Republicans Are just to stupid to talk to, it is a waste of time. They know how to shot and how fight. They just can't think. So please let the smart ones run the country ....Don't give up Obama. And yes the republicans shouldn't have the right to vote.
@terwal11 Oh yeah - the stimulus worked SO WELL didn't it? It wasn't bipartisan and it was put together behind closed and locked doors, just like Obummercare and every other debacle that's been passed on the hill. Now, they're debating on whether to give this administration MORE money? Jimmy Carter is no longer the worst President in history - Obummer is.
@noobmaster31 The idiots who voted this disaster named Obama into office should be sent to work on government collective farms in North Dakota along with Michael Moore. He's an empty suit with no real original ideas for "change" and he has NO PLAN. He enjoys the golf and travel and hanging out with celebrities, but he's a lazy butt who hates the work of being President - except for the give-aways to cronies in exhange for buying votes. LOSERS. Ron Paul, 2012!
Cry Baby Son Of A Bitch! The ignorant REPUBLICANS ALL seem to be oblivious to the fact that health insurance costs DOUBLED during George W. Bush's 8 goddamn years! Why the hell aren't they saying anything about the 8 years that G.W. Let health care costs double? Ignorant bastards.
@lesueurman Don't look now, but health insurance has gone up again since Obummer passed his "health care" bill. You are the ignorant one. Obama is THE SAME as Bush, only he's destroyed more in less time! He's the same! He has the same policies! MORE wars! MORE spending! MORE borrowing! MORE of everything that limits freedom! OBAMA AND BUSH ARE THE SAME! YOU are ignorant and apparently choose to remain that way. Really sad.
@DavisMrT I'm saying that just because you dont agree with what they are doing doesnt mean that you should say that they should be lynched, thats just immature and violent
can you imagine this old goat and bitter sour hearted curmugeon could have won the presidency? This cantankerous old geezer? what a twist old fool he is! Time for you to DIE McCain...
Heh - Now we all know the real loser in this was the taxpayer. The DEMs rushed the stimulus thru, without reading it, only to HURT recovery and mire us in debt Bush could only dream of.
TY AssClown OweBama & the democrat controlled court jesters of congress
If we waited then it'd hurt even more. One has to rush when trying to clean up a rotting mess of eight years. They read it, and approved it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean someone doesn't read it. Nothing will surpass the Bush deficite. Look up the numbers
@flonga1 Am with u a 100 % pisses me off!!! How low repulicans went to get back president and give w. Bush a thousand of chances and he fuked up even worse!
but that's ok when Sarah messes up we will see the republicans react to it becuz am sure a lot of angry democrats will give her no room to breathe & revange will be sweet!!!
As for international influence, I disagree. For one, you downplay the recession as a 'short-term economic trough'. Secondly, China's currency is pegged to the dollar. Our economy directly affects theirs. The reason for this is that China keeps the price of their goods down so maintain incredibly high exports and they export a hell of a lot to the US. The loss of international influence happens when our economy is no longer the most profitable in the world and people stop using the dollar.
@whalenbrowne@whalenbrowne China needs to export. They have over 1 Billion mouths to feed. if they cannot keep their exports pumping then they run an enormous risk of starving the entire nation. The scale of projects that China needs to endeavor upon to maintain sustainability is enormous.
"We still have yet to spend half of the last stimulus, so I can hardly see justifying a new one".
Well, the justification for a new one comes from the benefits of the last one. Even though not all have spent it, which doesn't mean it isnt working, it has already done a lot of good according to 77% of economists. We saw a jump in the stock market which no one talked about. It is the politicians who need to spend it, and a lot of them have used it to do a lot of good.
"there is even some research showing a negative multiplier leading to a drop in GDP in the long run.." Who have you been talking about who can estimate inflation and deficit spending accurately? Firstly, we are in a recession, a drop in GDP isn't surprising. I personally don't believe this is caused by a stimulus in any way. Putting that money into the economy will have positive effects almost anywhere you put it. What we really need to do is get people spending more money.
It's estimated by people with PhD's in econ that 1$ in food stamps creates $1.73 in stimulus. Infrastructure creates $1.59, and tax cuts only generate $1.03 .
"You risk being out of the recessionary trough before the stimulus money is actually released."
The money gets out quickly, but it takes a few years before it has had time to be distributed and spent. We won't be in the clear by then because the recession won't just go away. On its own, it will last longer than a few years.
Greenspan was so against regulation that he wouldn't even pursue fraud. He believed the market would work it out, but it didn't.
I would tend to agree with Krugman, we should do another stimulus. Some people also think that we are out of the worst and ready to recover. Others would tell you the worst is yet to come and some even think we will see hyper inflation, while admitting it is a matter of consumer confidence. Wouldn't telling us we will see hyperinflation be counter-productive then?
A good discussion unlike many on here, but I disagree for a few reason: 1. Keynesian style stimulus relies on the idea that government spending has a multiplier effect. That is, Uncle Sugar gives you money that you pay to employees that they spend to buy things that the seller then spends and on and on. Thus, $1 adds for more to the economy. However, is not very clear that the multiplier is >1. Krugman and Christine Romer think so, but many respected (Nobel type) economists disagree.
1 Cont. Without a PhD in the right sub-field of economics and a lot of research, I cannot tell you who is correct, but it is a point of important and legitimate contention. Before you could justify another stimulus, I think you would have the burden of empirically showing the multiplier was >1 for the last stimulus. There is even some research showing a negative multiplier leading to a drop in GDP in the long run when deficit spending, increased taxes, and inflation are factored in.
2. Even if the multiplier is >1 (a bit if), there is the question of timeliness/responsiveness. A stimulus by its nature is a short term endeavor. Government spending packages take a long time to pass into law, and even longer to implement. You risk being out of the recessionary trough before the stimulus money is actually released. We still have yet to spend half of the last stimulus, so I can hardly see justifying a new one.
3. The recent stimulus invested a great deal of money in areas that were not comparatively hard hit by the recession, but fit pet projects. These areas might be noble and important (education, alternate energy, healthcare), but they diminish the multiplier effect by increasing pay of those already in the field and crowd out private sector spending instead of maximizing new job creation. You can sell it as worthy, but dont see it as a stimulus.
4. I also worry about the affects of our borrowing on international relations, and think that will have a greater long-term impact on the nation than a short-term economic trough. With every dollar we lend to China, we lose international influence and power. From a liberal perspective, it means we have less leverage to make positive progress in human rights and construct a beneficial trade policy. From a realist perspective, we lose long-term power over a future great power peer competitor.
Look up 'The Warning - Frontline' for a good video on the topic of derivatives.
I won't argue with the Fannie and Freddie thing. Trying to pin that on the democrats isn't realistic either though. Both Dems and Reps tried to keep the housing bubble going because of the short term returns. It should have been handled cautiously, not simply crashed like the free marketeers wanted.
I thought you meant running in the black as in no economic transparency, which greenspan supported.
This recession was caused in part by the housing bubble and "over the counter" derivatives. That is what you call 'running in the black'. It is extremely dangerous, which is why it backfired. Trillions of dollars invested with no accountability or any evidence whatsoever of the money. No proof of transactions, etc. Fraud was rampant and Greenspan, the free market paragon, denounced regulation. Afterwards he was confronted about it and admitted that the free market idea was WRONG.
By running in the black, I mean receipts that exceed expenditures. I don't think that hurt us too badly in the Clinton years.
Greenspan made another mistake. He kept interest rates too low, encouraging poor lending and borrowing projects. For years, it has been a mark of success of both parties that more people owned homes at the end of their administrations than the beginning. That is wrong. Not everyone should own a home.
McCain called for comprehensive reform of corruption at Fannie and Freddie for years. Greenspan called for serious reforms since 2003. The most vocal opposition to reform has been Barney Frank. When the Senate banking committee purposed Fannie/Freddie reform in 2005, every Democrat on the committee opposed it. Obama was silent. Fannie/Freddie were the largest buyers of sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages. They arent fully responsible for the mess, but share a huge share of blame.
To reduce the deficit we have to PAY it off. Now what are we going to pay it off with if the economy is shot? Its more important to get out of recession now than to pay off a deficit. We need to fix it so we CAN pay it off. Its hilarious that you guys start clamoring for paying off the deficit right when the economy tanks, the worst time.
Would you spend all your money paying off debts when you don't have enough to do so? Or, would you try to make money so you CAN pay it off?
