Confused Conservative... So Stimulus Bills are Good Now?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't have a problem with money to fix roads and bridges. That actually needs to be done, although that is something the states really should be doing, not the federal government. If the money actually goes to fixing our outdated infrastructure without increasing the national debt then I'm fine with it. The Bush/Obama/McCain stimulus was nothing but a criminal bail out to corporate America.

OMG... Where in the living fuck are you people getting the idea that we have money to spend on stimulus packages? We have a $20 trillion DEBT! That means... we don't have any fucking money!! ANY money we spend will have to be borrowed! We can't even pay the bills we have to pay... we'll run close to a trillion dollars over what we take in this year WITHOUT a stimulus!

Do you people think we elected Trump's BANK ACCOUNT?

Maybe you need to reread what I wrote.

 

[Boss]

I don't have a problem with money to fix roads and bridges. That actually needs to be done, although that is something the states really should be doing, not the federal government. If the money actually goes to fixing our outdated infrastructure without increasing the national debt then I'm fine with it. The Bush/Obama/McCain stimulus was nothing but a criminal bail out to corporate America.

OMG... Where in the living fuck are you people getting the idea that we have money to spend on stimulus packages? We have a $20 trillion DEBT! That means... we don't have any fucking money!! ANY money we spend will have to be borrowed! We can't even pay the bills we have to pay... we'll run close to a trillion dollars over what we take in this year WITHOUT a stimulus!

Do you people think we elected Trump's BANK ACCOUNT?

Maybe you need to reread what I wrote.

Maybe you need to rewrite what you wrote?

 

[Iceweasel]

Again... Is this... I'm okay with big centralized government spending because MY tyrant dictator is in charge now? How are YOU any different than what we just got rid of?

obama's stimulus didn't go to infrastructure but you are going to be upset for as long as the federal government exists. No one has to make you happy. I don't mind spending the money on it if the economy improves enough to easily afford it. I would oppose borrowing to do it like obama did so I have to reject your on/off binary assertion.

No offense, but you sound EXACTLY like a Democrat in 2008. If we have a $20 trillion deficit, how are we spending this without borrowing it from somewhere?

I will be satisfied when the Federal government stops doing shit it's not supposed to be doing. And I'm sorry... I think I DO have to be made happy or I am going to be pissed. I didn't support this Keynesian nonsense with Obama and the Democrats and I damn sure won't support it with Trump and Republicans.

I said IF the economy improves, which I think it will. We do have a crumbling infrastructure to deal with, what's your plan?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't have a problem with money to fix roads and bridges. That actually needs to be done, although that is something the states really should be doing, not the federal government. If the money actually goes to fixing our outdated infrastructure without increasing the national debt then I'm fine with it. The Bush/Obama/McCain stimulus was nothing but a criminal bail out to corporate America.

OMG... Where in the living fuck are you people getting the idea that we have money to spend on stimulus packages? We have a $20 trillion DEBT! That means... we don't have any fucking money!! ANY money we spend will have to be borrowed! We can't even pay the bills we have to pay... we'll run close to a trillion dollars over what we take in this year WITHOUT a stimulus!

Do you people think we elected Trump's BANK ACCOUNT?

Maybe you need to reread what I wrote.

Maybe you need to rewrite what you wrote?

Nope, I made no error.

 

[AntonToo]

Stimulus paid to bailout banks, phony companies (e.g., Solyndra) and labor unions (GM/UAW) is bad. Stimulus to promote real economic growth is good. Get it?

No, I don't get it because it's Keynesian nonsense. The best way for government to promote economic growth is to reduce government regulations and give us more FREEDOM rather than stimulus.

IT IS NOT KEYNESIAN.

Keynesian economics advocate economy counterbalancing government policy - expansionary policies like infrastructure spending and tax-cuts in recessions and contractionary policies like tax-raises in times of growth to pay for those expansionary policies.

It is plain fiscal irresponsibility and careless economic populism. People love spending and tax-cuts, People hate contractionary tax raises and spending cuts. That's good enough for Trump to ride.

It's EXACTLY what it is!

Well now that you baselessly claim it....

 

[Boss]

Again... Is this... I'm okay with big centralized government spending because MY tyrant dictator is in charge now? How are YOU any different than what we just got rid of?

obama's stimulus didn't go to infrastructure but you are going to be upset for as long as the federal government exists. No one has to make you happy. I don't mind spending the money on it if the economy improves enough to easily afford it. I would oppose borrowing to do it like obama did so I have to reject your on/off binary assertion.

No offense, but you sound EXACTLY like a Democrat in 2008. If we have a $20 trillion deficit, how are we spending this without borrowing it from somewhere?

