Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
In fact, Bush/Republican 2005 enegy bill authorized that same $300 billion for these same home appliance rebates.
It was one of those provisions that Bush agreed to include in the bill to get bi-partisan support, then chose not to include funding for the program in his last two budgets, reneging on the deal.
And, as part of that same act, incandescent light bulb will be phased out in the U.S. starting in 2012.
|
Actually, it was $300 million, and was, as you point out, never funded, so net cost to the taxpayers for that was $0.00. Why does what Bush did or didn't do make Obama's rebate any more appropriate? The government shouldn't be doing things like this at all at least until it gets it's finances under control.
This is just another instance of taking money we don't have (borrowing) from the taxpayers for another government giveaway.
---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
wait, did I miss the part where everyone's taxes were raised to pay for this program?
oh, right, they didn't
|
Not yet.
---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
You weren't paying attention, then.
The S&L crisis is one example of a crisis that required a bail out.
|
Fair enough. We should not have paid that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
By the way, there seems to be rampant confusion between bail out and stimulus package.
The bail out, which was the rescue of troubled financial institutions, has so far turned out to be a money maker for the federal government. It has not been unprecedented or new.
|
The key phrase here is 'so far'. There's still quite a lot of money outstanding and I don't think profits should be counted before they are in hand. I've been reading a bit about problems with commercial real estate loans and adjustable rate mortgages in the next couple years, and it will be interesting to see how taht affects banks, etc.
Besides which, the government shouldn't be in the business or running profit-making enterprises either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
The stimulus package, on the other hand, is the spending and tax cuts used to stimulate the economy. It was not new or unprecedented either. In fact, I am surprised that so many are willing to include tax cuts as part of the cost of the total stimulus package, but forget to do so with Bush's stimulus package.
|
Once again, Bush shouldn't have done it either. But Bush doing it doesn't make it any more acceptable now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
As a percentage of GDP, neither the deficit nor the debt are unprecedented. Nor is the amount of money circulating.
|
According to the table below, the federal debt for 2009 is 90% of GDP and projected at 98% of GDP for 2010 The only time it was higher was the early 1940's for extraordinary reasons. Back in the 1950's and 1960's we had a fairly robust industrial base to finance the debt. Now, from what I'm reading, maybe not so robust.
US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP in United States 1792-2010 - Federal State Local[/quote]