Has no one ever heard the expression "You have to spend money to make money". All Obama is doing with a stimulus is investing the money in our economy. Certain areas, like infrastructure, are KNOWN to have high returns of 40-60%.
You're trying to say all those presidents were bad because they had a deficit? You need to learn more about international economy, my friend.
You don't reduce the deficit by spending less, it would just stay the same (except w/ inflation).
1. The point is not that those presidents were bad, but that no single president created the debt, as an earlier poster implied.
2. Modest infrastructure spending might have returns. There is nothing modest about this level of spending, nor is a great part of it going to infrastructure with the intent of growth. It is a free for all for pet projects.
3. You could (as Clinton did) run the economy in the black. If it is black enough, you can pay down the debt, or at least interest.
For those who keep saying that the government must spend money to get the economy going remember that the money the government spends must come out of the economy first and the gov takes a lil to burn in the process
Yes, and there is a transaction cost in government collection of the money, meaning it may have less value than it did before collection, in the market.
Okay, sure, but then it works like any other investment, increasing in value (when invested correctly). The real point is that our economy is suffering from lack of demand. Both tax cuts and stimulus inject money into the economy, inevitably causing more spending and saving or creating jobs (getting more money to the consumer yet again).
"Modest infrastructure spending might have returns."
No, it DOES, as in fact. The amount of spending is as required by our recession.
"The amount of spending is as required by our recession."
Is that your economic professional opinion? Krugman thinks we need to spend twice what we are. Becker thinks we are spending far more than we need. I'll grant you that there is room for disagreement, but that is where we are will most likley part ways - a difference of prudential judgement.
Where did you get this incredible wisdom? We should call a recall on all economics books because they must be wrong. We also must fire all those economists who say that you can, in fact, help the economy by spending money. How absurd!
We should elect you president, as you seem to know so much about the economy.
Hmmm...there is an entire school in economics that would beg to differ in Chicago, and they seem to hold the majority of Nobles for each of the past several decades. Krugman's neo-Keynesians are not the only economic school out there.
Milton Friedman and his supply side economics have been debunked once again by recent events. Wealth never trickles down. Their philosophy is a fraud and a cover for the neo robber barons.
You again seem a bit confused. Milton Friedman's principle contribution was monetarism, centered on the idea of a slow, moderate increase in the money supply. Mundell and Laffer were the fathers of supply side, which is not a key component of the Chicago School. Of course, I suppose you do not think that excessively low interest rates or the fact that the government encouraged home loans to those in no financial condition to pay for them had anything to do with the financial crisis?
You cannot get out of debt by without spending money. This idea that we can repair our economy by stopping the government from spending any money is not only ignorant, its dangerous.
So many lessons and so little time. The trade deficit is not the national debt. The trade deficit refers to negative balance of trade between the US and the rest of the global market. The budget deficit refers to expenditure over receipt for a given year, and the national debt is the sum amount owed by the federal government (and is a total of annual deficits and surpluses over time with interest). The trade deficit is related to the national debt, but not identical to it or the budget deficit.
You can not reduce debt by spending more. This is basic fact. It makes complete logical sense. Obama needs to listen to Dave Ramsey. All of this spending is ridiculous.
World War II got us out of the depression. Economic conditions actually got worse between implementation of the new deal and entrance into the war, though contrary to Americans' simplistic views of history, Hoover was also responsible for major spending increases. They were bad economics when he did them, bad when Roosevelt increased them, and bad now.
This was bipartisan, Obama reached out to the Republicans, they HAVE REFUSED to be open something different. The argument from them is the same,"we need to cut taxes and cut spending, that is the solution to the problem." Sorry, what are tax cuts going to do when people are out of work and not paying taxes. I live in AZ and unemployment will hir 9 % or more. The extra money I am getting in my UI checks from the bill is helping. Shame on you McCain and the Republicans.
You are an idiot. That "check" you receive is money this country doesn't have to spend...which is the entire point...people want shit for free, so they vote into office a man willing to run this country into even greater debt so that people like danka2000 can get their checks.
I'm talking about the stimulus package and the money being created out of thin air. You seem to busy blaming things of the past. Who is ignorant? Try living in the now.
Except 1998-2001, the U.S. ran a deficit every year since 1969 and all but 13 years since 1931. We have had a debt every year except for one year of Andrew Jacksons administration. No. George Bush did not get this country in debt. He did increase the debt by inexcusable amounts. With that said, Obamas increases make Bushs pale in comparison. In his first year, Obama quadrupled the deficit to a CBO estimate of $1.85 trillion -- four time Bushs worst! But why bother with facts.
What facts? You are either a liar or just ignorant. The budget during Obama's first year was created by Bush during his last year, which means it was Bush who tripled the deficit, NOT Obama. Google "fiscal calendar year" before you embarrass yourself any more.
Actually I'm not an idiot. History has shown, the abpoway you take on deep recessions with government action. Government is the only entity with the wherethal that can prop up demand in an economy. Who cares about the de taxbt. It is bad yes, but as long as I pay my taxes to the IRS, I can care less. Sorry your wrong and I'm right.
for this stuff, you have no humanity. It isn't free it is insurance, not welfare. You are what is wrong with the right.
R.I.P. republicans, you have no leadership and stand for nothing except greed. Put your social security acct. into the stock market and when you turn 65 refuse medicare and may you work for minimum wage.
His conclusions are unsound and more than a little hypocritical. It takes money to make money. Unfortunately, Republicans spent all their decades in power making sure the rich got all the loot at the expense of the middle class and small businesses, those people that Republicans claim to represent. The only one left with money to spend to make money in this economy is the government.
Not because they have it, but because what bill collector is going to knock on the door of a nuclear power?
You can't have bipartisanship when one side is willing to compromise and the other side won't give up anything at all. And John McCain is a big reason why it wasn't bipartisan.
Republicans in Congress have this curious ability to not realize *they lost.* With every other election, the "loser" realized "hey, it's time to compromise, the voters have spoken." That's part of Democracy too.
But then I guess Republicans aren't interested in that.
The only people mentioning bipartisanship were Republicans crying that "there's no bipartisanship!" because the Democrats didn't give in completely.
Bipartisanship implies reasonableness and compromise. McCain tried to paint the Republicans as the reasonable ones with his statements here.
How can they be the reasonable ones when they vote completely against anything that doesn't include absolutely everything they want? Note that they got several things they said they wanted.
Well, I call him that because of his war service, in a Nam' prison he let another guy go free before him that was in line to go. Because McCain's dad was a Navy Admiral they were going to give him preferential treatment and let John loose first. John stayed imprisoned for 7 years - I believe. His politics are unethical bordering on immoral. He was mised with the Keating 7 scandal of the eighties. His senate voting record is rotten.
It would be like giving a marriage licensce to an alley cat. They stand for nothing except corporate greed. I guess you can't see it. How else could Obama have won by that margin? He faces a nearly impossile task
bringing the counrty back into prosperity.
Bush foreign policies were the nails for the coffin. Where is elder statesman
Bush now? Removing his foot. The worst
president ever, I am listening for impeachment proceedings.
the worse president ever? you must be a presidential historian with a broad knowledge of the administrations of each of our presidents dating back to Washington. Give us your analysis for the Fillmore adminstration if you would.
The individual judgement of Presidents past is to be taken as whole
not on an individual basis -as in voting.
Besides being so unpopular(20 % approval rating) as to merit McCain completely distancing himself ,
the no WMD in Iraq, flat taxe cuts- for the most priveleged etc.. However Hoover was worse. Not to mention veto of windfall oil profits, are you blind?
Like I figured. You know nothing of the Fillmore administration. Yer a Left-Wing fraud. A sheep, no better than the Right-Wingers who slobber over Palin. Hurry, go run to Wikipedia so you can dig up something about Fillmore so you can save face you nigger-lover butt plug. Also, yer a booger brain with -9 hitpoints.
Your only retort is profanity . It is exactly like physical bluster the last resort of a person of low intelligence. You must be speechless. Such drivel
is useless. There is no use in trying to
have a dialogue with somone of your mental caliber. Racism, profanity, is that the best
your limited intellect can produce? Your responses have no substance
The GOP's idea of bi-partisanship is only there way will work. They are a joke. The GOP are a bunch of rich guys for big business that got caught with there hand in the cookie jar too many times and the broke the fucking job. The pork McCain is talking about is more previlant with the GOP than the Dems in congress so he is bitching about his own party. He is a hypocrite and a sore loser.