I will be satisfied when the Federal government stops doing shit it's not supposed to be doing. And I'm sorry... I think I DO have to be made happy or I am going to be pissed. I didn't support this Keynesian nonsense with Obama and the Democrats and I damn sure won't support it with Trump and Republicans.

I said IF the economy improves, which I think it will. We do have a crumbling infrastructure to deal with, what's your plan?

What federally-owned property is falling apart?

 

[Iceweasel]

Again... Is this... I'm okay with big centralized government spending because MY tyrant dictator is in charge now? How are YOU any different than what we just got rid of?

obama's stimulus didn't go to infrastructure but you are going to be upset for as long as the federal government exists. No one has to make you happy. I don't mind spending the money on it if the economy improves enough to easily afford it. I would oppose borrowing to do it like obama did so I have to reject your on/off binary assertion.

No offense, but you sound EXACTLY like a Democrat in 2008. If we have a $20 trillion deficit, how are we spending this without borrowing it from somewhere?

I will be satisfied when the Federal government stops doing shit it's not supposed to be doing. And I'm sorry... I think I DO have to be made happy or I am going to be pissed. I didn't support this Keynesian nonsense with Obama and the Democrats and I damn sure won't support it with Trump and Republicans.

I said IF the economy improves, which I think it will. We do have a crumbling infrastructure to deal with, what's your plan?

What federally-owned property is falling apart?

You avoided the question so you have no ideas. If you want to undo what's been going on since the 40s knock yourself out but blaming Trump makes you look small and petty.


Interstate Frequently Asked Questions - 50th Anniversary - Interstate System - Highway History - Federal Highway Administration
Why does the Federal Government pay 90 percent of the cost?

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized designation of a 40,000-mile "National System of Interstate Highways," but did not establish a program or special funding for its construction. The first such funding came under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952, which authorized a token amount of $25 million a year for the Interstate System in Fiscal Years (FY) 1954 and 1955. The 1952 Act retained the standard matching ratio (Federal share: 50 percent). The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 authorized $175 million a year for the Interstate System (FYs 1956 and 1957), with a Federal-State matching ratio of 60-40. The increased Federal share reflected the common understanding that the Interstate System is vitally important to national goals.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower began to promote creation of a program to build the Interstate Construction Program, the Nation's Governors made clear to him that they did not want to be forced to increase State taxes to pay the additional matching funds for the national program. Therefore, the President proposed to increase funds for the Interstate System, while boosting the Federal share to 90 percent. Under his proposal, the States would continue paying the same amount in matching funds for the Interstate System that they had been paying under the 1954 Act. When the program took shape in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, it differed in some ways from the President's proposal, particularly with regard to the source of funding for the program, but Congress retained the Federal-State matching share of 90-10 as a reflection of the Interstate Construction Program's importance to national goals. (In the western States with large amounts of untaxed public land, the Federal share could be increased to 95 percent.)

 

[initforme]

If businesses want good roads let THEM chip in for them.

 

[Boss]

Again... Is this... I'm okay with big centralized government spending because MY tyrant dictator is in charge now? How are YOU any different than what we just got rid of?

obama's stimulus didn't go to infrastructure but you are going to be upset for as long as the federal government exists. No one has to make you happy. I don't mind spending the money on it if the economy improves enough to easily afford it. I would oppose borrowing to do it like obama did so I have to reject your on/off binary assertion.

No offense, but you sound EXACTLY like a Democrat in 2008. If we have a $20 trillion deficit, how are we spending this without borrowing it from somewhere?

I will be satisfied when the Federal government stops doing shit it's not supposed to be doing. And I'm sorry... I think I DO have to be made happy or I am going to be pissed. I didn't support this Keynesian nonsense with Obama and the Democrats and I damn sure won't support it with Trump and Republicans.

I said IF the economy improves, which I think it will. We do have a crumbling infrastructure to deal with, what's your plan?

What federally-owned property is falling apart?

You avoided the question so you have no ideas. If you want to undo what's been going on since the 40s knock yourself out but blaming Trump makes you look small and petty.


Interstate Frequently Asked Questions - 50th Anniversary - Interstate System - Highway History - Federal Highway Administration
Why does the Federal Government pay 90 percent of the cost?

