Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Well, it seems Obama took his lesson from Bushie, 'cause I mean, he's the original master of the "direct rebate", yes?

Here - elect me, and I'll give you some money - only, I'm not gonna tell you it's really your money to begin with - I'll just make it seem like Uncle Sam's being generous.

So yeah, Obama's amount is the same as Bushie's, his was either 300 bucks or 600 bucks, and I mean, Hillary's got the same thing going too, right? So, let's see, do I hear 800? 850? How about a thousand?

You know, the terrible thing about "economic stimulus", is that the people being stimulated, are over in China. When 'Mericans get a windfall like that, what do we do? Yep, you guessed it - straight to Circuit City, or Wal-Mart, or any of Chairman Hu's other retail outlets.

So, I mean, further drain out of US coffers and into Chinese banks. Brilliant - simply brilliant. And I mean, you know, it takes a Dem to latch on to a stupid Republican idea, right?

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22637891/



And this money is coming from where ????

Just more spend spend spend from the government. Whether republican or democrat, all you hear is promises of spending money without anyway to pay for it. Wasn't Obama a Paygo guy?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/


Geez, the guy isn't even elected yet and he is breaking campaign promises.

Originally Posted by Zoe

Isn't there more involved than taxing and spending? There is also monetary policy. Really low interest rates created a false sense of security and "wealth" that has now popped. It was a destructive feel-good monetary policy that persuaded people to spend more than they could afford. Isn't it amusing: Americans have never been in a poorer condition with respect to saving $ for the future, yet those who govern fiscal and monetary policy will throw money from planes, if necessary, to persuade Americans to spend, spend, spend...it really does not matter which person becomes Pres. in that regard. Personally, I would prefer Fed. debt accumulation to be the result of money spent on U.S. interests (infrastructure, education, energy independence) rather than that of cement factories in Iraq (down the drain) but rest assured that money will be spent. I favor Dems because they are more likely to spend HERE than throw it away in pursuit of vague imperial ambitions THERE.

Meanwhile, Bush has promised to sell weapons to various Mid east countries to persuade them to continue to price oil in dollars in spite of the inflation they must endure (10%) - or so I am guessing there is some kind of quid pro quo.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

"The only real fiscal conservative is Ron Paul."

Paul isn't a fiscal conservative. He's a tinfoil hatted libertarian who doesn't believe in government funding of anything, like roads and schools. Please. Like that would work in this day and age.

Originally Posted by stekim

Gridlock was the sole reason I voted Democrat for U.S. Rep and Senate the last time out. The fact is, there was no one I could vote for from either party that would cut spending if given the power. The Democrat never will. And the GOP proved they couldn't do it. So my only option was to vote gridlock. The Democrats HAD to take Congress.

I will be voting gridlock again this time out. No matter who looks to win the Presidency, I'm voting the other party into Congress. Since they won't do it, we have to. Four years of them fighting it out is way better than 4 years of hugging and spending.