Let us not forget, mccain has no clue about economics. And remember, bi-partisan has not meant crap to a republican for the past 8 years. So let this little man that he is cry and wine and hope our new pres can fix what was ripped to pieces by people like him.
I'm a Democrat who voted for and still supports President Obama. But what's the problem with McCain here? None of his facts are wrong, and his conclusions are thus sound. I want this stimulus to work, for the economic welfare of the country, but I am also concerned about the ramifications if it doesn't. He's right it's not "bi-partisan" and the future of either party will be hurt either way.
Wow...what idiot made this video.McCain is a good sport. He doesn't agree with the stimulus. Is that like blasphemy? Should we not question our president and the money being spent. Our children's money,
I think its funny that people look at bush and then McCain and say they even like each other. If anyone did any research on the candidates, they'd find that McCain probably hates bush more than a lot of people. McCain should have been the president in 2000, but bush threw a lot of political mud at McCain, so for McCain to even have a chance, he had to kiss up to the other republicans to even get another shot. McCain would of been the better choice, All Obama is is a commie like every other Dem.
No Gore should have been the president in 2000... BUSH did not win by popular vote.... Bush/McCain are both idiots.... All of you Rep. are brian washed. Again, why didn't any of you stop the BullS*** spending on a fake A** war!!!!!! Get over it.... YOU LOST!!
Talk about angry sore losers and getting over a loss, it's been over ten years. This may be a shock to some, but we do not determine our President by popular vote.
I guess you are blind to the fact that YOUR president has already gone back on his campaign promise, on earmark/pork barrel spending. Welcome to higher taxes, and more government in your wallet. I shall be better off with my money in Gold( and that gold buried in my yard) so it not taxed.
Well since your former President fucked every thing up in this country,this brother got his hands full along with the racist hate from the Republicans or should I say Republicons.Like white Presdents dfid lie nor raise taxes,and you name one tax Obama raised that's hurting poor white people.
Redsoxx2424,that's not playing a race card and if it was a race card,that means you and your people own the whole deck of those so call race cards.Remember your playing hating Republicans who sat back and allow Bush to do what he wanted for eight years,sat back like bitches on the rag ,now they want to get tough with Obama with Rush talking points.
The Repubicans did not want this bill passed because the money will be monitored and they will have a hard time pocketing it themselves. They could care less about the american people. If the Governers or Senators can't get their hands on some of the money they don't want it.
John McCain go take your dirt nap. You are an opportunist who defies the true call of duty which is to help America become a stronger Nation.
John McCain is working for only richest Americans. The richest Americans don't use youtube. They make industrial and financial plans that dwarf the assholes using this site.
Why isn't this bipartisan? Because the republicans are hedging their bets that this will fail. And if the economy turns around they are going to be in SERIOUS trouble come next time they are facing elections. They will be seen as the party that tried to stop America from being economically ruined.
John McCain you need to step down. You are an old washed-up fart. There no merit to what you say. Your ideas are defunct. You and you idea to help only the richest 1% of Americans and the Profit Objectives of the Fortune 500 is ugly at best.
Choice and Competition-The Republican Party platform is NOT based on the principles of Meritocracy. They are based on Plutocratic Cronyism.
You tree hugging fat - pig....what do you do for a living? Collect subsideies from the rest of us? Get out of this country. It is the republicans that keeps this country free. Last budget the republicans had control of was 2007...obama's budget features 11 times the deficit...while talking about fiscal responsibility...
Republicans have ripped off this Nation in such a way that the socioeconomic divide is fastly resembling Latin America.
Innovation comes from the middle class. If there is no middle class there will be no innovation. Look at Mexico, aside TV what major scientific contribution has come from there?
First off, fuck you bitch, I'm 150 lbs 5'9" so i'm definitely not fat..And I'm a college student right now trying to get by like everyone else. It is the republicans that are raping this country, just like they've raped your mind into incompetence. Ron Paul is a republican, so I don't see what you're getting so butt hurt about. He was obviously the better candidate (ron paul or cryptkeeper john mccain? hmm..).
Go play poker for money, since you're too stupid to spell your name for mcdonalds.
LET ME BE CLEAR - LEFTIST DEMAGOGUE'S LIKE OBAMA SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON FOR CONSISTENTLY LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! Oh but you people don't want to hear that do you? Cuz you're all mindless atomatons with no desire to understand the truth.
Republicans pushed for The Commodity Modernization Act of 2000. Phil Graham was the front man on this move.
This Act allowed banks and all financial institutions to place bets on investments in the form of insurance policies thereby creating a way to generate commission oriented profits for the sale of these empty insurance policies with out regulation by the SEC.
This market is $45 trillion USD worldwide that was false listed on the books as money. The correction will be pain.
When your party effs up the country for 8 years and runs it into the ground, you need to stfu and stop causing trouble when others have to clean up your mess. I mean do these guys realize they lost?
I understand it's hard to transition out of power but America broke up with the Republicans, they need to stop talking smack about America's new partner.and driving around our house shouting crazy things at us all night.
You people honestly think Obama has your best interests in mind, come on stimulus, acorn getting money and they were registering dead people and cartoon figures, convicted voter fraud and nothing happened now they get money, Obama crooks. sod for the mall of America what job does that create. There are already people who do that. Wake up Democrat's your getting scammed and you think its good for you, weak minded fools....
This is not bipartisan!!! Way to go genius, did you figure that out by your self? Or an aid had to explain that to you Mr McCain? Spending money to re-build America is just insane, right John? I got some thing you will like, how about we go invade Iran? at a cost of one trillion dollars a year? I bet you and your Republicans would Love that.
People the point is not that republicans used to spend money, the point is that now the democrats are spending money, it doesn't matter republican or democrat, they will waste your money. mccain is right on not supporting the stimulus
At 2:30 Sen. McCain claims its a moment in spending the likes of which this nation has never seen. Well first of all, the national debt went from 4.5 trillion to 9 trillion during W Bush's tenure, so McCain's memory may have some gaps there. Secondly, when you are really sick, you tend to spend more money to get better, than you spent having a good time.
Sen. McCain is doing is job: representing his constituents and standing tall for his beliefs...and facts. Well-planned tax cuts motivate businesses to spend. What happens when businesses spend? Among other things, they hire people (duh). This is called "stimulating" the economy. Now about distributing our taxes dollars far and wide to be mostly lost in a sea of federal bureaucracy? That's called a waste your money and mine. Example: go to your local DMV and see how govt. efficiency works.
Sure Obama wanted a bipartisan bill but he is caught on to the republican's game quick. They wanted it all their way. They weren't going to settle for any amount of spending period. "Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" for the rich is what they want.
Too bad the money wasn't being sent to Iraq. The Repugs could have voted for it without concern for the amount of money or any oversight.
You're correct, John. Not bi-partisan. That's because y'all don't have the spine to try and do something for the American people. What did you want to contribute to the bill? More tax cuts for the rich? Less spending on needed stimulus?
And the little input we got from the 3 Republican Senators only removed productive spending. Nice help.
Funny how now Republicans are bitching about spending money. They had no problem spending a trillion dollars on the illegal war in Iraq. It seems as though killing Iraqis is more important to the repugs than creating American jobs.
Funny how now Republicans are bitching about spending money. They had no problem spending a trillion dollars on the illegal war in Iraq. It seems as though killing Iraqis is more important to the repugs than creating American jobs...skeptical2006
THAT right there IS the question. ask it every time you find yourself being soft on some repub. snap you right out back to reality. i wish there was a two thumbs up option. only way i could agree more would be if jewelry came with it.
Isn't that amazing! The media is so head-over-heels in love for the man that they forget the fact that he was elected in large part due to an anti-war agenda. What happened to that??? And furthermore, why are the left-wingers not screaming about this today???
um, barry, told us all along that he'd get back to the taliban AND look for osama and get him, or have him gotten anyway. i heard him say so more than once. sounded like he meant it, too. you might have been in the can when he said it. i don't know. don't you WANT him to? make up your mind, will you? damned if he don't, no credit due if he does. isn't it just that he musn't succeed because that might make the shrub look even worse? is that possible? doubtful.
