Social Question

w2pow2's avatar

Is President Obama's spending justified?

Asked by w2pow2 (490points) August 2nd, 2009

So the stimulus package has got the majority in an uproar, and even some people have turned against him. And now the health care reform…
And what bothered me is he passed the stimulus in two days. Why the rush?
Now when a republican president is in office there’s a lot of BS that comes from the democrats. And the same thing is obviously happening here: a lot of BS from the republicans.
I have yet to hear the other side. So please enlighten me.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

Ivan's avatar

The President does not pass bills, for one thing.

Obama was elected because he promised change. Change requires money.

Zendo's avatar

Obama is just another political hack helping his cronies get rich at the expense of the poor.
Did you think he was somehow going to be a contradiction to American politics since Kennedy’s assassination? Get real. There is not going to be any positive, meaningful change in America until the citizens of this great nation get off of their lazy butts and start effecting it themselves.

dpworkin's avatar

Just before the change of administrations, there was a terrifying economic situation that involved a possible credit freeze, which threatened a Depression. Bush’s economists, and Obama’s transitional team all agreed that the emergency wa extreme and something had to be done immediately.

Most mainstream economists, especially those who have made a career of studying the Great Depression, have come to believe that the way to ward off a disaster is not to tighten up on the money supply, but to spend, and spend a lot, quickly. Hence the so-called “Stimulus Package.”

We had for eight years followed orthodox Republican doctrine about regulation, spending, etc., and it left us in a deep and frightening hole we had never really encountered before.

Obama was elected by a substantial majority, which is generally taken as an indicator that the people were ready to try a new direction, to see if that would work better.

So far Obama has had a little more than six months to try to address these long-standing problems. I don’t think we know yet whether is has been, or will be effective, but we do know that not enough time has passed to fairly evaluate results.

Some name-callers (see @Zendo, above) don’t seem to be interested in fairness, or in seeing how this plays out, or in giving the Obama methods a chance before attacking the programs and trying to interfere with them.

In my opinion it would be preferable if we allowed Obama and his team to have their way for a while, and see if he and his team of advisers are correct. We know for certain that the old Republican methods failed us.

At the end of his 8 years, ask this question again , and I think you will get more certain answers. Right now I would say it’s too early to tell, but it is certainly not unreasonable to allow him to try. Does that help?

Zendo's avatar

LOL….Let them have their way. Like with the housing mortgage debacle? Like with the stock market debacle(s) of 2000 and 1993? Like with the oil shortages? Like with the wars we were lied into (WMD) ....Indeed PD, let them have their way…

dpworkin's avatar

@Zendo, you seem a little confused. I was speaking of Obama, not Clinton or Bush/Cheney. Have you noticed what happened to the economy during the last eight Republican years? Does that suggest nothing to you? Have I ever quoted Goethe to you on the subject of aggressive stupidity?

w2pow2's avatar

Jeez Frog on Fire you’re takin awhile. Must be one helluva response…
President Obama and his crew said that the stimulus would create more jobs and reduce unemployment by now. But it hasn’t. They have made many predictions that they are changing their mind about. I think there’s something wrong when the people who are for it are scratching their heads. Please someone say something to put my mind at ease.
PD please explain the logistics or send me a link.

FrogOnFire's avatar

No. It’s not justified. Our government is in a massive amount of debt and we need to stave off any more extra spending to try and get our national budget balanced. I’m tired of people pushing off the issue of our national deficit like it’s not problem when the truth is that our national government’s 3rd largest expenditure is the interest on its loans! (I can only imagine how big the loans are if this is the case)

I was watching one of Obama’s speeches and he was stating (in the same 1–2 sentences) how he plans to 1) add a new stimulus bill and other new expensive plans 2) Create government health insurance for the uninsured 3) Reduce our national deficit and 4) Lower people’s taxes. Anyone with common sense could figure out that those 4 won’t work together. One (or more) of those 4 has got to go for this to work. Otherwise, it’s just a load of political crap.

If we don’t get our government’s spending and debt under control soon, people like you and me are going to be paying over 50% of their income in federal taxes in the future. Is that your idea of freedom? Because it sure isn’t mine. Many of our politicians (including Obama) don’t really seem to care, because, by the time it becomes an issue, they’ll be retired/dead and won’t be paying any of it.

I was concerned about this issue so I sent a letter to my local Senator, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), and now I know why his nickname is “Dick.” A few weeks after sending the letter, I received a hastily-composed response email about the few spending controls here and there he’s supported. It honestly looked like bits and pieces of his political advertisements thrown together into a readable message. It sickens me that people like Dick Durbin try to distort the truth by telling only half the story.

FrogOnFire's avatar

@w2pow2 Yes. This is why everyone NEEDS to be more involved in their government. Vote in every election, send letters to your reps! Take a government class…just do something. Then we’ll know we’re putting leaders into office who can’t mislead us like this.

FrogOnFire's avatar

And for those of you who are saying that my anti-debt plans are going to wreck the economy, I agree that the government should help the economy when it’s doing bad. But the price of Obama’s stimulus bill was outrageous. Most of that money will not be helping the economy anytime soon but rather is being used to fund political agenda that (okay I’m not trying to start the blame-the-party game here, but for the stimulus plan this was true) that the democrats have been attempting to pass and they’ve finally found an excuse to pass it.

Now stuff that’s actually been working—like the “Cash for Clunkers” program, should be funded. But, personally, I think 80% of the Stimulus plan was a load of crap that has created an unnecessary amount of construction traffic on our roadways.

w2pow2's avatar

“the president does not pass bills for one thing.”
Please don’t do that. I didn’t ask how Obama was NOT responsible for it.
One thing that would just be SOOO COOL would be if you somehow told me how it IS going to work instead of making sure I know he’s not responsible.
I mean… DAMN that would be the coolest thing.