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized designation of a 40,000-mile "National System of Interstate Highways," but did not establish a program or special funding for its construction. The first such funding came under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952, which authorized a token amount of $25 million a year for the Interstate System in Fiscal Years (FY) 1954 and 1955. The 1952 Act retained the standard matching ratio (Federal share: 50 percent). The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 authorized $175 million a year for the Interstate System (FYs 1956 and 1957), with a Federal-State matching ratio of 60-40. The increased Federal share reflected the common understanding that the Interstate System is vitally important to national goals.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower began to promote creation of a program to build the Interstate Construction Program, the Nation's Governors made clear to him that they did not want to be forced to increase State taxes to pay the additional matching funds for the national program. Therefore, the President proposed to increase funds for the Interstate System, while boosting the Federal share to 90 percent. Under his proposal, the States would continue paying the same amount in matching funds for the Interstate System that they had been paying under the 1954 Act. When the program took shape in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, it differed in some ways from the President's proposal, particularly with regard to the source of funding for the program, but Congress retained the Federal-State matching share of 90-10 as a reflection of the Interstate Construction Program's importance to national goals. (In the western States with large amounts of untaxed public land, the Federal share could be increased to 95 percent.)

I'm not avoiding the question, I am asking questions. Where are these interstates falling apart? I can think of about a dozen interstates around where I live and they all seem to be in pretty good shape. Crews are always working on them fixing or expanding, painting lanes, putting up new signs, making new exits... all kinds of things, all the time.

So all you have given me are the interstates which are obviously fine. Remember how Obama had to sheepishly admit there were no shovel ready jobs to do? We do not have some alarming crisis with crumbling infrastructure. I keep hearing people talk about the airports but are we seriously going to pour federal tax dollars into improving airports while so many more pressing problems are at hand?

I guess I am just not getting this "new conservatism" or something?

 

[Iceweasel]

obama's stimulus didn't go to infrastructure but you are going to be upset for as long as the federal government exists. No one has to make you happy. I don't mind spending the money on it if the economy improves enough to easily afford it. I would oppose borrowing to do it like obama did so I have to reject your on/off binary assertion.

No offense, but you sound EXACTLY like a Democrat in 2008. If we have a $20 trillion deficit, how are we spending this without borrowing it from somewhere?

I will be satisfied when the Federal government stops doing shit it's not supposed to be doing. And I'm sorry... I think I DO have to be made happy or I am going to be pissed. I didn't support this Keynesian nonsense with Obama and the Democrats and I damn sure won't support it with Trump and Republicans.

I said IF the economy improves, which I think it will. We do have a crumbling infrastructure to deal with, what's your plan?

What federally-owned property is falling apart?

You avoided the question so you have no ideas. If you want to undo what's been going on since the 40s knock yourself out but blaming Trump makes you look small and petty.


Interstate Frequently Asked Questions - 50th Anniversary - Interstate System - Highway History - Federal Highway Administration
Why does the Federal Government pay 90 percent of the cost?

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized designation of a 40,000-mile "National System of Interstate Highways," but did not establish a program or special funding for its construction. The first such funding came under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952, which authorized a token amount of $25 million a year for the Interstate System in Fiscal Years (FY) 1954 and 1955. The 1952 Act retained the standard matching ratio (Federal share: 50 percent). The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 authorized $175 million a year for the Interstate System (FYs 1956 and 1957), with a Federal-State matching ratio of 60-40. The increased Federal share reflected the common understanding that the Interstate System is vitally important to national goals.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower began to promote creation of a program to build the Interstate Construction Program, the Nation's Governors made clear to him that they did not want to be forced to increase State taxes to pay the additional matching funds for the national program. Therefore, the President proposed to increase funds for the Interstate System, while boosting the Federal share to 90 percent. Under his proposal, the States would continue paying the same amount in matching funds for the Interstate System that they had been paying under the 1954 Act. When the program took shape in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, it differed in some ways from the President's proposal, particularly with regard to the source of funding for the program, but Congress retained the Federal-State matching share of 90-10 as a reflection of the Interstate Construction Program's importance to national goals. (In the western States with large amounts of untaxed public land, the Federal share could be increased to 95 percent.)

I'm not avoiding the question, I am asking questions. Where are these interstates falling apart? I can think of about a dozen interstates around where I live and they all seem to be in pretty good shape. Crews are always working on them fixing or expanding, painting lanes, putting up new signs, making new exits... all kinds of things, all the time.

So all you have given me are the interstates which are obviously fine. Remember how Obama had to sheepishly admit there were no shovel ready jobs to do? We do not have some alarming crisis with crumbling infrastructure. I keep hearing people talk about the airports but are we seriously going to pour federal tax dollars into improving airports while so many more pressing problems are at hand?

I guess I am just not getting this "new conservatism" or something?

I haven't traveled on them all but can tell you parts of I-5 here are deeply rutted. I haven't changed, I don't represent every conservative that ever lived. I don't get your beef. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, quit working and live on the streets.