The war in Iraq has cost roughly 600 billion to date. Our government, both democrats and republicans did not anticipate that high of a cost before going in. Once in, we couldnt just leave. The war was not premeditated spending. The dems know exactly how much of our money they will be spending, and who they will be paying off. This is premeditated spending of money we do not have. By the end of the year Obama will have spent roughly 2.5 TRILLION compared to 6 years of war for 0.6 trillion. Clear?
let's just say that i prefer what obama is buying with all that money. that you think $600 billion for all that death and destruction, while ignoring the very real and growing need here at home, is somehow the better deal is simply mind boggling. really. consider me boggled.
hobnailrose, I like your comment from a day earlier in this thread better. It is important to defeat the terrorists and it is really expensive to do so. But the alternative is more 911's that will continue to destroy our country. All this spending may destroy our economy any way.
oh, yeah? well, you're gonna love this. the afghan "surge" is where obama and i part company. though he said he'd do it and i didn't like it, no, not one bit, he was still the better choice in the election, a miracle, if you will, and THAT'S coming from an atheist. sometimes, too, one has to take a couple of steps sideways to get ahead, i suppose, though i'd rather it not involve any more warfare. that disappoints me a great deal. but. hey! that's me.
miracles happen all of the time. doesn't mean that any god had anything to do with it and, in fact, the idea cheapens the concept. we aren't on our knees already?
If you haven't got anything to bring to the table beyond crying that you don't get to have it all your own way anymore, then get the fuck out and let the adults handle things.
So the alternative bill that the Republicans that would have created twice the jobs for half the cost isn't bringing anything to the table? All this current "stimulus bill" is about is Democrats waving their pricks around now that they finally have control. They refuse to listen to any opinion that isn't theirs and are doing EXACTLY the same thing now that Obama is president that idiot Republicans did for the first 6 years of the Bush administration. They are rushing this like the Patriot Act
It is clear republicans are aware they are dying and now desperately trying to do anything they can to derail Obama. It is failing the same way every ridiculous gimmick they tried and failed at. This is an angry vengeful hateful spiteful old man, who was humiliated and now humiliates himsel. The partisanship of the GOP in the passage of this bill will enure total dem. control in 2010. Goodbye republican fools...
Speaking of our National debt is not a laughing matter. Calling McCain and the Republican body "Sore Losers" is also bad form. McCain is pointing the finger at the blatant misuse of the term "bipartisan" since every time I hear a Democrat speak on this they use that term.
The problem is that both parties are so violently opposed to one another that neither of them appears to be capable of responsibly handling the trust we place in them to manage our tax dollars.
Naskeleng. Sweets. The pork added to the stimulus which has even proposed to outsourced jobs is exactly like buying your own rape kit. I can't understand how you can look at any politician and declare any political party the basis of ethics and values. I'm angry with McCain for the bailout, the republicans didn't start pushing checks and balances soon enough. Please, do more drugs, keep buying lead induced krap from China and remember Obama will save you.
This is embarrassing!! WE CAN ALL SEE YOU ARE JUST POSITIONING YOURSELF POLITICALLY AND NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT!!! ---JOHN ---JOHN CAN YOU HERE?????
I am so happy he did not win. McCain never made sense and certainly doesn't now. He was the one to say to his fellow republicans to cooperate with the new administration because there was a huge problem to fix. Well, that was a long time ago....several weeks. Maverick? looser.
Republicans Are just to stupid to talk to, it is a waste of time. They know how to shot and how fight. They just can't think. So please let the smart ones run the country ....Don't give up Obama. And yes the republicans shouldn't have the right to vote.
terwal11 6 months ago
@terwal11 Oh yeah - the stimulus worked SO WELL didn't it? It wasn't bipartisan and it was put together behind closed and locked doors, just like Obummercare and every other debacle that's been passed on the hill. Now, they're debating on whether to give this administration MORE money? Jimmy Carter is no longer the worst President in history - Obummer is.
miazagora 6 months ago
@terwal11 your first sentence should read "Republicans are just TOO stupid to talk to"
thejedimaster78 4 months ago
Comment removed
noobmaster31 9 months ago
@noobmaster31 The idiots who voted this disaster named Obama into office should be sent to work on government collective farms in North Dakota along with Michael Moore. He's an empty suit with no real original ideas for "change" and he has NO PLAN. He enjoys the golf and travel and hanging out with celebrities, but he's a lazy butt who hates the work of being President - except for the give-aways to cronies in exhange for buying votes. LOSERS. Ron Paul, 2012!
miazagora 6 months ago
gay cripple
pbmax 11 months ago
Comment removed
pbmax 11 months ago
Cry Baby Son Of A Bitch! The ignorant REPUBLICANS ALL seem to be oblivious to the fact that health insurance costs DOUBLED during George W. Bush's 8 goddamn years! Why the hell aren't they saying anything about the 8 years that G.W. Let health care costs double? Ignorant bastards.
lesueurman 1 year ago
@lesueurman Don't look now, but health insurance has gone up again since Obummer passed his "health care" bill. You are the ignorant one. Obama is THE SAME as Bush, only he's destroyed more in less time! He's the same! He has the same policies! MORE wars! MORE spending! MORE borrowing! MORE of everything that limits freedom! OBAMA AND BUSH ARE THE SAME! YOU are ignorant and apparently choose to remain that way. Really sad.
miazagora 6 months ago
@DavisMrT why would you say something so horrible?
Jessiec97 1 year ago
@Jessiec97 The truth is horrible sometimes. Grow up.
DavisMrT 1 year ago
@DavisMrT I'm saying that just because you dont agree with what they are doing doesnt mean that you should say that they should be lynched, thats just immature and violent
Jessiec97 1 year ago
can you imagine this old goat and bitter sour hearted curmugeon could have won the presidency? This cantankerous old geezer? what a twist old fool he is! Time for you to DIE McCain...
Pisces31660 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America does not even know the difference between a legislation and a bill.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
Heh - Now we all know the real loser in this was the taxpayer. The DEMs rushed the stimulus thru, without reading it, only to HURT recovery and mire us in debt Bush could only dream of.
TY AssClown OweBama & the democrat controlled court jesters of congress
AssHatSockPuppet 1 year ago
@AssHatSockPuppet
If we waited then it'd hurt even more. One has to rush when trying to clean up a rotting mess of eight years. They read it, and approved it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean someone doesn't read it. Nothing will surpass the Bush deficite. Look up the numbers
flonga1 1 year ago
@flonga1 Am with u a 100 % pisses me off!!! How low repulicans went to get back president and give w. Bush a thousand of chances and he fuked up even worse!
but that's ok when Sarah messes up we will see the republicans react to it becuz am sure a lot of angry democrats will give her no room to breathe & revange will be sweet!!!
rippen100 1 year ago
Mccain is SO OLD, that when he orders a three minute egg, they make him pay in advance.
Dancemypantsoff 1 year ago 2
@Dancemypantsoff Mccain is so old he knew mr.clean when he had an Afro!
rippen100 1 year ago
@rippen100 IT's time ti euthenize this old dog!!
Pisces31660 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That 1.175 trillion dollars is what they spend on the DoD in a single year in discretionary funds.
The department of defense consumes a full 56% of our federal government's solvent financial resources in total EACH AND EVERY YEAR.
The majority of that money is funneled to defense contractor company's that soak up profits like a sponge soaks up republican drool.
It's only when someone wants to spend money on improving America that republicans have an issue.
Slipfeed 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Slipfeed 1 year ago
As for international influence, I disagree. For one, you downplay the recession as a 'short-term economic trough'. Secondly, China's currency is pegged to the dollar. Our economy directly affects theirs. The reason for this is that China keeps the price of their goods down so maintain incredibly high exports and they export a hell of a lot to the US. The loss of international influence happens when our economy is no longer the most profitable in the world and people stop using the dollar.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne @whalenbrowne China needs to export. They have over 1 Billion mouths to feed. if they cannot keep their exports pumping then they run an enormous risk of starving the entire nation. The scale of projects that China needs to endeavor upon to maintain sustainability is enormous.
gorrellp 1 year ago
"We still have yet to spend half of the last stimulus, so I can hardly see justifying a new one".
Well, the justification for a new one comes from the benefits of the last one. Even though not all have spent it, which doesn't mean it isnt working, it has already done a lot of good according to 77% of economists. We saw a jump in the stock market which no one talked about. It is the politicians who need to spend it, and a lot of them have used it to do a lot of good.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne You're right! The same republicans that denounced it have been spending it and taking credit for it!
