# House GOP to vote NO on stimulus package



## DavidS (Jan 27, 2009)

Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012. 

Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

This bill will not help the economy, I certainly hope it gets voted down.  I have contacted my Congressman and told him to vote "No," but I'm under the assumption that he is going to vote "Yes."


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 27, 2009)

The CBO says it will.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> 
> Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com




Bye Bye!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 27, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> The CBO says it will.



Um no the CBO said for little of it would go toward immediate job recovery and would be too late in aiding a recovery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/20/AR2009012003980.html?hpid=topnews


----------



## DavidS (Jan 27, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> This bill will not help the economy, I certainly hope it gets voted down.  I have contacted my Congressman and told him to vote "No," but I'm under the assumption that he is going to vote "Yes."



Economists across the board says that this stimulus package will be very good for the economy and will help us and curb unemployment and the Republicans are voting no. Back to partisanship!


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > This bill will not help the economy, I certainly hope it gets voted down.  I have contacted my Congressman and told him to vote "No," but I'm under the assumption that he is going to vote "Yes."
> ...




Then you got no worries, you will be wildly successful.

http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=135976&t=01001019292467236494

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292987008414041.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


----------



## xsited1 (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > This bill will not help the economy, I certainly hope it gets voted down.  I have contacted my Congressman and told him to vote "No," but I'm under the assumption that he is going to vote "Yes."
> ...



Nope.  That's what Obama says, but that's not reality.  Here are just a few that disagree:

http://cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf



> Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > This bill will not help the economy, I certainly hope it gets voted down.  I have contacted my Congressman and told him to vote "No," but I'm under the assumption that he is going to vote "Yes."
> ...



Across what board?  The board that excludes Austrian economists apparently.  It is only going to further hurt the economy, and prolong the recession.


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 27, 2009)

Good, it's about damn time too.

They keep this up and the GoP will be resurected.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 27, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Good, it's about damn time too.
> 
> They keep this up and the GoP will be resurected.


absolutely
let the dems sink their own ship


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> 
> Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com


i wont be worried

when this thing FAILS like i expect it to, you guys will have FULL blame


----------



## DavidS (Jan 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> ...



How do you define failure of this package?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...


not solving the problem, and IE making it worse


----------



## Shadow (Jan 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Good, it's about damn time too.
> ...



I agree,if the ship was so worthy why do the Dems keep whining for the GOP to jump on and help take credit .  The ship must be the Titanic in reality.


----------



## DavidS (Jan 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What's "the problem?" Give me specifics. Double digit unemployment? Dow 6000? More banks going under?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...


the "problem" is, government spending too much money
taking too much out of the private setor
and the government spending even more money it doesnt have will not fix it


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2009)

Shadow said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...





This is the second time I've posted this picture, but I couldn't stop me..


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



Those are all symptoms, not the actual problems.  The best thing the government could do right now is cut taxes AND spending.  Other than that, simply let the market correct itself.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



The CBO quite clearly stated the problem.  Most of the money would not be spent until the recession is actually over.  Which begs one question how is a stimulus plan that is suppossed to help the recession going to do that if it isn't going to take effect until after it's over?

Another problem?  Gee, how about trying to solve the problem with a solution that is part of the why we got into this problem in the first place.  More bad debt.  

Another one? Aren't the libs the ones always chastising us about the problems we're passing to our children?  You want to add an unheard of deficit onto that?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 27, 2009)

They damn well better vote no.

That thing is anything but a stimulus package. It is irresponsible, pork barrel spending, and back door welfare that WILL NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

Exactly what us Conservatives have said all along. Obama and his congressional pals have NO IDEA WTF they are doing, all they know how to do is spend even more money we do not have.

Obama is already a disaster of a president.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> 
> Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com



The one minor detail missing, of course....

It isn't going to work at all.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> 
> Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com



When this bill helps our economy, monkeys will fly out of my ass.

It's a bad bill. But then I care about substance, not appearance. im not going to give people credit for "helping" the economy when they do nothing of the sort.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 27, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What stimulus is provided should be narrowly targeted to the heart of what the problem is....housing.  The original TARP target was buying up bad mortgages and stalling foreclosures, thereby stemming the tide of falling home prices.  But we all know they didn't do any of that, thus the TARP has done absolutely nothing to fix anything.  Since this package does not focus on housing, either, it will not work.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 27, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > This bill will not help the economy, I certainly hope it gets voted down.  I have contacted my Congressman and told him to vote "No," but I'm under the assumption that he is going to vote "Yes."
> ...



Who are these fictional economists who obviously dont know jack?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



The prices of homes need to come down, that's what the market is saying.  They need to let the recession happen to liquidate the bad debt.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 27, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



There is nothing for the market to correct.


----------



## StaleBO (Jan 27, 2009)

The bulk of the Republicans should do exactly what they have been doing the past nine years...spend, spend, spend, and spend some more. Hell, they shouldn't let President Obama deter them from continuing with their responsible fiscal record. With such conservatism who needs liberalism?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 27, 2009)

The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.

The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.

That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



Then we wouldn't be in a recession.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.
> 
> The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.
> 
> That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.



The recession has to happen.  Any businesses that are propped up by bad money will go out of business, but it has to happen for the economy to get better.  It's called a correction for a reason.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.
> 
> The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.
> 
> *That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you;* the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.





the people didn't vote for Republicans, they voted for youse guys. So youse guys get off yer azz and vote it in already. Then take the glory or the heat. Whichever. got guts?


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 27, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.
> 
> The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.
> 
> That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.



