"Stimulus" pushes us deeper in debt to China!

[lacarnut]

No. Bush made the example. The pigs lined up to the trough and Bush gave 'em slop. Now there's even more pigs and vermin looking for handouts.

You just figured out that the pig trough started recently. It been going on for over 60 years.

[Matthieu]

You are a liar also; you stated in another post you were a consevative. Go crawl back in your hole.

They're not mutually exclusive.

[asdf2231]

Me? How you come to this conclusion when I oppose all government spending is beyond me (psst, I'm an anarchist.)

Have you Googled Ron Paul?

[megimoo]

Me? How you come to this conclusion when I oppose all government spending is beyond me (psst, I'm an anarchist.)

You don't even sound smart enough to be a liberal.Never mind an anarchist

[FlaGator]

No. Bush made the example. The pigs lined up to the trough and Bush gave 'em slop. Now there's even more pigs and vermin looking for handouts.

Wasn't that simulus package approved by a democrat controlled congress? Presidents generally don't spend, they just propose.

[Lager]

No. Bush made the example. The pigs lined up to the trough and Bush gave 'em slop. Now there's even more pigs and vermin looking for handouts.

Your hatred of Bush is well noted, but you do know that it is Congress which creates budgets, don't you? Your statements about Bush do serve to inform one of what your real purpose is here. Which is sad. You du'er types always come over simply to incite with antagonizing statements, but none of you actually wants to debate your positions reasonably. You seem to thrive on extreme reactions to your posts rather than defending the statements you make. I'm beginning to think it is because you lack the skills to defend them, or your beliefs are so tepid and opportunistic, you don't have the energy or will to do so.

[AmPat]

Your hatred of Bush is well noted, but you do know that it is Congress which creates budgets, don't you? Your statements about Bush do serve to inform one of what your real purpose is here. Which is sad. You du'er types always come over simply to incite with antagonizing statements, but none of you actually wants to debate your positions reasonably. You seem to thrive on extreme reactions to your posts rather than defending the statements you make. I'm beginning to think it is because you lack the skills to defend them, or your beliefs are so tepid and opportunistic, you don't have the energy or will to do so.

Stop mincing words. They are too stupid to debate without resorting to drive by slogans and leftist talking points. I miss some of our more reasonable leftys. At least they had brains. We should have an I.Q. and civics test before granting posting rights here. these morons don't even challenge me.

[Sonnabend]

They're not mutually exclusive.

The village called. You're late for work.

[BadCat]

Me? How you come to this conclusion when I oppose all government spending is beyond me (psst, I'm an anarchist.)

An anarchist?
Do you have the cookbook?
Do you own a firearm?

[Odysseus]

Is this stimulus fundamentally any different than the one last year?

Yes. The previous bailout established a fund which was tailored (badly) to infuse cash to financial institutions that were holding bad debts on defaulting mortgages. Its goal was to ensure that credit markets remained liquid so that the housing market would not collapse. It was poorly conceived in that it only addressed the derivative markets (the various securities issued by lenders based on their mortgage holdings) instead of the underlying problem of the break in the housing bubble and the collapse of home values due to the subprime mortgage lending forced by the Community Reinvestment Act. A better example of what needed to be done was the Resolution Trust Corporation, which bailed out the S&Ls under Bush 42, by purchasing distressed properties and liquidating them through equity partnerships that involved private sector partners buying into pooled assets, then managing and selling those assets. That's the previous bill. The current stimulus is a series of leftist wish list items which would not be on the table if the Obama administration weren't using the financial crisis as an excuse to enact their agenda. It's also substantially larger than the previous bailout,

They're not mutually exclusive.

Uh, actually, they are.

Anarchism opposes all government.
Conservatism tends to defend traditional social norms and values instead of social upheaval and advocates restraint of governmental taxation and spending. The nexus between the two positions is that traditional social norms and values are undermined by big government programs and initiatives, such as welfare, social engineering through the tax code, imposition on education, etc., but that there is a proper role for government at different levels, federal, state and local, which is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
So, an anarchist cannot, by the very nature of his/her opposition to all government, be a conservative, who, by the nature of his/her support for the constitutional order of the United States, supports a limited, clearly defined and minimal government, but which has the power to act decisively in times of genuine crisis (war or natural disaster) in order to protect the lives and property of American citizens.

Glad to have cleared that up for you.