FrogOnFire's avatar

Well, “Cash for Clunkers” is gonna create a huge amount of car sales, so that may help with the desperate auto company situation.

DrBill's avatar

No one can tell you how it is going to work, because it never will.

You cannot spend your way out of debt.

You cannot solve any problem by throwing money at it.

Obamanation helped run Illinois into more debt than it has ever had, now he is doing the same to the entire country.

dpworkin's avatar

@DrBill, I wonder if you have some neutral sources to support your contentions. I would be very interested in reading the citations, especially from mainstream economic experts, that support your claims.

FrogOnFire's avatar

@DrBill Yeah I’m no fan of Obama but he didn’t run IL into massive debt…that was good old Rod Blagoevich (however you spell it…he doesn’t deserve his name spelled right anyway).

A few months ago, I was giving a presentation on fire safety to my Boy Scout troop. I gave out worksheets to groups with different fire scenarios. One question was “A pan of oil on a camp stove ignites into a grease fire. What should you do?” One group wrote “Call president Obama. He’ll throw money at the problem” I got a good laugh out of that.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@FrogOnFire just call him Baloneyovich, everyone else does.

janbb's avatar

If you’re crying about massive amounts of spending and debt, please don’t forget that the Bushies spend 700 billion in TARP money to bail out the banks. The Republicans obviously thought that was a necessity and I don’t have the knowledge to say if it helped or not. My cousin works at a major research hopstial and is seeing money for research projects and staffing coming in from the stimulus program that is allowing it to go on. Seems like a worthy goal to me. It seems to me that government’s job is to collect and spend money; it’s always a question of whether it is being spent wisely and effectively, not totally wastefully, i.e., the Iraq war.

gets off soapbox and stays off it.

ubersiren's avatar

No. When a president spends massive amounts of money for almost any reason, it’s unjustified. There’s way too much bureaucracy to pay for with any process. I don’t believe that change does take lots of money. The spending is what caused many of our problems to begin with. There are so many ways to cut spending, and he’s ignoring them. But it’s not unique to Obama. Bush did it, too, as most presidents since W. Wilson have.

dpworkin's avatar

@ubersiren Do you include the apparently hypersuccessful “clunker” program in your analysis?

BBSDTfamily's avatar

@ubersiren I agree with you… it is unjustified. But Obama is charismatic and has fooled so many….

w2pow2's avatar

@pdworkin So that’s it? You’re just going to say that economic experts agree with major spending and leave it at that?
It’s link time my friend.

critter1982's avatar

You can spend your way into prosperity if that money is well spent, and creates long term jobs. Unfortunately, I don’t think this money has been or will be well spent.

ubersiren's avatar

@BBSDTfamily : I agree completely. So many people have faith in him simply because of his charisma… In some ways I hate him for this more than I’ve hated other presidents. He’s done the old bait ‘n’ switch, but everyone is still so mesmerized by his inspirational talks that they can’t see that he’s making A LOT of the same mistakes that others have. You can’t use the “he’s only been in office ___ months” argument forever. I know he inherited a ton of shitty problems, but when given the opportunity, if he does the same exact crap that got us into the messes in the first place, his time spent in office doesn’t matter. If he is choosing to go down the wrong path fucking repeatedly then there’s just no excuse, and I wish people could see that.

But, I didn’t say all this in my answer because it wasn’t relevant. I don’t think it’s fair for ANY president to spend like this. I wanted to be sure someone didn’t assume I was a Bush (or someone else) supporter. To be fair, I don’t care what the money is being spent on… health care, the auto industry, orphans, baby seals… we can’t afford it. The only way to get out of debt is to stop spending. Anyone who has ever had a debt to anyone knows this. If I’m in debt up to my eye balls because I bought a brand new Honda that I can’t afford, buying a Mercedes isn’t going to help that debt. Yeah, it makes me look like I have money, but I’m really just digging myself a hole.

Zendo's avatar

@w2pow2 Pd’s too busy with his ogram of aggressive stupidity, as he puts it, to bother with actually citing any authorities on the subject.

pikipupiba's avatar

Bush was a crappy republican. He DID spend to much. We haven’t had any one as conservative as Obama is liberal since Ronald Reagan, and even he wasn’t as far as Obama is from the center.

Look up “Obama pennies” on YouTube. That guy explains it really well.

janbb's avatar

I hate to tell you but Obama is considered pretty Centrist by liberals.

pikipupiba's avatar

he was only the most liberal senator ever (fact… voted that way every time, well, when he actually voted)

ubersiren's avatar

@pdworkin : Yes. Of course it’s successful. It’s almost “too good to be true.” If you’d like me to explain why this is part of the problem rather than the solution, I will, but I don’t want to start a debate, really.

DrBill's avatar


Of course I give Blow-Jo the bulk of the credit for Illinois’ massive debt, but as I said Obamanation supported and voted with Blow-Jo on the few occasions he showed up to vote.

BTW I am against waist full spending, It does not matter what party does it, like spending $1,500,000.00 to rebuild an airport for a town of 150 people (when the majority don’t want it)

BBSDTfamily's avatar

@ubersiren You and I see eye to eye completely

w2pow2's avatar

@whereisfreespeech Do I have to tie you to a virtual chair and beat you with a virtual fist?
Ezplain! Everybody who supports the stimulus- you’re lack of explanation is proving the conservatives and republicans right!
Jeez I’m scared out of my mind that they’re right! Is there ANYONE out there who can actually explain HOW the stimulus is going to work!?
You can’t just say ‘Oh you better believe this here stimulus is ganna work, dagnabit!’ And then leave it at that!

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther