Bailout could exceed $23.7 TRILLION

spike said:
ZOMG WE DON"T HAVE A MILITARY FORCE TO PROTECT US ANYMORE WITHOUT MORE OF THOSE F-22s!!!!^#^!

I think the idea is pretty simple. Companies that were failing due to Bush's economic disaster needed money to stay afloat. We don't need more F-22s.

Kind of an apple/oranges thing.
Click to expand...

I thought they were failing because they gave out a series of very risky loans, then sold packaged mortgage debt and sold it off as AAA-rated bonds. As in "Credit risk almost zero". More like corporate negligence and greed. But then, you probably think Dick Cheney planned 9/11, right?

Any who determines which companies "need" to stay afloat, and which ones we let the free market handle? We're pushing 10% unemployment, spike. Obviously, "saving or creating" specific jobs while ignoring other entire industries is not a very productive line of legislation. 10% of people used to have jobs that weren't 'important' enough to save using bailout money, but somehow the UAW and their lobbyists were important enough?

You guys know I'm a moderate. I'm not particularly biased against the bailouts, if (and only if) the money is distributed fairly, and not in regards to lobbyists and political power of certain industries (like Halliburton getting no-bid contracts for Iraq, anyone?). I'm New Jersey born and raised, where political machines and "pay to play" are the status quo. This whole thing of "We're going to give suitcases full of money to Industry A, we're going to ignore Industry B even though it is laying off people, and we're going to cancel contracts with Industry C so that we can give that money to Industry A" reeks of a political machine. This whole bailout is a hastily constructed band-aid, but more steps need to be taken to ensure that this exorbitant sum of money is carefully regulated and repaid, and that it goes towards actual economic improvement, not just the bank accounts of CEOs.

spike, I'd like you to prove me wrong. I'd be happy to find out that all is fine and dandy with TARP, and things will be back to normal in another 2 years or so. I want Obama to be the beacon of hope for fixing the economy that he was when I voted for him in November, not an ineffectual leader capable only of writing checks to lobbyists, and pushing the Democratic Party's agenda onto us with a Congress stacked in his favor.
 
Altron said:
You guys know I'm a moderate. I'm not particularly biased against the bailouts, if (and only if) the money is distributed fairly, and not in regards to lobbyists and political power of certain industries (like Halliburton getting no-bid contracts for Iraq, anyone?).
Click to expand...

I'm with you there. I'd like to see the money distributed fairly as well. Free from lobbyist influence.
 
Altron said:
.... I want Obama to be the beacon of hope for fixing the economy that he was when I voted for him in November, not an ineffectual leader capable only of writing checks to lobbyists, and pushing the Democratic Party's agenda onto us with a Congress stacked in his favor.
Click to expand...


twilightzonee.jpg
 
spike said:
If defense is covered and gigantic companies are going under than bailouts are more useful.



Yes, we could if we needed to.



Nope, but we can help the ones that need it if the bill passes.
Click to expand...

It's safe to say, though, that many companies are struggling and having more problems than they were even just a year ago.

I just think it's ridiculous that Obama picks one line item making up of about 0.25% of the budget, then says "As long as you DON'T buy that, you can get whatever you want".

Here we have a company. Contracted to design and build an aircraft for the USAF, and no one else. They can't sell it to regular people, they can't sell it to private organizations, they can't sell it to foreign governments. Their one and only customer suddenly cancels the order.

Obama didn't say "Remove $1.75B from the military budget", he said "Get rid of F-22s". That's pretty suspicious, if you ask me. Why target one specific minor thing, in a budget over half a trillion dollars?

Guess the Boeing and Lockheed factory workers who build the F-22 aren't important enough to get their jobs "saved or created". They should have built 10mpg SUVs back when gas was $4 a gallon, because apparently that's the best way to get your job "saved or created".

I just hope that most of this money saved goes back into development to the F-35.
The argument of "Well, our F-22s are completely useless in combat in Iraq" doesn't mean we don't need F-22s, it means we shouldn't be trying to occupy Iraq. Anyone with half a brain realizing that occupying a country with a population that hates us is not going to win us anything. It was Sun Tzu or somebody like that who first realized that you do not win military action by fighting your enemy on their terms. bin Laden and all his psycho buddies WANT us to fight small scale, hand to hand combat, because that is where they have the advantage. That doesn't mean we should get rid of our more advanced forces to fight at this primal level, that means we need to keep the battle in a situation where we have clear dominance. F-22s are immune from roadside bombs, suicide bombings, and angry men with AK-47s. We have clear air superiority in the middle east, which means we need to fight an air war for as long as possible.

Wait, weren't those troops promised to be removed by April? I definitely remember Obama promising to remove all troops within 3 months.
 
"Not only has the stimulus not worked and the economy not been rescued, the President continues to promote policies that will create more unemployment in America. The national energy tax that went through this House last month will cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs over the next 10 years, at 2.5 million per year. And we're debating the health care plan, the government takeover of health care, which according to the Presidents council of economic advisors model will cost five million more Americans their jobs."
Click to expand...

GOP House Minority Leader John Boehner speaking from the House Floor reacts to 0bama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's comment of "We have rescued the economy."

In the video Boehner points out that the nation's 9.5% unemployment does not reflect that claim, nor do the millions of jobs that stand to be lost if 0bama's "Cap and Trade" legislation were to become law.
 
