Obama suddenly a fiscal conservative?

[Martinus]

Running an effective government costs money.

So does running an ineffective government.

That is well known after 8 years under Bush.

[garbon]

I find Obama's complete and utter contempt for the average American's intelligence to be one of his most endearing characteristics.

Well he's right.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I find Obama's complete and utter contempt for the average American's intelligence to be one of his most endearing characteristics.

I do too.  Most people require decades in public office to achieve that. 

[Faeelin]

DSB, Newsflash:  the economy has tanked even with massive government spending.  That dollar a day Hans spent (and is spending, and will spend for the foreseeable future) was wasted.

Is this surprising? I don't think anyone expected immediate recovery once the government turned on the tap.

[grumbler]

It was not wasted. Right now, you're the one operating under false pretenses; moreover, ones that the federal government tried to quash right at the beginning. There is no magic investment that will set Wall Street rocketing upward, and even if there was, we would suddenly have to worry about hyperinflation; the stimulus was damage control to prevent a collapse, and it has worked in that respect. You're saying it has had no net positive effect, but this is a market-driven economy. 138 million taxpayers means that that stimulus is going to have to work its way through 138 million idiots such as yourself who are whining that it hasn't immediately helped them.

I am starting to think these non sequiturs are deliberate! 

The stimulus plan was not intended to prevent the ongoing collapse of the US economy, and has not done so.  it was intended to provide a cover for spending that some Democrats would have wanted to undertake no matter what shape the economy, and The TARP spending has not resulted in the saving of the banking sector, but merely the postponement (at incredible cost) of the banking failures that would now be behind us had not the federal government borrowed all that money to prolong the crisis. (Yes, I am randomly bolding like you).

The problem with the government borrowing so much money so that whining morons like you can suck on the teats of government is that such borrowing pretty much dries up the very money supply the government is supposedly trying to loosen!  (yes, i am throwing in insults like "whining" and "moron" randomly, just like you).

Net results of payments show much slower when you're dealing with accounts as massive and with as much momentum as a national economy. If you give your kid a nickel, he has a nickel. If you account for a nickel in the economy to replace one that was removed, you have to wait for all the actors to review the markets to come to the consensus that yes, there is a nickel there, and then you also have to wait for all of them to review the markets further to see what else is happening in the market because of the nickel's presence and determine that yes, that nickel is going around and generating revenue.

Ah, another nonsequitur! 

The problem with handing out nickels to everyone who wants one but has been too incompetent to hang on to theirs is that those nickels come from somewhere.  They have a cost.  The cost isn't just the dollar a day extra that every American taxpayer will pay for the rest of their lives; the cost is also that those nickels being lent to the government (at interest) are also unavailable to be lent to someone who would actually do something with them that would employ people and produce things now, not five or ten years down the road, a la the "stimulus bill."

Now, obviously not all government spending is bad; not even all government "stimulus" spending is bad.  But to claim that those who oppose this huge, massive, unprecedented spending for no clear reason are merely "whining idiots" is laughable. 

And, by the way, you are about as bad as Raz (though not so bad as Marti) with the analogies.  I'd drop that approach, were I you.

[Grey Fox]

So, hum, I'm confused.

[Ed Anger]

So, hum, I'm confuse.

Your engrish confuse I.

[Grey Fox]

All it took was 1 letter?

[Ed Anger]

All it took was 1 letter?

FIREBALL WARBLER!

[The Minsky Moment]

There is all that oversight in action:

CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

Wow - a government contract awarded via a competitive bid.  Haven't seen one of those in a while.   

[DontSayBanana]

It was not wasted. Right now, you're the one operating under false pretenses; moreover, ones that the federal government tried to quash right at the beginning. There is no magic investment that will set Wall Street rocketing upward, and even if there was, we would suddenly have to worry about hyperinflation; the stimulus was damage control to prevent a collapse, and it has worked in that respect. You're saying it has had no net positive effect, but this is a market-driven economy. 138 million taxpayers means that that stimulus is going to have to work its way through 138 million idiots such as yourself who are whining that it hasn't immediately helped them.

I am starting to think these non sequiturs are deliberate! 

The stimulus plan was not intended to prevent the ongoing collapse of the US economy, and has not done so.  it was intended to provide a cover for spending that some Democrats would have wanted to undertake no matter what shape the economy, and The TARP spending has not resulted in the saving of the banking sector, but merely the postponement (at incredible cost) of the banking failures that would now be behind us had not the federal government borrowed all that money to prolong the crisis. (Yes, I am randomly bolding like you).

The problem with the government borrowing so much money so that whining morons like you can suck on the teats of government is that such borrowing pretty much dries up the very money supply the government is supposedly trying to loosen!  (yes, i am throwing in insults like "whining" and "moron" randomly, just like you).

Net results of payments show much slower when you're dealing with accounts as massive and with as much momentum as a national economy. If you give your kid a nickel, he has a nickel. If you account for a nickel in the economy to replace one that was removed, you have to wait for all the actors to review the markets to come to the consensus that yes, there is a nickel there, and then you also have to wait for all of them to review the markets further to see what else is happening in the market because of the nickel's presence and determine that yes, that nickel is going around and generating revenue.

Ah, another nonsequitur! 

The problem with handing out nickels to everyone who wants one but has been too incompetent to hang on to theirs is that those nickels come from somewhere.  They have a cost.  The cost isn't just the dollar a day extra that every American taxpayer will pay for the rest of their lives; the cost is also that those nickels being lent to the government (at interest) are also unavailable to be lent to someone who would actually do something with them that would employ people and produce things now, not five or ten years down the road, a la the "stimulus bill."

Now, obviously not all government spending is bad; not even all government "stimulus" spending is bad.  But to claim that those who oppose this huge, massive, unprecedented spending for no clear reason are merely "whining idiots" is laughable. 

And, by the way, you are about as bad as Raz (though not so bad as Marti) with the analogies.  I'd drop that approach, were I you.

The whole point of the analogy was to show how stupid it is trying to apply street rules of finance to a national economy. It was meant to be absurd, so you can STFU on that. As far as "secret motives of the Democrats," I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find you building strawmen. You can base your assessment on a paranoid delusion if you please, but I'm going to go with objective information that can be referenced for my own.

[grumbler]

The whole point of the analogy was to show how stupid it is trying to apply street rules of finance to a national economy.

That's a terrible reason to use a bad analogy, given that nobody was applying anything called "street rules of finance" (whatever those are) to this except maybe your.

It was meant to be absurd

Success!  I take it the rest of your rant was also meant to be absurd.  Success! there, also.

so you can STFU on that

Or not, as I please. 

As far as "secret motives of the Democrats," I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find you building strawmen. You can base your assessment on a paranoid delusion if you please, but I'm going to go with objective information that can be referenced for my own.

No secret motives of which I am aware.  Did you really think there was some "secret" cabal of Dems covertly shouting their aims from the rooftops?  tinfoil:

Nothing in the stimulus package was new.  It had all been proposed before.  Paranoia is more readily found amongst those who shout "STFU" and refer to "secret motives" than among people who post calmly post about plain, known facts like I do.

[Admiral Yi]

The state aid was new AFAIK.  The infrastructure spending was mentioned previously, but in the context of ways to stimulate the economy.

[Siege]

I just know that the reenlistment bonuses are down.

Somebody in the current administration is bent in undermining the military.

Everybody knows that reenlistment bonuses is what makes the US Army great.

[Fate]

I just know that the reenlistment bonuses are down.

Somebody in the current administration is bent in undermining the military.

Everybody knows that reenlistment bonuses is what makes the US Army great.

No. Socialism makes the US Army great.