Most of them SHOULD fail.  Recessions are a natural cleansing process, purging poorly capitalized and managed businesses who were existing on the fringe even in good times.  We get a lot of frivolous businesses that pop up in boom times.  We also get a lot badly run businesses in boom times because in boom times everyone, even bad business make at least some money.  But when times get tough, the frivolous, fluff businesses and poorly run businesses have their weaknesses exposed and are eventually killed off, as they should be, leaving the strong, and lean companies to move on.   This process has been going on for 200+ years here and even longer in Europe.

We also know that government spending has never solved an economic downturn.  Not once.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 27, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.
> 
> The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.
> 
> That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.



Cut the capital gains tax and let people show you how wrong you are to think they are a bunch of idiots.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 27, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



The recession demonstrates that the market is working perfectly. When people are dishonest with finances, make bad financial decissions, and try to ignore their flaws, there are going to be recessions. Recesssions are the corrections.

You want to fix the recession? Be honest, work hard, and live within your means.

If you are responsible with your money, then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



We agree that the recession is the correction.  That's why a recession is called a correction.  The recession is the time that the market reallocates resources from insolvent companies to solvent ones.

I think we're agreeing, just maybe our terminology is different?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 27, 2009)

I can already see the major problem with this thread when it comes to people who feel this businesses should just fail.

Many did what you say Avatar, "Be honest, work hard, and live within your means."

I hate it when people assume that everybody who is broke or going out of business is because they are greedy.


----------



## StaleBO (Jan 27, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> the people didn't vote for Republicans, they voted for youse guys. So youse guys get off yer azz and vote it in already. Then take the glory or the heat. Whichever. got guts?



IMO many who voted for President Obama did not vote for him as much as they voted against the arrogance, hypocrisy, and lack of vision that is the current Republican party.  They are void of ideas or at least the ability to articulate them. The Republicans abandoned the principles that elevated them to office and now they have to find their soul.  Many conservatives set the last one out while moderates no longer trusted their direction; allowing the "new" guy a shot at bat seemed the wiser choice.  I believe many who voted for President Obama believed they were getting a JFK when in fact they are getting some Jimmy Carter/Adlai Stevenson hybrid. 

As you suggested, the Democrats will likely need no cooperation from the other side. They have the ideas but do they have the guts to implement them?  Of course none of this will matter if Republicans can't stand for something that resonates with the citizens of this country.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 27, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I can already see the major problem with this thread when it comes to people who feel this businesses should just fail.
> 
> Many did what you say Avatar, "Be honest, work hard, and live within your means."
> 
> I hate it when people assume that everybody who is broke or going out of business is because they are greedy.



Businesses that fail should fail simply because the market dictates that they should fail.  It's not because they're a bad person or a good person, or that they were lazy or not lazy.  It's simply supply and demand.  In a recession insolvent companies go out of business to free up capital and other resources for companies that are able to stand on their own in the market.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 27, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



I would mildly disagree unless I'm missing what you're saying.  The problem 'was' housing (past tense) in that home values were grossly overinflated. The problem now isn't that those values are falling.  What is happening is exactly what you said needs to happen and homes are no exception.  The market needs to determine the real value of homes and they are going down as they should be.

The main priorities need to be on jobs and and the credit crunch. Now I am biased because this is really starting to hit our company as it has many others.  I think Obama is making a mistake in trying to create these new government make work jobs.  What he should be doing is figuring out how to keep people in the one's they have and putting business in a better position to hire more people. 

A big step toward that would be addressing the credit crunch.  The issue the car companies are having partly along with any company that build things is that there is an outlay of cash FIRST on the part of the business for the materials, labor, etc. in building the product.  This is why so many businesses have credit lines.  Banks give them money to cover their expenses then when product sells the company pays it back and hopefully makes a profit on top of that.  The problem the banks are tightening the amount of credit they will lend.  Where the once offered x amount now it's less.  Now the company can't cover all of it's expenses and may need to lay people off and compounding the issue is that not as much product is being purchased by consumers.  But finding away relieve the credit crunch, to get restrictions loosened and credit lines open would go a long way toward giving comapanies a breather.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 28, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I can already see the major problem with this thread when it comes to people who feel this businesses should just fail.
> 
> Many did what you say Avatar, "Be honest, work hard, and live within your means."
> 
> I hate it when people assume that everybody who is broke or going out of business is because they are greedy.



You've made it perfectly clear that you dont like the truth on multiple occasions. Why should this one be any different?

And no, many people weren't honest. Many people didnt work hard. And you can't tell me with a straight face that people have lived within their means. The American people is in  debt up to their eyeballs. And you have the audacity to proclaim to me that they are living within their means.

When you create an economy based on a lie, it will never sustain myself. When you take debts you can't pay back. And some who take debts who wont pay them back, the fall is inevitable. Because your foundation is built on lies.

You arent going to die if you dont get the new plasma screen tv. You arent going to die if you have to get buy using one car instead of 3. Or if you, heaven forbid, have to stay home and cook a meal rather than go to McDonalds (which i might point out has excellent profits right now).

You cant maintain an economy that has its foundation in debt. Because sooner or later the bottom will fall out. If you think the economy is bad now, wait till the bottom completely falls out.

And it is specifically because people are dishonest. It's because rather than working hard, people would rather try to scam money from other people. They wont put in their full value. And they wont live within their means. They have to have something more. 

and you know what, your dishonesty, greed, and poor financial planning effects other people as well. And there isnt a damn thing washington can do to fix your poor financial and character habits. Spending more money isnt going to solve anything. The best you can hope for is another illusion of prosperity before we face the same damn problem.

And you sure as heck dont fix problems by throwing money at companies that are hemeraging. You'd have better luck flushing the money down the toilet. Because it doesnt fix the problem.

Money, like government, doesnt solve a problem.


