Wednesday, January 28, 2009

More and More and More Debt

If all families were asked to equally shoulder the burden of the $825 billion “stimulus” package, it would be like asking them to take on an amount of debt equivalent to what they spend on food, clothing, and health care — or most of what they spend on shelter — for an entire year.
No wonder Malkin refers to this as the "intergenerational theft plan."
Bad enough that Social Security/Medicare are a $450Trillion deadweight (yet to be funded.) Now Dave Obey and his merry band of spend-a-holics add another trillion.
But that's hardly all. More than 30% of the "plan" is Additional Gummint Programs, which as we all know, never go away. Never.
Proud of what you're handing on to your children, and their children?


Unknown said...

Where were you when Bush was doing his record-setting number on the national debt and federal deficit? At least this spending spree is something we genuinely have to do--unless we want to slog through a ten year economic recession.

Shoebox said...

I think you'll find that we didn't like Bush's spending anymore than this. Beyond that, Obama makes Bush look like a Piker. Obama will spend as much in his first 100 days as Bush did in a full term!

Dad29 said...

"...we genuinely HAVE TO DO...or the apocalypse is next...."


If that were the case, why were you not cheering loudly for Bush's irresponsible drunken-sailor spending?

For that matter, with that spending, why are we not in Paradise today? What: a few hundred billion is not ENOUGH?? It has to be a TRILLION??

Unknown said...

I think you'll find that we didn't like Bush's spending anymore than this

And yet I doubt I could search the venerable archives of this blog and find a post about Bush's spending containing similar language and outrage.

Dad, I didn't say "the apocalypse." If you disagree with prominent economists and think that we don't need to do this kind of spending, fine. But the rest of us would like to get on with the business of doing what apparently needs to be done.

with that spending, why are we not in Paradise today?

Mostly because Bush's spending wasn't the kind which has a great positive effect on the economy: the high price tag of overseas military operations, for example.

Dad29 said...

Granted. Until TARP and the Big3 bailouts, I was not as assiduous as possible in condemning GWB's spending.

"Overseas" military spending?

Oshkosh Truck. Colt Firearms. Ammo plants. Chrysler, GM, FoMoCo (various military vehicles.) Sights/scopes manufacturers. Military clothing/accessories manufacturers.

Boeing, TRW, and other high-end military hardware manufacturers.

Even the infamous Halliburton is spending a LOT of money in the USA pursuant to military contracts.

That, my man, is actual, genuine stimulus. It employs tens of thousands here in the USA.

Les Aspin knew that military spending on R&D, vehicles, (etc., etc., etc.) was an excellent way to push the economy forward.

You may remember him: a (D).

Unknown said...

Fascinating! And yet you decry all the government spending included in the current stimulus package. What's the difference, I wonder?

Dad29 said...

Scott, either you are deliberately obtuse, or you cannot comprehend what you read.