $15 billion is like charging your credit card 1 cent. you have to put everything.in perspective.

Fiscal conservative is not just about keeping the debits and credits in check, it is more about the process on how to balance the debits and credits. All you are doing is bean counting.

Originally Posted by goober

And how much do you think the Treasury would have taken in if the financial sector had been allowed to collapse? IF the automakers had been allowed to go under? You need to keep things going, or things get even worse.

This is a major economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression (also a product of tax cuts and lack of regulation). An administration doesn't start from scratch, it takes over the situation that the previous administration left.
The most important thing now is to prevent the economy from collapsing, 10% unemployment is tough, but it's not a collapse.
It's easy to find fault with people who are doing what is necessary, because what is necessary is usually not popular. Right now the federal government has to provide the economy with the demand that the private sector and state governments can not.
If you want hypocrisy, look no further than the people who applauded tax cuts and decry the deficit.

To try and put the deficit on tax cuts it quite funny indeed. Especially when you consider the overall income of the government even without those tax cuts vs what they are spending. Plain and simple the deficit is a product of EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Which is exactly why the vast majority of the citizens oppose this new health care legislation. The people of this country have finally started to put a foot down to the government doing pretty much whatever they want as long as they say its for the "common good".

Tax cuts alone don't really effect the deficit. They only do so when the government doesn't adjust its spending accordingly. Or even worse yet, when the government spends even more money after tax cuts. Which is the trend we have seen over the past what...12 years? The government essentially is a business and should be ran like one. In other words should be working on making a profit not creating an overwhelming debt. If Obama really wanted to fix the problem, the first thing he would have done is audited the entire government and figured out where he could trim a large portion of the spending. He in fact has done the complete fucking opposite.

Originally Posted by Undermin3d

Plain and simple the deficit is a product of EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

How much should we reduce spending on defense, social security and medicare?

Which is exactly why the vast majority of the citizens oppose this new health care legislation.

Polls show that most people want health care reform and they want it to include a public health care insurance option.

The people of this country have finally started to put a foot down to the government doing pretty much whatever they want as long as they say its for the "common good".

Too bad they still want big government but don't want to pay for it and are going to make the next generation to pay for it.

Tax cuts alone don't really effect the deficit. They only do so when the government doesn't adjust its spending accordingly Or even worse yet, when the government spends even more money after tax cuts.

That's why the Bush tax cuts were stupid.

The government essentially is a business.

So why don't we let General Motors defend the nation?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Yes.



kennedyseat.com: Scott Brown lays out plan for federal spending and deficit reduction.

Nowhere in that statement does it say he wouldn't support a stimulus. A spending "restraint" is just less spending, not No spending. The only specific votes I saw Brown mention in his campaign was that he was going to vote down any health care bill and any cap and trade bill.

I think people misread Brown. It looks like he may actually represent his constituency, which means that he's going to be a moderate on a lot of issues. He's not going to say "no" to everything, because he probably wouldn't be re-elected if he did.

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

How much should we reduce spending on defense, social security and medicare?

There a tons of other places to reduce spending. But as for defense, remove our bases from all these other countries we occupy and keep our nose out of other countries business.

Polls show that most people want health care reform and they want it to include a public health care insurance option.

I dunno what the polls show but I never said the polls don't show that. However, $950 billion for this new health care bill is ridiculous and the people know that.

Too bad they still want big government but don't want to pay for it and are going to make the next generation to pay for it.

Who says they want big government? Just because the progressives have successfully increased the size of the government for the past 80 years doesn't mean that's what the people really want. I think people standing up and opposing many things recently when in the past the majority of the people just didn't care proves that.

That's why the Bush tax cuts were stupid.

Bush tax cuts were stupid? Yet Obama has increased the deficit tremendously over what Bush ever did. And proposes to increase it even more yet. Stop trying to blame all the countries problems on Bush like every other Democrat has/does.

So why don't we let General Motors defend the nation?

This really doesn't make any sense, so I'm not even gonna bother with a rebuttal for this.

Originally Posted by Hudson

Adding $15 billion is like charging your credit card 1 cent. you have to put everything.in perspective.

Fiscal conservative is not just about keeping the debits and credits in check, it is more about the process on how to balance the debits and credits. All you are doing is bean counting.

Ok, lets put it in perspective. It would be like charging my credit card 15 BILLION. Perhaps you would like to pay it back?