----------



## garyd (Jan 28, 2009)

The firet step is to get rid of or redue the bad regulations that gave us the housing collapse in the first place there are a lot of businesses out  that are going to go down like ajax smply because government rules and regulations at various levels left them no other choice than to gamble on a housing market that would always keep climbing price wise. Unfortunately once prices rise beyond a certain limit there simply is not enough people able to buy them hence the correction. and alot of them  (new homes) are going to set empty even at half the contruction price, in many case upwards of 150 k, simply because most people are priced out of the market.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 28, 2009)

StaleBO said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > the people didn't vote for Republicans, they voted for youse guys. So youse guys get off yer azz and vote it in already. Then take the glory or the heat. Whichever. got guts?
> ...






All this is true. My point is, for once, I wasnt the Dems to take responsiblility for their actions. Just once would be nice.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 28, 2009)

I for one will not be fooled by the GOP. They can oppose the stimulus and try to portray themselves as champions of limited government, but their recent history proves otherwise. The headline should read "GOP will oppose this particular version of the stimulus package".

I know this is conjecture on my part, but I seriously doubt the GOP would oppose a stimulus package if McCain had won the Presidency and the GOP hadn't have taken a colossal bitch-slapping in the Congressional races.


----------



## editec (Jan 28, 2009)

As long as the conditions which are the source of the problem are not corrected, then I am quite frankly very dubious that anything the government is planning on doing will help.

More, as long as the conditions which are the source of the problem are not corrected, then the government doing nothing will not help, either.

If too few Americans making a living wage while working for a living caused the problem, then having more Americans unemployed and making nothing doesn't sound like much a solution either.

Metaphorically from my view, there is a hole in the keel of the Ship of State, we're taking on water faster than we can pump it out, and one party wants to rearrange the deck chairs, while the other demands that the band play different music.

A pox on both their houses and both their absurd solutions.

We had a system that was wroking better than any system mankind had EVER devised, but the greed of the master class systematically arranged things so that they got every so much wealthier at the expense of the society as whole.

And now, having bled this system of most of its life's blood, the economy goes into a state of shock and frankly, both parties are so politically bankrupted that neither of them are qualified or disposed to actually admit that they've been raping this economy for their own benefit because if they did, they might actually have to give SOME of their il got gain back.

It'll never happen, and this nation is going down, folks.

About all American can hope for, unless we admit this and agree to do something about it that is REAL,  is a slow peaceful death into the dustbin of history.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 28, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> The CBO quite clearly stated the problem.  Most of the money would not be spent until the recession is actually over.  Which begs one question how is a stimulus plan that is suppossed to help the recession going to do that if it isn't going to take effect until after it's over?


Controversial CBO Report On Stimulus Turns Out Not To Exist


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 28, 2009)

the article clearly says the report exists, information run though and a computer model produced on how the money will be spent and on what time line. It's not an *official* CBO report but it exists..




Bufffington post..


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jan 28, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> 
> Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com



If the Republicans lose again in 2010, it won't be because this bill fixed the economy.  According to the C.B.O. report, only about two thirds of the appropriations will have been spent by 2011 and the report goes on to explain that various factors would likely reduce even that amount.  While many of the 151 separate appropriations in the bill are for worthwhile projects, not one of them addresses the central problem we face, that the tight credit markets have turned the financial crisis into a full blown recession.  While the tax cuts may give a boost to the economy, we saw from Bush's tax rebate how short lived that effect is if the underlying problems of the economy remain unaddressed, and this bill does nothing to address them.

On the other hand, the Democrats could get lucky.  The American economy, which has shown itself to be remarkably resilient in the past might reach bottom quickly enough for banks and corporations to believe it was time to start lending and growing and then the Democrats, who are as clueless as everyone else about what to do can claim credit for the recovery that caught them by surprise as Clinton did when he stood before America, in the shadow of Enron, just before all those 401k's came crashing down to crush the dreams of America's workers and proclaimed the tech bubble would go on forever and make everyone rich and solve all of America's problems forever and ever and ever . . . .


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 28, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Kevin, can you please explain to me why the government does not posses this much common sense??


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 28, 2009)

False Hopes for Tax Relief and Fiscal Stimulus - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

*People might believe that they have something to gain by shifting from tax-financed government spending to deficit-financed spending, but there is nothing really behind these tax cuts. The entire fiscal-stimulus plan is itself a fraud. The federal government has a proven track record of waste; the enlargement of the public sector will not improve economic conditions. Obama is right about one thing: America needs change. Americans need a change in the fiscal plans of the Obama administration to avoid further waste. What we need are real lasting tax cuts and a corresponding movement of spending out of government and into the private sector.*


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 28, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I can already see the major problem with this thread when it comes to people who feel this businesses should just fail.
> 
> *Many did what you say Avatar, "Be honest, work hard, and live within your means."*
> 
> I hate it when people assume that everybody who is broke or going out of business is because they are greedy.



Do lenders live within their means? Does joe taxpayer live within his means?  Does the government live within its means?  All spent beyond their means then can't figure out what went wrong.  

If I have too much credit card debt, the last thing I would do to correct the problem is . . . . spend more money.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2009)

editec said:


> We had a system that was wroking better than any system mankind had EVER devised, but the greed of the master class systematically arranged things so that they got every so much wealthier at the expense of the society as whole.



You were doing fine right to about here....



editec said:


> And now, having bled this system of most of its life's blood, the economy goes into a state of shock and frankly, both parties are so politically bankrupted that neither of them are qualified or disposed to actually admit that they've been raping this economy for their own benefit because if they did, they might actually have to give SOME of their il got gain back.
> 
> It'll never happen, and this nation is going down, folks.
> 
> About all American can hope for, unless we admit this and agree to do something about it that is REAL,  is a slow peaceful death into the dustbin of history.



Corporate greed did not get us into this.  It takes two to tango as they say.  A major part of the problem is that we have simply become dumber as a nation.  Most people simply don't understand money.  Which a big reason why we have so much bad debt. People and government a like.  This is the down side of freedom friend.  The freedom to remain ignorant.  To take less and less responsibility for yourself.  To educate yourself less on ALL aspects of life.

We are where we are because of what we have become as a society.  Of course there are greedy CEOs out there, but to believe that is what got us into this is to be a sheep of what the media tells you.


----------



## editec (Jan 28, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > We had a system that was wroking better than any system mankind had EVER devised, but the greed of the master class systematically arranged things so that they got every so much wealthier at the expense of the society as whole.
> ...


 
I can proably list a couple hundred laws, taxation policies and trade polices all of which benefitted ONLY the superwealthy class and usually at the expense of the nation's working class and ultimately at the expense of the nation itself.

These have been occurring since the 1930's BTW, so this is not a slam at one party or the other.

So before you can convince me that this is the result of _the entire population getting dumber_, you'd need to address those curiously lop[sided changes to the way we do things which miraculously ONLY helped about 1/10th of the American people in the long run.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2009)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...



editec said:


> [These have been occurring since the 1930's BTW, so this is not a slam at one party or the other.
> 
> So before you can convince me that this is the result of _the entire population getting dumber_, you'd need to address those curiously lop[sided changes to the way we do things which miraculously ONLY helped about 1/10th of the American people in the long run.



Does a 10% across the board income tax cut help the wealthy more or the poor more?  That's why any financial break of any type is always going to benefit the rich more.  It's math, not a conspiracy.  Major coroporations receive tax breaks of all kinds for various reasons. Most incentive, based.  Set up shop in this state instead of that.  Use these light bulbs. etc.  With greater resources comes greater advantage.  Try tipping the scale the other way.  What big break are you going to give the poor and leave the rich out that is really going to make much difference at all in the economy?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 28, 2009)

> Said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.: "Mr. President, I probably come at this from a slightly different perspective. I remember when FDR beat Hoover in 1932. So I remember the Great Depression very well. I don't remember any of the many government programs affecting the course of the Depression. Government programs didn't work then, I don't know why we think they would work now. Mr. President, I think our obsessive borrowing has fully mortgaged my kids and my grandkids. Now we're working on mortgaging my two great-grandkids. Mr. President, I think it's more than a little bit selfish to try to solve our economic problems which we created by burdening future generations yet to be born."



Political Punch: Scenes From a Stimulus Battle, Part 4


----------



## editec (Jan 28, 2009)

> Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...


 
I can provide a few rather easily...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Israel.svg


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Israel.svg Israel: US-Israel Free Trade Agreement (incl. Palestinian Authority; 1985)
> [*]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Mexico.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Canada.svgNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (incl. Canada and Mexico; 1994)
> [*]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Jordan.svg Jordan: US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (2001)
> [*]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Australia.svg Australia: Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (2004)
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Israel.svg
Source Wikipedia

You want me to do the same regarding tax laws?

That is rather more difficult sinc eht toxic tax benefits of which I speak are often BURIED in some bill having little to do with taxation.

Tell you what...let's see how you respond to the above list first, before I waste my time giving you example after example of things that I understand are fucking over our people, shall I?


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 28, 2009)

so no more freetrade....isolation and tarifs.....buy american only....


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 28, 2009)

LOL the wormy little Pelosi person just stated emphatically and with much drama that the obamalama "was going to harness the power of the sun and the wind."  Alhhhh, the gods of Olympus have arisen from their long rest! The Messiah has risen..


----------



## Lycurgus (Jan 28, 2009)

Well I'm still waiting to see the positive results from the first stimulus package. Further, this one is full of pork making it a lie to the American people and should not be voted for. For a man who claimed he was going to go through everything page by page to cut the waste, he sure missed a few pages on this. 

They seem more worried about Rush Limpballs.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2009)

editec said:


> > Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, free trade.

Do non-free trade policies protect american jobs, jobs that are typically middle to lower income? Yes. In the short term.  In the long term it inflates the price of of goods so everything costs more for everyone than it would if those policies weren't in place.  Can you imagine how much a television would cost If we tried to protect that from foreign competition.  The question is who's pocket book are you more willing to sacrafice?  The workers (who worst case would have lose a job and possibly retrain themselves to do something else) or the consumers(who worst case will continue to pay higher costs one everything for as long as those policies are in place)?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 28, 2009)

editec said:


> > Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so, you want to go back to the isolationist policies of the 1920's?


seems to me that was part of what CAUSED the great depression in the first place

how come so many dems of today are as stupid as the republicans of the early 20th century


----------



## garyd (Jan 28, 2009)

Edi, what union you shilling for half the stuff you post sound like it came striaght out of an AFL CIO handbill from twenty years ago.

Free trade is the best thing ever happended to working people when it is actually free trade. Take The sort of Communist China out of the poicture and we have nearly a trade surplus, Remove Japan and we do.


----------



## editec (Jan 28, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > Consider this your opportunity then to provide at least one of said examples...
> ...


----------



## garyd (Jan 28, 2009)

I think I've missed your point above. Unemployed and under employed workers in America wouldn't be losing their jobs.

Quite true.  It is damn hard to lose something you never would have had anyway.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 28, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.
> 
> The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.
> 
> That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.



Tax Cuts are the solution.

Across the board.

The government can not put any money into the economy that it did not first take out of the economy.

Every penny the government spends on a bailout was either, taken from the economy in the form of taxes, loans(which drive up the price to barrow) or by printing new money(which drives down the value of said money)

So only an idiot would actually think this retarded, Bloated spending spree is an economic stimulus plan, it is nothing more than a whole lot of new spending which will simply multiply our problems.