FURepublicans 1 year ago
"there is even some research showing a negative multiplier leading to a drop in GDP in the long run.." Who have you been talking about who can estimate inflation and deficit spending accurately? Firstly, we are in a recession, a drop in GDP isn't surprising. I personally don't believe this is caused by a stimulus in any way. Putting that money into the economy will have positive effects almost anywhere you put it. What we really need to do is get people spending more money.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
It's estimated by people with PhD's in econ that 1$ in food stamps creates $1.73 in stimulus. Infrastructure creates $1.59, and tax cuts only generate $1.03 .
"You risk being out of the recessionary trough before the stimulus money is actually released."
The money gets out quickly, but it takes a few years before it has had time to be distributed and spent. We won't be in the clear by then because the recession won't just go away. On its own, it will last longer than a few years.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne go maddow!
gorrellp 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Fuck those elytyst idiots. Glen Beck is smarter than any colege graduit.
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
@SirPwn4lot
LOL.
flonga1 1 year ago
Greenspan was so against regulation that he wouldn't even pursue fraud. He believed the market would work it out, but it didn't.
I would tend to agree with Krugman, we should do another stimulus. Some people also think that we are out of the worst and ready to recover. Others would tell you the worst is yet to come and some even think we will see hyper inflation, while admitting it is a matter of consumer confidence. Wouldn't telling us we will see hyperinflation be counter-productive then?
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
A good discussion unlike many on here, but I disagree for a few reason: 1. Keynesian style stimulus relies on the idea that government spending has a multiplier effect. That is, Uncle Sugar gives you money that you pay to employees that they spend to buy things that the seller then spends and on and on. Thus, $1 adds for more to the economy. However, is not very clear that the multiplier is >1. Krugman and Christine Romer think so, but many respected (Nobel type) economists disagree.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
1 Cont. Without a PhD in the right sub-field of economics and a lot of research, I cannot tell you who is correct, but it is a point of important and legitimate contention. Before you could justify another stimulus, I think you would have the burden of empirically showing the multiplier was >1 for the last stimulus. There is even some research showing a negative multiplier leading to a drop in GDP in the long run when deficit spending, increased taxes, and inflation are factored in.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
2. Even if the multiplier is >1 (a bit if), there is the question of timeliness/responsiveness. A stimulus by its nature is a short term endeavor. Government spending packages take a long time to pass into law, and even longer to implement. You risk being out of the recessionary trough before the stimulus money is actually released. We still have yet to spend half of the last stimulus, so I can hardly see justifying a new one.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
3. The recent stimulus invested a great deal of money in areas that were not comparatively hard hit by the recession, but fit pet projects. These areas might be noble and important (education, alternate energy, healthcare), but they diminish the multiplier effect by increasing pay of those already in the field and crowd out private sector spending instead of maximizing new job creation. You can sell it as worthy, but dont see it as a stimulus.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
4. I also worry about the affects of our borrowing on international relations, and think that will have a greater long-term impact on the nation than a short-term economic trough. With every dollar we lend to China, we lose international influence and power. From a liberal perspective, it means we have less leverage to make positive progress in human rights and construct a beneficial trade policy. From a realist perspective, we lose long-term power over a future great power peer competitor.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
Look up 'The Warning - Frontline' for a good video on the topic of derivatives.
I won't argue with the Fannie and Freddie thing. Trying to pin that on the democrats isn't realistic either though. Both Dems and Reps tried to keep the housing bubble going because of the short term returns. It should have been handled cautiously, not simply crashed like the free marketeers wanted.
I thought you meant running in the black as in no economic transparency, which greenspan supported.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
This recession was caused in part by the housing bubble and "over the counter" derivatives. That is what you call 'running in the black'. It is extremely dangerous, which is why it backfired. Trillions of dollars invested with no accountability or any evidence whatsoever of the money. No proof of transactions, etc. Fraud was rampant and Greenspan, the free market paragon, denounced regulation. Afterwards he was confronted about it and admitted that the free market idea was WRONG.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
By running in the black, I mean receipts that exceed expenditures. I don't think that hurt us too badly in the Clinton years.
Greenspan made another mistake. He kept interest rates too low, encouraging poor lending and borrowing projects. For years, it has been a mark of success of both parties that more people owned homes at the end of their administrations than the beginning. That is wrong. Not everyone should own a home.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
McCain called for comprehensive reform of corruption at Fannie and Freddie for years. Greenspan called for serious reforms since 2003. The most vocal opposition to reform has been Barney Frank. When the Senate banking committee purposed Fannie/Freddie reform in 2005, every Democrat on the committee opposed it. Obama was silent. Fannie/Freddie were the largest buyers of sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages. They arent fully responsible for the mess, but share a huge share of blame.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
To reduce the deficit we have to PAY it off. Now what are we going to pay it off with if the economy is shot? Its more important to get out of recession now than to pay off a deficit. We need to fix it so we CAN pay it off. Its hilarious that you guys start clamoring for paying off the deficit right when the economy tanks, the worst time.
Would you spend all your money paying off debts when you don't have enough to do so? Or, would you try to make money so you CAN pay it off?
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
Has no one ever heard the expression "You have to spend money to make money". All Obama is doing with a stimulus is investing the money in our economy. Certain areas, like infrastructure, are KNOWN to have high returns of 40-60%.
You're trying to say all those presidents were bad because they had a deficit? You need to learn more about international economy, my friend.
You don't reduce the deficit by spending less, it would just stay the same (except w/ inflation).
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
1. The point is not that those presidents were bad, but that no single president created the debt, as an earlier poster implied.
2. Modest infrastructure spending might have returns. There is nothing modest about this level of spending, nor is a great part of it going to infrastructure with the intent of growth. It is a free for all for pet projects.
3. You could (as Clinton did) run the economy in the black. If it is black enough, you can pay down the debt, or at least interest.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
For those who keep saying that the government must spend money to get the economy going remember that the money the government spends must come out of the economy first and the gov takes a lil to burn in the process
Illumified 1 year ago
Yes, and there is a transaction cost in government collection of the money, meaning it may have less value than it did before collection, in the market.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
Okay, sure, but then it works like any other investment, increasing in value (when invested correctly). The real point is that our economy is suffering from lack of demand. Both tax cuts and stimulus inject money into the economy, inevitably causing more spending and saving or creating jobs (getting more money to the consumer yet again).
"Modest infrastructure spending might have returns."
No, it DOES, as in fact. The amount of spending is as required by our recession.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
"The amount of spending is as required by our recession."
Is that your economic professional opinion? Krugman thinks we need to spend twice what we are. Becker thinks we are spending far more than we need. I'll grant you that there is room for disagreement, but that is where we are will most likley part ways - a difference of prudential judgement.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@MascisMan1
Where did you get this incredible wisdom? We should call a recall on all economics books because they must be wrong. We also must fire all those economists who say that you can, in fact, help the economy by spending money. How absurd!
We should elect you president, as you seem to know so much about the economy.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
Hmmm...there is an entire school in economics that would beg to differ in Chicago, and they seem to hold the majority of Nobles for each of the past several decades. Krugman's neo-Keynesians are not the only economic school out there.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
Milton Friedman and his supply side economics have been debunked once again by recent events. Wealth never trickles down. Their philosophy is a fraud and a cover for the neo robber barons.
kpominville 1 year ago
You again seem a bit confused. Milton Friedman's principle contribution was monetarism, centered on the idea of a slow, moderate increase in the money supply. Mundell and Laffer were the fathers of supply side, which is not a key component of the Chicago School. Of course, I suppose you do not think that excessively low interest rates or the fact that the government encouraged home loans to those in no financial condition to pay for them had anything to do with the financial crisis?
FAHayek89 1 year ago
You cannot get out of debt by without spending money. This idea that we can repair our economy by stopping the government from spending any money is not only ignorant, its dangerous.
kpominville 2 years ago
OHDUMBA A TOTAL 0
LEWFROST2 2 years ago
Yes, how ignorant. Reduce the debt by reducing the deficit. Reduce the deficit by spending less. That is just crazy talk.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
You obviously have no idea what the difference is between the budget deficit and the trade deficit (national debt).
kpominville 1 year ago
So many lessons and so little time. The trade deficit is not the national debt. The trade deficit refers to negative balance of trade between the US and the rest of the global market. The budget deficit refers to expenditure over receipt for a given year, and the national debt is the sum amount owed by the federal government (and is a total of annual deficits and surpluses over time with interest). The trade deficit is related to the national debt, but not identical to it or the budget deficit.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
You can not reduce debt by spending more. This is basic fact. It makes complete logical sense. Obama needs to listen to Dave Ramsey. All of this spending is ridiculous.
