|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
04-26-2023, 11:39 AM
|
|
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,580
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...-debt-00057606
It was the Fed’s own experiments that helped create all this national debt in the first place. The Fed did so through an experimental program called quantitative easing, or QE. The importance of QE can’t be overstated. Under this program, the Fed created about 9 trillion new dollars between 2008 and today. (To put that in perspective, the Fed created only about $1 trillion in its first 95 years of existence. So it has printed 900 years’ worth of money in a little over 10 years, when measured against its historic rate.) All that money was injected straight into the Wall Street banking system, pumping up the very markets, like stocks and bonds, that are now threatened by the Fed’s tightening.[/I]
Years of QE and voracious spending, from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden, all fueled by debt. And that debt sounds like its going to get a LOT more expensive.
|
More illumination on this bubble created by the Atlanticists' Central Banks.
Too much Fed liquidity has led to a whack-a-mole world of problems.
https://ft.com/content/af8c4d77-cb58...7-d7bf0f365cbb
|
04-26-2023, 12:04 PM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dondilion
|
Maybe, maybe not. The perspective of these articles is very short term, i.e. what's happening right now. What would our financial state be like right now if The Fed had not increased liquidity back during The Great Recession. Would the few banks that are failing now, mostly due to their own actions, have been around to fail? How many others would currently exist? Would the S&P 500 even be above 20,000? I think not. The primary reason The Great Depression hit the US so hard was that The Fed tightened instead of loosening liquidity, directly causing all those banks to fail causing great hardships for many.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Last edited by nailer; 04-26-2023 at 12:07 PM.
|
04-30-2023, 11:51 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,919
|
|
Meanwhile, while demanding a cut in spending, House Republicans lead the way in supporting earmarks. The top 6, 10 of the top 12, and 15 of the top 20 who requested earmarks are Republican. Fucking hypocrites.
Earmarking federal funds for their home districts continues to grow in popularity among House Republicans, with 152 GOP members and two nonvoting delegates participating in the process this year, a CQ Roll Call analysis found.
Nearly 70 percent of House Republicans are seeking earmarks this year, based on member request data compiled by the House Appropriations Committee. That's up from almost 60 percent of the conference last year and just over half the year before.
Overall, House members asked for 5,067 earmarks, a nearly 7 percent increase over last year, for a total of $19.4 billion, a more substantial increase of over 56 percent from last year's total amount requested of $12.4 billion.
https://rollcall.com/2023/04/28/hous...er-new-regime/
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-01-2023, 09:06 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Meanwhile, while demanding a cut in spending, House Republicans lead the way in supporting earmarks. The top 6, 10 of the top 12, and 15 of the top 20 who requested earmarks are Republican. Fucking hypocrites.
Earmarking federal funds for their home districts continues to grow in popularity among House Republicans, with 152 GOP members and two nonvoting delegates participating in the process this year, a CQ Roll Call analysis found.
Nearly 70 percent of House Republicans are seeking earmarks this year, based on member request data compiled by the House Appropriations Committee. That's up from almost 60 percent of the conference last year and just over half the year before.
Overall, House members asked for 5,067 earmarks, a nearly 7 percent increase over last year, for a total of $19.4 billion, a more substantial increase of over 56 percent from last year's total amount requested of $12.4 billion.
https://rollcall.com/2023/04/28/hous...er-new-regime/
|
From your article:
The bulk of Weber’s requests were in the Energy-Water measure, the largest of which is a $260 million request for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project to improve floodgates along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Weber said 30 million tons of cargo, valued at $117 billion, pass through the waterway each year.
Michigan GOP Reps. Jack Bergman and freshman John James were second and third on the list, with Bergman asking for $465.8 million and James asking for $430.5 million.
However, those totals are inflated as the two shared a $394.1 million request for an Army Corps of Engineers project for a new lock at the Soo Locks, which connects Lake Superior and the lower Great Lakes.
The top Democratic requester, California’s Zoe Lofgren, was seventh overall, at $265.6 million. Lofgren’s leading request was $200 million for a risk management project for the Pajaro River in the Energy-Water measure.
These are requests to fund improvements in infrastructure, for which I believe funding has been approved under the bipartisan infrastructure spending bill. So, what's your beef?
|
05-01-2023, 12:20 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,919
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
So, what's your beef?
|
Because the House FreeDumb Caucus has been adamantly opposed to earmarks.
The conservative House Freedom Caucus has come out swinging against the idea, voting to formally oppose any form of congressionally directed spending, “whether in the 117th Congress or any future Congress.” Caucus members argued that the practice is ripe for abuse and would only lead to “pork-barrel” spending.
“They’re a bad idea. I’m opposed to them,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a member of the Freedom Caucus. “They’ve been described as a gateway drug toward corruption.”
“I am totally against it,” added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the group. “I don’t think Republicans should be supportive of earmarks.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...armarks-471344
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-01-2023, 12:32 PM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Because the House FreeDumb Caucus has been adamantly opposed to earmarks.
The conservative House Freedom Caucus has come out swinging against the idea, voting to formally oppose any form of congressionally directed spending, “whether in the 117th Congress or any future Congress.” Caucus members argued that the practice is ripe for abuse and would only lead to “pork-barrel” spending.
“They’re a bad idea. I’m opposed to them,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a member of the Freedom Caucus. “They’ve been described as a gateway drug toward corruption.”
“I am totally against it,” added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the group. “I don’t think Republicans should be supportive of earmarks.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...armarks-471344
|
Which caucus members are asking for earmarks?
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
|
05-01-2023, 12:49 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,919
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
Which caucus members are asking for earmarks?
|
The article I linked to provides a list. Within it, it also states:
Freedom Caucus members Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Andy Harris, R-Md., and Ben Cline, R-Va., are among the new requesters this year.
So is Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, who was one of four Republicans voting "no" on the debt limit increase measure on Wednesday for not doing enough to curb spending.
Republicans dominate the list of top earmarkers by dollar amount, including the top six among House members.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-01-2023, 06:17 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Because the House FreeDumb Caucus has been adamantly opposed to earmarks.
The conservative House Freedom Caucus has come out swinging against the idea, voting to formally oppose any form of congressionally directed spending, “whether in the 117th Congress or any future Congress.” Caucus members argued that the practice is ripe for abuse and would only lead to “pork-barrel” spending.
“They’re a bad idea. I’m opposed to them,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a member of the Freedom Caucus. “They’ve been described as a gateway drug toward corruption.”
“I am totally against it,” added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the group. “I don’t think Republicans should be supportive of earmarks.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...armarks-471344
|
Some Repubs are, some are not.
You called them "hypocrites". Since you're a Dem voter, and Dems typically infuse budgets with earmarks, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 AM.
|