Welcome to Obama?pelosi Economics. 

you guys think the last 8 years of republican spending were bad, hold on to your hat, Obama, and Pelosi seem bound and determined to make Bush and the Republicans look fiscally responsible next to them. 

Hundreds of millions of dollars for things like polishing a statue, and handing out condoms, are just a few of the STUPID spending programs that are in this joke of a bill.

I only find one silver lining in all this. Soon you Dems and Libs will have nothing to hide behind, soon the American people will see the disaster in action that will be the Democrat economic plan, and you people will not be able to blame anyone but yourselves.

Obama will see no more than 4 years in office, and by 4 to 6 years from now Republicans will be back in control of congress as well. 

If that is the Dems continue down this misguided path.


----------



## StaleBO (Jan 28, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> I for one will not be fooled by the GOP. They can oppose the stimulus and try to portray themselves as champions of limited government, but their recent history proves otherwise. The headline should read "GOP will oppose this particular version of the stimulus package".
> 
> I know this is conjecture on my part, but I seriously doubt the GOP would oppose a stimulus package if McCain had won the Presidency and the GOP hadn't have taken a colossal bitch-slapping in the Congressional races.


 I have no idea who to support anymore. I have no party affiliation. I view myself as a conservative but I value the idea of being a pragmatist more. If an idea makes sense for a particular situation and is dynamic in nature then even a liberal proposition will garner my support. 

For instance, when President Obama discussed a serious investment in infrastructure and renewable energies, I was willing to listen. When he discussed the supposed transparent nature of his ideas and his declaration that sweet savory pork was going to meet the fell stroke of the veto pen, I was listening. I figured these propositions sounded much more desirable than the path the leader of the GOP chose which is basically a what, when, and where the hell did the money go? Of course, as recent days have shown President Obama is not following through. 

But with that said the stimulus/bail out package is a colossal GOP mistake and one in which they have to accept responsibility for. President Bush's plan had no real concrete direction, lacked initial oversight (surprise), and provided zero transparency. As you said, I have little doubt myself, if President Obama was President McCain the GOP would be digging the lint out of our back pockets. There were some who stood up but far too few. The GOP will not regain my trust until those who voted for TARP are gone.


----------



## clars (Jan 29, 2009)

Is a vote against the stimulus plan a vote *for* recession?  According to the BBC, this is the prevailing attitude on the hill.  House members who could not imagine voting against *any* assistance package might appear callous to voters, ignoring that the market has plummeted from artificial levels, and that injections of capital are rather like drastic measures taken to assure that an exec is not deprived of his fourth shiatsu massage, and Joe the Plumber well in reach of his Double Whopper.


----------



## garyd (Jan 29, 2009)

Which recent history woiuld that Be The Gingrich Republicans who balanced the Budget inspite of the Dems or the Bush Republicans who managed to out spend the Dems.

It's all about the leadership. Mr. Bush's Democrat lite rinos got hammered and rightfully so. The only people hurt worse than they in this election were the Alphabet Soup media who revealed themselves for what they are namely a bunch simpering leftist swine without so much as a shred of intellectual integrity. MSNBC has the smallest audience of any of the 24 hour News Services and is largely viewed only by people who tilt so far to the left that they can no longer walk but roll about like ten pins mostly in the direction of the gutter. NBC the mother ship is only slightly better. Fox News the network the left loves to hate Has a larger audience than any other three news shows combined. And you idiots keep trying to tell me this is a center left country...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 29, 2009)

Finally republicans acting like republicans where were these guys the last 8 years?

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama's Statement on the House's Vote


----------



## Gunny (Jan 29, 2009)

clars said:


> Is a vote against the stimulus plan a vote *for* recession?  According to the BBC, this is the prevailing attitude on the hill.  House members who could not imagine voting against *any* assistance package might appear callous to voters, ignoring that the market has plummeted from artificial levels, and that injections of capital are rather like drastic measures taken to assure that an exec is not deprived of his fourth shiatsu massage, and Joe the Plumber well in reach of his Double Whopper. Should there be such a price tag for politicians to be loved, and feel like they are acting the part of good politicians?
> 
> Should all of us be entitled to *enjoy* at any cost?



What's this got to do with Pelosi's facelift?  One would think if you are going to make an accusatory, sensationlist thread title, you could at least mention it once in your editorializing.


----------



## indago (Jan 29, 2009)

garyd said:


> Edi, what union you shilling for half the stuff you post sound like it came striaght out of an AFL CIO handbill from twenty years ago.
> 
> Free trade is the best thing ever happended to working people when it is actually free trade. Take The sort of Communist China out of the poicture and we have nearly a trade surplus, Remove Japan and we do.



*Journalist Ian Austen reported for the New York Times 8 February 2007:*


> Nortel to Cut Another 3,900 Jobs  ...About 1,000 of those positions will be shifted to lower-cost operations in Mexico, China and India.



Are you denying this report that "1,000 of those positions will be shifted to lower-cost operations in Mexico, China and India"?

*Proponents of free trade agreements are proponents of RACE TO THE BOTTOM*

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-10.htm

Free Trade at the Fore of Races - Los Angeles Times



-


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 29, 2009)

And actually... a few DEMs joined in going against it... that was good to see..

This is just a bad bill... it is flat out spending... pork... a bunch of crap


----------



## Ravi (Jan 29, 2009)

They've been there all along, voting against the American people.


> 1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.
> 2) When pollsters also provide an explicit "do not have an opinion" option, as NBC/_Wall Street Journa_l and (presumably) Rasmussen do, support falls to the mid-40 percent range and (on the NBC/WSJ poll at least) opposition also falls proportionately.
> 3) When the questions provide more information on how the $800 billion (or so) will be spent, usually specifying a combination of tax cuts and transportation, education and energy projects," support grows to mid-60 low-70 percent range.
> 4) Only one question -- again from NBC/_Wall Street Journal_ -- poses explicit arguments for and against the proposal, and it produces a slightly higher level of support (57%) than the first category of questions that mention only the overall price tag and omits a specific prompt for "no opinion."
> 5) Every question shows net support for the proposal.​


Pollster.com: Economic Stimulus and the Many Faces of "Public Opinion"


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> They've been there all along, voting against the American people.
> 
> 
> > 1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.
> ...