MascisMan1 2 years ago
Hoover got America out of the depression then?
redface626 1 year ago
World War II got us out of the depression. Economic conditions actually got worse between implementation of the new deal and entrance into the war, though contrary to Americans' simplistic views of history, Hoover was also responsible for major spending increases. They were bad economics when he did them, bad when Roosevelt increased them, and bad now.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
What is a war except a massive government spending program?
You have no clue what you are talking about.
kpominville 1 year ago
John Mccain said he could not debate with Barrack Obama because he had to to rush to Washington to pass the Bankers Bailout Bill =D Mccain is fraud.
RiktigPolitik 2 years ago 2
THis asshole is WHY the rethugnicant party is DEAD
jst2k09 2 years ago
This was bipartisan, Obama reached out to the Republicans, they HAVE REFUSED to be open something different. The argument from them is the same,"we need to cut taxes and cut spending, that is the solution to the problem." Sorry, what are tax cuts going to do when people are out of work and not paying taxes. I live in AZ and unemployment will hir 9 % or more. The extra money I am getting in my UI checks from the bill is helping. Shame on you McCain and the Republicans.
danka2000 2 years ago
You are an idiot. That "check" you receive is money this country doesn't have to spend...which is the entire point...people want shit for free, so they vote into office a man willing to run this country into even greater debt so that people like danka2000 can get their checks.
Nater389 2 years ago
BUSH got this country in debt with his useless "war on terror" you ignorant asshole
jst2k09 2 years ago
I'm talking about the stimulus package and the money being created out of thin air. You seem to busy blaming things of the past. Who is ignorant? Try living in the now.
Nater389 2 years ago
BUSH got us in this mess fool. You republicans sicken me with your blatant hypocricy
jst2k09 2 years ago
Except 1998-2001, the U.S. ran a deficit every year since 1969 and all but 13 years since 1931. We have had a debt every year except for one year of Andrew Jacksons administration. No. George Bush did not get this country in debt. He did increase the debt by inexcusable amounts. With that said, Obamas increases make Bushs pale in comparison. In his first year, Obama quadrupled the deficit to a CBO estimate of $1.85 trillion -- four time Bushs worst! But why bother with facts.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
What facts? You are either a liar or just ignorant. The budget during Obama's first year was created by Bush during his last year, which means it was Bush who tripled the deficit, NOT Obama. Google "fiscal calendar year" before you embarrass yourself any more.
kpominville 1 year ago
Actually, I was noting to the CBO estimates for Obama's first budget. Thank for playing though.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
Actually I'm not an idiot. History has shown, the abpoway you take on deep recessions with government action. Government is the only entity with the wherethal that can prop up demand in an economy. Who cares about the de taxbt. It is bad yes, but as long as I pay my taxes to the IRS, I can care less. Sorry your wrong and I'm right.
danka2000 2 years ago
This statement has more misspellings than any I have ever seen on you tube. It reads like gibberish.
huckstered 2 years ago
You are the idiot! People have a need
for this stuff, you have no humanity. It isn't free it is insurance, not welfare. You are what is wrong with the right.
R.I.P. republicans, you have no leadership and stand for nothing except greed. Put your social security acct. into the stock market and when you turn 65 refuse medicare and may you work for minimum wage.
huckstered 2 years ago
His conclusions are unsound and more than a little hypocritical. It takes money to make money. Unfortunately, Republicans spent all their decades in power making sure the rich got all the loot at the expense of the middle class and small businesses, those people that Republicans claim to represent. The only one left with money to spend to make money in this economy is the government.
Not because they have it, but because what bill collector is going to knock on the door of a nuclear power?
variablelight 2 years ago
Regardless, he has proved that the stimulus bill was not a bipartisan effort.
GohModley 2 years ago
You can't have bipartisanship when one side is willing to compromise and the other side won't give up anything at all. And John McCain is a big reason why it wasn't bipartisan.
Republicans in Congress have this curious ability to not realize *they lost.* With every other election, the "loser" realized "hey, it's time to compromise, the voters have spoken." That's part of Democracy too.
But then I guess Republicans aren't interested in that.
variablelight 2 years ago
So don't call it bipartisan then. That's what McCain is saying.
GohModley 2 years ago
The only ones whining about bipartisanship are Republicans mad that they aren't getting their way. That's what he is really saying.
variablelight 2 years ago
That's what the opposition party is supposed to do. Especially, when a bill is opposed to their political philosophy.
GohModley 2 years ago
No, the opposition party isn't supposed to lie, but I know they're used to it.
variablelight 2 years ago 2
What did McCain lie about? You seem rather partisan.
GohModley 2 years ago
The only people mentioning bipartisanship were Republicans crying that "there's no bipartisanship!" because the Democrats didn't give in completely.
Bipartisanship implies reasonableness and compromise. McCain tried to paint the Republicans as the reasonable ones with his statements here.
How can they be the reasonable ones when they vote completely against anything that doesn't include absolutely everything they want? Note that they got several things they said they wanted.
variablelight 2 years ago
Partisanship? Hell it is just common sense. McCain is a good man-
he just lacks political ethics. He lost his shirt to a virtual Washington outsider.
What happened? Republican platform
collapse. No leadership, they don.t stand
for anything. They better re-group in a hurry and bring some leadership with them.
huckstered 2 years ago
he's a warmonger. how can you call him a good man.
korencek 2 years ago
Well, I call him that because of his war service, in a Nam' prison he let another guy go free before him that was in line to go. Because McCain's dad was a Navy Admiral they were going to give him preferential treatment and let John loose first. John stayed imprisoned for 7 years - I believe. His politics are unethical bordering on immoral. He was mised with the Keating 7 scandal of the eighties. His senate voting record is rotten.
huckstered 2 years ago
Political philosophy, republicans ?
It would be like giving a marriage licensce to an alley cat. They stand for nothing except corporate greed. I guess you can't see it. How else could Obama have won by that margin? He faces a nearly impossile task
bringing the counrty back into prosperity.
Bush foreign policies were the nails for the coffin. Where is elder statesman
Bush now? Removing his foot. The worst
president ever, I am listening for impeachment proceedings.
huckstered 2 years ago 2
the worse president ever? you must be a presidential historian with a broad knowledge of the administrations of each of our presidents dating back to Washington. Give us your analysis for the Fillmore adminstration if you would.
GohModley 2 years ago
The individual judgement of Presidents past is to be taken as whole
not on an individual basis -as in voting.
Besides being so unpopular(20 % approval rating) as to merit McCain completely distancing himself ,
the no WMD in Iraq, flat taxe cuts- for the most priveleged etc.. However Hoover was worse. Not to mention veto of windfall oil profits, are you blind?
LBJ is my focus.
huckstered 2 years ago
Like I figured. You know nothing of the Fillmore administration. Yer a Left-Wing fraud. A sheep, no better than the Right-Wingers who slobber over Palin. Hurry, go run to Wikipedia so you can dig up something about Fillmore so you can save face you nigger-lover butt plug. Also, yer a booger brain with -9 hitpoints.
GohModley 2 years ago
Your eloquence astonishes. Such a great economy with words. Such profundity, you are the true definition of
erudition. I am sure all are waiting
breathlessly for your next statement.
You ever heard of the word obtuse or
tangential?
huckstered 2 years ago
Your response proves that a thesaurus inserted anally can in fact absorb synonyms into one's vocabulary.
GohModley 2 years ago
Your only retort is profanity . It is exactly like physical bluster the last resort of a person of low intelligence. You must be speechless. Such drivel
is useless. There is no use in trying to
have a dialogue with somone of your mental caliber. Racism, profanity, is that the best
your limited intellect can produce? Your responses have no substance
as your mind has no resources.
huckstered 2 years ago
Sitting round watching the rooms crawl outta yer mamma's pussy.
GohModley 2 years ago
nuh uh!
