Hmm...interesting. Why weren't you bitching when Bush and Paulson pushed a $850 billion bill using threats of "martial law", fearmongering, and panic of a near economic meltdown. The original was $700 billion, but another $150 billion of porkbarrel spending was tacked on in the panic and hype of passing that bill. Where were your complaints then? That "bailout" didn't go towards helping the economy, instead it went to paying off foreign investors and buying back bad debt. No oversight and no complaints from the peanut gallery.

I don't support this new bailout cause like the last one it doesn't address the real problems. I don't agree with some of Obama's decisions or policies either. But the constant bitching and nitpicking by you rightwing nuts is getting old. When Bush was in the white house he could do no wrong (I actually got nauseas saying that), now its someone you don't like so you bitch and complain over every damn thing. Obama is the president, GET OVER IT.

 

I thought Obama was going to be the president of hope and change and be a stark contrast to the politics of fear, atleast that is what he said and promised. Bush never said anything close to that. So I think most people are complaining about this inconsistnecy of Obama's campaign rhetoric with his politcal posturing.

The first bailout was constucted by a Democratically controlled congress and they should bear as mush blame as Bush for the first bailout. But I dont remember anyone saying that Bush can do no wrong. In fact, I remember him be critisized for everything that people disagreed with. It is only fair that the same critical thought is applied to Obama's decisions.

 

Lets consider the negative consequences along with the positive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg3gC...eature=related

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/

The nonpartisan Congessional Budget Office projects that the bill will produce short term growth before the next congressional elections (2 years), then have a negative long term effect. No wonder the democrats think that it is such a great idea.

 

An opinion piece from a professor of economics at Stanford University:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

 

Contrasting Obama's budget with the GOP version:

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/20..._obama_budget/

(opinion piece)

 

Yeah - there's a huge contrast...

But the GOP's budget gives very little detail as to what current projects or departments will be axed. Because there are very little details involved in their "budget".

It's more like an "idea" of what they could spend and how they could achieve the numbers in collecting it. But doesn't cover much of where that $trillion-less budget money would go...

 

You are right, the GOP budget is merely an outline of what they would do - tax cuts and less spending. More details will emerge in the coming days and weeks. But its not really the job of the GOP to produce a detailed budget when the democrats have control of congress and the white house.

 

Perhaps, so I guess it means nothing - it's all smoke and mirrors then. Political grandstanding at best...

There's an old saying in the Army - the best laid plans are nearly torn asunder in the fist shot of a battle...

 

Also one caveat...

Back during the Clinton admin, I was highly peeved that he raised our taxes 6%. But I had to admit I didn't feel it all that much (since the Army gave a 3.2% yearly inflationary raise across the board).

And the budget was balanced.