Do the polls say that most of that money won't even get spent until 2010?
Do the polls state that the largest amount of spending is not for direct stimulus spending but rather appropriations, otherwise known as earmarks?

The bill is a bad idea and voting against it is NOT voting against the "people"


----------



## indago (Jan 29, 2009)

garyd said:


> Edi, what union you shilling for half the stuff you post sound like it came striaght out of an AFL CIO handbill from twenty years ago.



"AFL CIO" also promotes *RACE TO THE BOTTOM*

I posted this awhile back on another message board:

*From Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) WebSite:*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL POLICY &#8212; Despite some recent positive indicators, our economy continues to struggle. Since January 2001, the United States has lost close to three million manufacturing jobs. Michigan 's unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation. Our country is also back into a very deep deficit ditch.

Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking a look at Senator Levin VOTING RECORD on Free Trade Agreements, I wonder at the audacity of the "AFL-CIO" to proclaim this senator "pro-union".  Even the local unions are supporting this senator for re-election to the Senate "representing" Michigan, and thus subsidizing their own demise.








AFL ENDORSES DURBIN

In 2004, a friend sent to me an Email concerning remarks that Senator Durbin (D, Illinois) had entered into the Congressional Record 11 February 2004.  The Senator had gone to the Walter Reed Hospital with some other Senators to have lunch with some of the wounded soldiers there who had returned from battle in Iraq.  The soldiers told of some of the battles they were in, and how they were injured, mostly from rocket fire and roadside bombs penetrating the light armor of their vehicles.  The Senators asked what they, as Congressmen, could do to help, and the soldiers mentioned that it would help a lot if the vehicles were fitted with a heavier plated door; that they were invading scrap yards to install plating on their vehicles in an effort to protect themselves.

Senator Durbin related that he visited the Rock Island Arsenal in his home State of Illinois where the new heavier plated doors were being fitted on the vehicles.

*From the Congressional Record:*
------------------------------------------------------------------
I said to the commander at the arsenal: How long will it take us now? We need 8,400 sets and we are also doing them at Anniston. He said: We are going to get these doors built in one year.

One year? In World War II, we were building bombers in 72 hours and ships in 30 and 60 days, and we need 1 year to make the armor-plated doors to protect the Humvees so that fewer of our men and women in uniform will have to go to Walter Reed Hospital for prosthetic devices and medical treatment.

I said: Why is it taking one year? He said: Because there is only one steel-fabricating plant left in America, and it is in Pennsylvania. It makes the steel that we can convert into the armor plating for these doors. We are using everything they produce as fast as they produce it.

So when the issue comes up about loss of manufacturing jobs, and loss of American jobs, and loss of our industrial base, it is more than a cold discussion of statistics; it is a discussion about the reality of our economy and the reality we face. Whether you live in North Carolina, where we have lost textile jobs, or you live in Illinois, where we have lost steel jobs, the fact is, as we lose these jobs, we lose our capacity. When it comes to something as basic as steel, that capacity plays out so that our soldiers in Iraq today are more vulnerable to enemy attack because we cannot produce the steel in America.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote back in an Email: "Senator Richard Durbin, a Democrat, while a Congressman in the House of Representatives representing his constituents in Illinois, voted for the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), GATT (General Agreement on Tariff and Trade), and when he became a Senator representing the State of Illinois in the Congress, voted for the China trade agreement, the Chile free trade agreement, and the Singapore free trade agreement."

These hypocrites in Congress new very well what would happen.  It was predicted over two hundred years ago.  Now they have put our soldiers, and the whole country, at risk in this economic regression.

-----------------

US/CHINA/TRADE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is rare when a government official actually blames himself for his mistakes. That straight talk occurred in the June 4 issue of Foreign Policy in Focus when Robert Cassidy, President Clinton's Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Asia and China, took himself to task for the trade agreement he negotiated with China. He began: "As the principal negotiator for the landmark market access agreement that led to China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), I have reflected on whether the agreements we negotiated really lived up to our expectations. A sober reflection has led me to conclude that those trade agreements did not."  Cassidy notes that only two groups benefited from our trade agreement with China: "multinational companies that moved to China and the financial institutions that financed those investments, trade flows, and deficits." The American economy and the American worker were the big losers with up to 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE FREE TRADE

HOUSE FREE TRADE



-


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> They've been there all along, voting against the American people.
> 
> 
> > 1) When asked whether they favor or oppose an "economic stimulus" plan that would cost $800 billion or so (give or take a hundred million), Americans generally express support in the mid-50-percent range.
> ...





That's just donkeycrap!


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 29, 2009)

This is a good opportunity for Obama to REALLY show some of the bipartisanship he campaigned on and work with the GOP to make a better but not fatter bill.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 29, 2009)

Lawrence B. Lindsey: How About a Payroll Tax Stimulus? - WSJ.com

*And what of the plan being put forward now? As crafted, it is unlikely to produce the desired results. For a similar amount of money, the government could essentially cut the payroll tax in half, taking three points off the rate for both the employer and the employee. This would put $1,500 into the pocket of a typical worker making $50,000, with a similar amount going to his or her employer. It would provide a powerful stimulus to the spending stream, as well as a significant, six percentage point reduction in the tax burden of employment for people making less than $100,000. The effects would be immedia*te.



But why would the government not want people to keep more of their own money?