GohModley 2 years ago
Can you imagine this old douche as president? I didn't vote for Obama, but I am very glad that McCain didn't get near the White House.
badtown88 2 years ago 2
get over your fucking self, mccain, you old bitch!
lifelovingdude21 2 years ago
attention all liberals.... go fuck yourselves
milvern17 2 years ago
attention all conservatives (including you fucktard), in the words of dick cheney: "Go Fuck Yourself!"
lifelovingdude21 2 years ago
hey loinlovingdude69 dont send comments to me without some sore of point. what is a fucktard anyway, dont make up words.
milvern17 2 years ago
Fox was cheer leading for this old man and they did the same for George W. Bush.
mightyblack1 2 years ago 2
The GOP's idea of bi-partisanship is only there way will work. They are a joke. The GOP are a bunch of rich guys for big business that got caught with there hand in the cookie jar too many times and the broke the fucking job. The pork McCain is talking about is more previlant with the GOP than the Dems in congress so he is bitching about his own party. He is a hypocrite and a sore loser.
egrimnes 2 years ago
Let us not forget, mccain has no clue about economics. And remember, bi-partisan has not meant crap to a republican for the past 8 years. So let this little man that he is cry and wine and hope our new pres can fix what was ripped to pieces by people like him.
azzy1965 2 years ago
I'm a Democrat who voted for and still supports President Obama. But what's the problem with McCain here? None of his facts are wrong, and his conclusions are thus sound. I want this stimulus to work, for the economic welfare of the country, but I am also concerned about the ramifications if it doesn't. He's right it's not "bi-partisan" and the future of either party will be hurt either way.
Jesterswords 2 years ago
sore sore loser.
seriously McCain, get over it
mgsmgs2 2 years ago
damn that sore loser mccain for wanting obama to keep his promises, i mean who does he think obama is, the president of the united states?
redsoxx2424 2 years ago
DUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
lifelovingdude21 2 years ago
Wow...what idiot made this video.McCain is a good sport. He doesn't agree with the stimulus. Is that like blasphemy? Should we not question our president and the money being spent. Our children's money,
scscruzer 2 years ago
I think its funny that people look at bush and then McCain and say they even like each other. If anyone did any research on the candidates, they'd find that McCain probably hates bush more than a lot of people. McCain should have been the president in 2000, but bush threw a lot of political mud at McCain, so for McCain to even have a chance, he had to kiss up to the other republicans to even get another shot. McCain would of been the better choice, All Obama is is a commie like every other Dem.
VonDelacroix 2 years ago
No Gore should have been the president in 2000... BUSH did not win by popular vote.... Bush/McCain are both idiots.... All of you Rep. are brian washed. Again, why didn't any of you stop the BullS*** spending on a fake A** war!!!!!! Get over it.... YOU LOST!!
MarMarMar4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"No Gore should have been the president in 2000"
Talk about angry sore losers and getting over a loss, it's been over ten years. This may be a shock to some, but we do not determine our President by popular vote.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
Why don't this old motherfucker go home and take a nap,oh I forgot this short arms son of a bitch is running for re election in his mind.
mightyblack1 2 years ago
I guess you are blind to the fact that YOUR president has already gone back on his campaign promise, on earmark/pork barrel spending. Welcome to higher taxes, and more government in your wallet. I shall be better off with my money in Gold( and that gold buried in my yard) so it not taxed.
mnnole 2 years ago
Well since your former President fucked every thing up in this country,this brother got his hands full along with the racist hate from the Republicans or should I say Republicons.Like white Presdents dfid lie nor raise taxes,and you name one tax Obama raised that's hurting poor white people.
mightyblack1 2 years ago
yup, typical liberal. when all else fails, play the race card!
redsoxx2424 2 years ago
Redsoxx2424,that's not playing a race card and if it was a race card,that means you and your people own the whole deck of those so call race cards.Remember your playing hating Republicans who sat back and allow Bush to do what he wanted for eight years,sat back like bitches on the rag ,now they want to get tough with Obama with Rush talking points.
mightyblack1 2 years ago
Dirt nap for McCain.
McCain = Bane
Republicans are mean or stupid people.
satanrunspalin 2 years ago
The Repubicans did not want this bill passed because the money will be monitored and they will have a hard time pocketing it themselves. They could care less about the american people. If the Governers or Senators can't get their hands on some of the money they don't want it.
alibri85 2 years ago
John McCain go take your dirt nap. You are an opportunist who defies the true call of duty which is to help America become a stronger Nation.
John McCain is working for only richest Americans. The richest Americans don't use youtube. They make industrial and financial plans that dwarf the assholes using this site.
satanrunspalin 2 years ago
Why isn't this bipartisan? Because the republicans are hedging their bets that this will fail. And if the economy turns around they are going to be in SERIOUS trouble come next time they are facing elections. They will be seen as the party that tried to stop America from being economically ruined.
ppcpunk 2 years ago
Is McCain trying to dance? Whats the name of that one, The bop or the wobble?come on soldierboy annotate that for the record.
Bigtruck2007 2 years ago
John McCain you need to step down. You are an old washed-up fart. There no merit to what you say. Your ideas are defunct. You and you idea to help only the richest 1% of Americans and the Profit Objectives of the Fortune 500 is ugly at best.
Choice and Competition-The Republican Party platform is NOT based on the principles of Meritocracy. They are based on Plutocratic Cronyism.
The Republican Party should be tried for Treason.
satanrunspalin 2 years ago
Except Ron Paul, he's awesome.
seestickglue232 2 years ago
You tree hugging fat - pig....what do you do for a living? Collect subsideies from the rest of us? Get out of this country. It is the republicans that keeps this country free. Last budget the republicans had control of was 2007...obama's budget features 11 times the deficit...while talking about fiscal responsibility...
pokerpimp21 2 years ago
pokerpimp21-You are either mean or stupid.
Republicans have ripped off this Nation in such a way that the socioeconomic divide is fastly resembling Latin America.
Innovation comes from the middle class. If there is no middle class there will be no innovation. Look at Mexico, aside TV what major scientific contribution has come from there?
Your thought are irrational.
satanrunspalin 2 years ago
First off, fuck you bitch, I'm 150 lbs 5'9" so i'm definitely not fat..And I'm a college student right now trying to get by like everyone else. It is the republicans that are raping this country, just like they've raped your mind into incompetence. Ron Paul is a republican, so I don't see what you're getting so butt hurt about. He was obviously the better candidate (ron paul or cryptkeeper john mccain? hmm..).
Go play poker for money, since you're too stupid to spell your name for mcdonalds.
seestickglue232 2 years ago
LET ME BE CLEAR - LEFTIST DEMAGOGUE'S LIKE OBAMA SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON FOR CONSISTENTLY LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! Oh but you people don't want to hear that do you? Cuz you're all mindless atomatons with no desire to understand the truth.
pokerpimp21 2 years ago
pokerpimp 21-
Republicans pushed for The Commodity Modernization Act of 2000. Phil Graham was the front man on this move.
This Act allowed banks and all financial institutions to place bets on investments in the form of insurance policies thereby creating a way to generate commission oriented profits for the sale of these empty insurance policies with out regulation by the SEC.
This market is $45 trillion USD worldwide that was false listed on the books as money. The correction will be pain.
satanrunspalin 2 years ago
Do a search on youtube for 2nd american revolution for a video by illchemist. Thats what I mean by scary and its getting out of hand.
usmc1048 2 years ago
If Democrats dont watch it they will end up starting a war. This mess is getting scary.
usmc1048 2 years ago
When your party effs up the country for 8 years and runs it into the ground, you need to stfu and stop causing trouble when others have to clean up your mess. I mean do these guys realize they lost?
I understand it's hard to transition out of power but America broke up with the Republicans, they need to stop talking smack about America's new partner.and driving around our house shouting crazy things at us all night.
vikingaprinsessan 2 years ago
You people honestly think Obama has your best interests in mind, come on stimulus, acorn getting money and they were registering dead people and cartoon figures, convicted voter fraud and nothing happened now they get money, Obama crooks. sod for the mall of America what job does that create. There are already people who do that. Wake up Democrat's your getting scammed and you think its good for you, weak minded fools....
shadone11 2 years ago
This is not bipartisan!!! Way to go genius, did you figure that out by your self? Or an aid had to explain that to you Mr McCain? Spending money to re-build America is just insane, right John? I got some thing you will like, how about we go invade Iran? at a cost of one trillion dollars a year? I bet you and your Republicans would Love that.
Stop pouting like little girls.