Altron said:
Here we have a company. Contracted to design and build an aircraft for the USAF, and no one else. They can't sell it to regular people, they can't sell it to private organizations, they can't sell it to foreign governments. Their one and only customer suddenly cancels the order.
Click to expand...

oh boo hoo. i feel so sorry for massive, wasteful bureaucratic defense companies with pockets long stuffed with overbudgeted government dollars. some of them make GM look like a model of a dynamic, agile, highly consumer-reactive innovation leader. maybe some... maybe right around here...
 
Altron said:
It's safe to say, though, that many companies are struggling and having more problems than they were even just a year ago.

I just think it's ridiculous that Obama picks one line item making up of about 0.25% of the budget, then says "As long as you DON'T buy that, you can get whatever you want".
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't see anywhere in your article that they said that and this move was supported and possibly even suggested by Defense Secretary Gates. It's even supported by McCain.

Here we have a company. Contracted to design and build an aircraft for the USAF, and no one else. They can't sell it to regular people, they can't sell it to private organizations, they can't sell it to foreign governments. Their one and only customer suddenly cancels the order.
Click to expand...

OMG if they're not needed they're not needed. It's so simple.

Guess the Boeing and Lockheed factory workers who build the F-22 aren't important enough to get their jobs "saved or created". They should have built 10mpg SUVs back when gas was $4 a gallon, because apparently that's the best way to get your job "saved or created".
Click to expand...

Jesus Altron, read your article. There's simply no reason for this alarmism.

"But the F-22 has never been used in war, and the Pentagon’s focus has shifted to simpler weapons needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Air Force leaders recently agreed that they could make do with the F-22s already built or ordered, instead of the 381 that the service had sought.

Mr. Gates has said a new fighter, the F-35, is better designed to attack ground targets. The plane will be used by the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force, and the Pentagon plans to buy more than 2,400 of them."
 
On December 6th, 1941, not a single one of the airplanes owned by the US military had ever been used in combat. It was completely pointless for the US government to waste all this money designing and buying the B-17 Flying Fortress during the 1930s. We were in the Great Depression, after all! Why were we using money on bombers that we don't even need, that had never even been in combat?!

That entire reason of "Well, we haven't needed our fighters yet, so we shouldn't build them" is completely shortsighted. When the situation arises where complete air superiority is essential, we won't have time to go back to Boeing and Lockheed Martin and say "Well, sorry about that, looks like we do need the F-22s after all. How much longer before you can whip up a batch, pretty please?"

I think it's interesting that after promising to immediately pull troops out of Iraq, not only are troops still in Iraq, but now we're talking about restructuring the military to be more effective in a long, expensive, ineffective, and massively unpopular ground occupation of a hostile country. After over 6 years, Washington has still yet to pick up on the fact that most Americans don't want our soldiers dying over there in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are combat zones where we are unable to bring our superior firepower and military strength to bear on the enemy, which is exactly why the enemy wants us to fight them that way.

In open warfare, al Qaeda doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of besting the US military. The obvious move on their part is to trick the US into small-scale guerilla warfare, where our superior weapons and tactics are useless. That's what any competent leader would do, and that's exactly what they've planned. Bush just jumped in there and took the bait, like an idiot. And now Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right now, our military is not doing that well. We've had lots of casualties, and still don't fully control Iraq. We appear weak to the rest of the world, because we've purposely weakened our military to be able to fight in a situation that maximizes the effectiveness of al Qaeda troops.The old US Military understood that overwhelming force demoralizes and weakens the enemy, guaranteeing a surrender. It would have taken years to conquer Japan with a conventional tactics (amphibious invasion, then bloody ground campaign). Instead, all we had to do was completely destroy two targets that weren't even that important to the war effort, and we got them to surrender, saving millions of lives.
 
Altron said:
That entire reason of "Well, we haven't needed our fighters yet, so we shouldn't build them" is completely shortsighted.
Click to expand...

That's not what they're saying. We have lots of fighters, don't need more F-22s, gonna focus on weapons we need and the F-35.
 
 
But the F-22 has never been used in war, and the Pentagon’s focus has shifted to simpler weapons needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Nor have we used a Virginia class sub in those countries. And yet, we are still making those. We did use the F-117 in Iraq quite a bit. Now that the Stealth fighter is gone, the F-22 is supposed to pick up that mission.

Air Force leaders recently agreed that they could make do with the F-22s already built or ordered, instead of the 381 that the service had sought.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they were told to shutup and color?

http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/05/obamas-partisan-pentagon/

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ sweeping gag order prohibiting senior military officers from discussing the 2010 defense budget is raising fears of politicizing the Pentagon."

Mr. Gates has said a new fighter, the F-35, is better designed to attack ground targets. The plane will be used by the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force, and the Pentagon plans to buy more than 2,400 of them.
Click to expand...

But the F-35 is not better suited for deep strike interdiction.
 
Frodo said:
http://www.bucksright.com/2008-election-blue-counties-get-double-stimulus-funds-of-red-3759

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=481816

http://lookatwestvirginia.blogspot.com/2009/07/stimulus-money-goes-blue.html

http://clarkereport.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/obama-schuylkill-not-blue-enough-for-stimulus-money/

:moon:
Click to expand...

So guess your answer is no since none of those links show Obama deciding which counties get stimulus.

I guess you didn't read the original USA Today article their all referencing either.

"The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau."

"Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services"

"Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation."

:moon:
 
spike said:
"Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation."
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. The slugs of society voted for Obama and also take up all the countries resources.
 
Looks like it has to do with higher population counties but go ahead and make up whatever makes you feel good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top