Answer: because they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 29, 2009)

Skull

It is as simple as this... the most effective "stimulus" is to have more $$$ in the hands of people who then spend, save, and choose what to do with their money..

But that does not give these politicians power.. when THEY can direct the $$$, they assume power, they up their influence... which is what they are all about... it is not about the people, it is not about the economy, it is not about what is best... it is simply about their power


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 29, 2009)

People, the idea of the obamalama is to take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't. So called trickle up economics or wealth redistribution. Pure and simple. He promised us he would do it. And Pelsoi sprained her leg  towing the party line.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 29, 2009)

The stimulus package includes tax cuts.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 29, 2009)

Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.

The bullshit non partisan rhetoric is on the right this time.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 29, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.
> 
> The bullshit non partisan rhetoric is on the right this time.



Funny.. seems like the non-partisan side was the one voting AGAINST.. there were DEMs joining AND some of the DEMs even supported the Republican alternative

The PARTISAN side was the ones voting for it.... all liberals toting the "spend like a drunken sailor" line


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 29, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.
> 
> The bullshit non partisan rhetoric is on the right this time.




oh but what I heard yesterday on C-span was the the whole bill was drafted by Democrats, Republicans were left out of the planning and writing. So, again, you cannot expect them to vote for a bill they do not like.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 29, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  *They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.*
> The bullshit non partisan rhetoric is on the right this time.






what was the compromise?


*They lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.....*

so? they should vote for a bill they are against because they lost an election? That don't make walking around sense.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> The stimulus package includes tax cuts.



And don't forget great things like government spending on ATV tracks... generic "global warming research"... 

This bill is stuffed to the gills with wasteful and useless spending that has NOTHING to do with economic recovery or "stimulus"... this is a disgrace... and any representative who voted for this thing is just as much a disgrace

Oh.. .and for as much as I don't like my current congressman.. reports are he actually stood up and spoke out against Obama to his face.... first thing I've supported from him in a while...


----------



## Lycurgus (Jan 29, 2009)

IMO ................... A stimulus package should not have any pork in it and this one has more than too much in it. It should be partly about government infrastructure and also about helping the private sector putting people to work. It needs to help foster some longer term goals, but, it needs to be able to focus on the short term. It also needs to stimulate public spending. When we stop spending, we sink and that is happening more and more with each passing day. Yesterday alone we trimmed 4 employee's off that days payroll. Four people lost a days work simply because public spending is down. We have never had to do anything like that in the past and we hate it. These are good people, but, we have to protect the integrity of the business. No one wants handouts but, it would be nice if the government is going to get this much involved, that they do something to help us add four people to payroll, not trim hours of four people.


----------



## editec (Jan 29, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Finally republicans acting like republicans where were these guys the last 8 years?
> 
> Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama's Statement on the House's Vote


 
Where were they?

They were enabling the cronny capitalists that were in office to rape the economy and suck money out of the budget for their pals benefit.

And NOW, it the Democratic team's turn to make their supporters rich.

Skull do you really_ BELIEVE_ that there is a _significant_ difference between these two parties?

I mean honestly,_ do you?_

You are not a stupid man, how can you keep missing something so _freaking_ obvious?

Bush II (self proclaimed conservative) spend money like a damned fool and his pals got rich.

The Dems are in charge now...and they're going to spend money like damned fools, too.

_Jeeze!_ amigo, get a clue.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> The stimulus package includes tax cuts.



A one time tax rebate check does not a tax cut make.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 29, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Finally republicans acting like republicans where were these guys the last 8 years?
> ...





I think the difference is Bush gave it to Businness, Business creates jobs. Jobs equal money. obamalama is going to give it to those who don't create anything, it's just massive welfare. Take from those who have money and give it to those who don't. obamalama will make it so hard for business in the US OF KKKA that business will move overseas. You will see the jobless numbers increase.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The stimulus package includes tax cuts.
> ...



Rachel Maddow explained that when the government spends $1 on tax breaks, it generated about $1 and some change back.

When we fund project like building bridges, it produces a lot more $.

Bottom line, tax breaks are the least effective.  

I can't explain it exactly as I heard it last night, but the GOP's ideas are not good.  They like the current economy because they serve the corporations and bankers.  The corporations now get to cut our pay and fire a bunch of us.  

This is all by design.  The GOP caused this crisis on purpose, along with the bankers.  

The Dems need to do away with the Federal Reserve system.  We need to take our country back.

And the Dems won't even try it until more of us Americans tell them we have their backs.  Most of you argue FOR the Federal Reserve and you defend the corporations having too much power.

So don't expect things to get better.  Only worse.  Because of people like you who don't get it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 29, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Finally republicans acting like republicans where were these guys the last 8 years?
> 
> Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama's Statement on the House's Vote



HASHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


doing just this same idiotic shit that you were apporving back then when you "thought" is was working.

Now that the "tax cut" answer has screwed this coutnry completely you are going to pretend ist a new idea?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 29, 2009)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Angel Heart (Jan 29, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  *They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.*
> ...



Not only that but the Republicans that are there haven't lost an election, or they wouldn't be there. They just lost majority.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 29, 2009)

And lets not forget angelheart their ideas have been what gave us this huge mess.


----------



## Silence (Jan 29, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I think the difference is Bush gave it to Businness, Business creates jobs. Jobs equal money. obamalama is going to give it to those who don't create anything, it's just massive welfare. Take from those who have money and give it to those who don't. obamalama will make it so hard for business in the US OF KKKA that business will move overseas. You will see the jobless numbers increase.



remind us again, how many jobs were created during Bush's time in office?  4.8 million.  How many during Clinton? 23 million.  How many were lost just in 2008 alone? over 2 million.  Tell us again how Bush's tax breaks helped the working peopleof this country.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 29, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> This is a good opportunity for Obama to REALLY show some of the bipartisanship he campaigned on and work with the GOP to make a better but not fatter bill.