UFCaz 2 years ago
politics fuck people up in the head, before his campaign john wasnt even that much of republican, now look at him! what a dickhead
H3Vtux 2 years ago
People the point is not that republicans used to spend money, the point is that now the democrats are spending money, it doesn't matter republican or democrat, they will waste your money. mccain is right on not supporting the stimulus
dollarisdead 2 years ago 2
At 2:30 Sen. McCain claims its a moment in spending the likes of which this nation has never seen. Well first of all, the national debt went from 4.5 trillion to 9 trillion during W Bush's tenure, so McCain's memory may have some gaps there. Secondly, when you are really sick, you tend to spend more money to get better, than you spent having a good time.
nonsuchfabio 2 years ago
Go home old man....... your day is through.
uncannyb 2 years ago
Sen. McCain is doing is job: representing his constituents and standing tall for his beliefs...and facts. Well-planned tax cuts motivate businesses to spend. What happens when businesses spend? Among other things, they hire people (duh). This is called "stimulating" the economy. Now about distributing our taxes dollars far and wide to be mostly lost in a sea of federal bureaucracy? That's called a waste your money and mine. Example: go to your local DMV and see how govt. efficiency works.
kayhaus1 2 years ago 2
Sure Obama wanted a bipartisan bill but he is caught on to the republican's game quick. They wanted it all their way. They weren't going to settle for any amount of spending period. "Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" for the rich is what they want.
luvobamas 2 years ago
Too bad the money wasn't being sent to Iraq. The Repugs could have voted for it without concern for the amount of money or any oversight.
You're correct, John. Not bi-partisan. That's because y'all don't have the spine to try and do something for the American people. What did you want to contribute to the bill? More tax cuts for the rich? Less spending on needed stimulus?
And the little input we got from the 3 Republican Senators only removed productive spending. Nice help.
bgbreakdown 2 years ago
McCain : Sore loser !!!!
frontdoor1208 2 years ago
to the person who posted this
fuck you
fedorvonbock16 2 years ago
tO U FEDOR-"fuk You"on behalf of every American that see's this man for the scum he is....vvote this bastard out of office!
McCainThedivider 2 years ago
Funny how now Republicans are bitching about spending money. They had no problem spending a trillion dollars on the illegal war in Iraq. It seems as though killing Iraqis is more important to the repugs than creating American jobs.
skeptical2006 2 years ago 2
what a moronic statement
Swinganamiss 2 years ago
Funny how now Republicans are bitching about spending money. They had no problem spending a trillion dollars on the illegal war in Iraq. It seems as though killing Iraqis is more important to the repugs than creating American jobs...skeptical2006
THAT right there IS the question. ask it every time you find yourself being soft on some repub. snap you right out back to reality. i wish there was a two thumbs up option. only way i could agree more would be if jewelry came with it.
hobnailrose 2 years ago
Under the cover of the pork bill, barry has increased deployment to afghanistan by 17000. Hopey Changy?
cafelattefuture 2 years ago 2
Isn't that amazing! The media is so head-over-heels in love for the man that they forget the fact that he was elected in large part due to an anti-war agenda. What happened to that??? And furthermore, why are the left-wingers not screaming about this today???
BECAUSE THEY JUST GOT THEIR MONEY.
kayhaus1 2 years ago 2
um, barry, told us all along that he'd get back to the taliban AND look for osama and get him, or have him gotten anyway. i heard him say so more than once. sounded like he meant it, too. you might have been in the can when he said it. i don't know. don't you WANT him to? make up your mind, will you? damned if he don't, no credit due if he does. isn't it just that he musn't succeed because that might make the shrub look even worse? is that possible? doubtful.
hobnailrose 2 years ago
I do hope and pray that this President has some success with his surge on the war on terror.
CPAsheldon 2 years ago
The war in Iraq has cost roughly 600 billion to date. Our government, both democrats and republicans did not anticipate that high of a cost before going in. Once in, we couldnt just leave. The war was not premeditated spending. The dems know exactly how much of our money they will be spending, and who they will be paying off. This is premeditated spending of money we do not have. By the end of the year Obama will have spent roughly 2.5 TRILLION compared to 6 years of war for 0.6 trillion. Clear?
tater686 2 years ago
let's just say that i prefer what obama is buying with all that money. that you think $600 billion for all that death and destruction, while ignoring the very real and growing need here at home, is somehow the better deal is simply mind boggling. really. consider me boggled.
hobnailrose 2 years ago
hobnailrose, I like your comment from a day earlier in this thread better. It is important to defeat the terrorists and it is really expensive to do so. But the alternative is more 911's that will continue to destroy our country. All this spending may destroy our economy any way.
CPAsheldon 2 years ago
oh, yeah? well, you're gonna love this. the afghan "surge" is where obama and i part company. though he said he'd do it and i didn't like it, no, not one bit, he was still the better choice in the election, a miracle, if you will, and THAT'S coming from an atheist. sometimes, too, one has to take a couple of steps sideways to get ahead, i suppose, though i'd rather it not involve any more warfare. that disappoints me a great deal. but. hey! that's me.
hobnailrose 2 years ago
I am glad you believe in miracles as it seems we need many in our country right now! What else will bring us to our knees?
CPAsheldon 2 years ago
miracles happen all of the time. doesn't mean that any god had anything to do with it and, in fact, the idea cheapens the concept. we aren't on our knees already?
hobnailrose 2 years ago
Hey, republicans:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If you haven't got anything to bring to the table beyond crying that you don't get to have it all your own way anymore, then get the fuck out and let the adults handle things.
JDorsey2001 2 years ago 6
So the alternative bill that the Republicans that would have created twice the jobs for half the cost isn't bringing anything to the table? All this current "stimulus bill" is about is Democrats waving their pricks around now that they finally have control. They refuse to listen to any opinion that isn't theirs and are doing EXACTLY the same thing now that Obama is president that idiot Republicans did for the first 6 years of the Bush administration. They are rushing this like the Patriot Act
goisles 2 years ago
They seem to think that they should be boss of everyone and everything no matter what. Elections matter. They will learn. Or not...
bgbreakdown 2 years ago 2
It is clear republicans are aware they are dying and now desperately trying to do anything they can to derail Obama. It is failing the same way every ridiculous gimmick they tried and failed at. This is an angry vengeful hateful spiteful old man, who was humiliated and now humiliates himsel. The partisanship of the GOP in the passage of this bill will enure total dem. control in 2010. Goodbye republican fools...
suburbanboa 3 years ago 5
Republicans and Democrats SUCK!!!!!
swaneeusa3 3 years ago
OLD RAG!!!!!!!!!! stop it. The black man Barack Husein Obama is ur president. U ow him Respect. On ur knees BITCH lol
Yaelyy 3 years ago
Speaking of our National debt is not a laughing matter. Calling McCain and the Republican body "Sore Losers" is also bad form. McCain is pointing the finger at the blatant misuse of the term "bipartisan" since every time I hear a Democrat speak on this they use that term.
The problem is that both parties are so violently opposed to one another that neither of them appears to be capable of responsibly handling the trust we place in them to manage our tax dollars.
nwstraith 3 years ago
Well, McCain finally got something right.
bizfixer 3 years ago
Naskeleng. Sweets. The pork added to the stimulus which has even proposed to outsourced jobs is exactly like buying your own rape kit. I can't understand how you can look at any politician and declare any political party the basis of ethics and values. I'm angry with McCain for the bailout, the republicans didn't start pushing checks and balances soon enough. Please, do more drugs, keep buying lead induced krap from China and remember Obama will save you.
therealcaptobvious 3 years ago
republicans are racists.
quest8899 3 years ago
SORE LOSER buwahahahahaa!
DPOS09 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bush used SCARE TACTICS then WASTED $350 BILLION of your money giving it to FAILED BANKS and rebates but NOTHING HAPPENED!
Now Obama uses SCARE TACTICS and wants to WASTE $850 BILLION MORE giving $5.2B to ACORN, $50M for Art, $126M for afterschool snacks?? WTF?
Why not give money to people directly instead? Each Family would receive over $20K wouldn't THAT be a BETTER?
Too bad YOU"LL NEVER see this money but your GRANDKIDS GET TO PAY FOR IT!
SPENDING $850B is FUCKING RETARDED!ee
NewChristianSoldiers 3 years ago
im saying that mccain is 100% right on this issue
msuperboy 3 years ago
Yes John ..l. I have a statistic for you---If you keep 30% of the public illiterate you will get 30% support!
goodintentguy 3 years ago
This is embarrassing!! WE CAN ALL SEE YOU ARE JUST POSITIONING YOURSELF POLITICALLY AND NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT!!! ---JOHN ---JOHN CAN YOU HERE?????
goodintentguy 3 years ago 2
i agree with mccain
Dunkit2323 3 years ago
I am so happy he did not win. McCain never made sense and certainly doesn't now. He was the one to say to his fellow republicans to cooperate with the new administration because there was a huge problem to fix. Well, that was a long time ago....several weeks. Maverick? looser.
63joel 3 years ago