He wont do it. Because they only way to make a good bill is to eliminate the bill.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 29, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> And lets not forget angelheart their ideas have been what gave us this huge mess.



Lie.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 29, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.
> 
> The bullshit non partisan rhetoric is on the right this time.



You're joking right? President Bush never stopped working with the Democrats. that's one of the problems we had with him. What the hell was the point of electing him if he is going to just capitulate?


----------



## indago (Jan 29, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> We have shifted from manufacturing and production to service oriented industries in this country.



What kind of service do you think we could provide to China, India, Japan?


----------



## Angel Heart (Jan 29, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> And lets not forget angelheart their ideas have been what gave us this huge mess.



It wasn't just theirs. Let's not forget that the Dem's had a hand in all this too. Don't go acting like they are saints in all this... And look they are repeating the exact same issue that has gotten us where we are today... I wonder what has more earmarks the SCHIP bill from a year or so ago or this one? It's all the extra BS that they have tacked on to it. Thankfully some of it has fallen off but not all of it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 29, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> I for one will not be fooled by the GOP. They can oppose the stimulus and try to portray themselves as champions of limited government, but their recent history proves otherwise. The headline should read "GOP will oppose this particular version of the stimulus package".
> 
> I know this is conjecture on my part, but I seriously doubt the GOP would oppose a stimulus package if McCain had won the Presidency and the GOP hadn't have taken a colossal bitch-slapping in the Congressional races.



If McCain had had balls even half the size of Palin's, he would have rejected the INITIAL stimulus package and he'd be president today.

I think most are right when they point out that the #1 reason not one Republican has refused THIS stimulus package is because they KNOW the economy will be hurt, not helped, by it and they aren't going down with that ship. The only reason the dems wanted them on board was so when that happens, as they ALL know it will (and just don't care) they can say "Look, they wanted it too....".

Two years and we're back in the majority. Four years of this and America will be ready to usher in an ultra-conservative, so long as they don't resemble anything we've seen since Reagan.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jan 29, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Goodbye Republican Party. When this bill begins to help our economy, curb unemployment and sends the market over 9500, you're not only going to lose 2010, you're going to lose 2012.
> 
> Boehner to GOP: Vote against stimulus - Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com



ROFL...  Well FIRST it needs to be noted the the vote AGAINST this bill was BI-PARTISAN!  With 13 DEmocrats voting with the unanimous GOP vote. 

Secondly all this bill is going to do is dramatically increase the liability against the dollar and having subsidized under performance, encourage more under performance.  Meaning its not going to produce anything a except  prolonging the recession. 

Of course the MSM will cheer the under performing results as miraculous but that won't help the numbers


----------



## driveby (Jan 29, 2009)

Here are some additional fun facts of the Pork, i mean, Stimulus Package...


&#8226; In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clinton&#8217;s proposed stimulus legislation *only* contained $16 billion in spending 

&#8226; The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government. 

&#8226; This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills. 

&#8226; If you had a stack four inches high, you&#8217;d be a millionaire. A trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills would measure just over 63 miles high. 

&#8226; In $20 bills, a trillion dollar stack would be 3150 miles high. That&#8217;s about the distance between DC and Trujillo, Peru. 

&#8226; President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year. 

&#8226; This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. 

&#8226; This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren. 

&#8226; Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending. 

&#8226; Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances. 

&#8226; For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand. 

&#8226; And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used. 

&#8226; Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. 

&#8226; $800 billion more will not change that. 

&#8226; Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway &#8220;stimulus&#8221; can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs. 

&#8226; But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector. 

&#8226; The private sector then loses or forgoes roughly the same number of jobs. 

&#8226; Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 &#8220;stimulus&#8221; bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world). Their economy remained stagnant and their per capita income went from the second highest in the world to the tenth highest.




Work is slow today, so i had time to post this, go figure ..........


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 29, 2009)

driveby said:


> Here are some additional fun facts of the Pork, i mean, Stimulus Package...
> 
> 
>  In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clintons proposed stimulus legislation *only* contained $16 billion in spending
> ...



Nice find.. .heard most of it already... but good to post to put a little perspective out there


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

I heard the House GOP fell in love with Obama.  They all got shivers down their legs. 

But then they could not show weakness and give in, so they sent him a message that they can not be sweet talked into doing the right thing for 90% of the American people.  They only work for the top 10%.  

Remember that.  Whenever the GOP talk about the American people, they are referring to the top 10% richest and the Corporations.  

They absolutely NEVER mean the bottom 90%.  To them, we are just there for them to use.  If any of us become rich, we are more than welcome to join them, but until then, we don't matter.  They don't even think we should vote.


----------



## driveby (Jan 29, 2009)

punt accepted ....


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

Does this look familiar?

Signaling that Republicans plan to oppose at least part of President Clinton's economic program, Senator Robert Dole, the minority leader, and three other Republican Senators said today that they disagreed with the Administration's plans for a short-term stimulus package because it would increase the deficit this year. 

Ha!  They were dead wrong then and they are dead wrong now.  

Feb 1993

G.O.P. IS OPPOSED TO ECONOMIC PLAN - New York Times

Isn't it ironic


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?  

Despite the Republican criticisms, Administration officials made it clear today that they were still tilting heavily in favor of a stimulus program. 

Is that how any of you remember 1990-92?  LOL.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?
> 
> Despite the Republican criticisms, Administration officials made it clear today that they were still tilting heavily in favor of a stimulus program.
> 
> Is that how any of you remember 1990-92? LOL.


are you fucking serious???????????????

opposing that boondoggle is part of what got the GOP majorities in BOTH bodies of congress
you are a complete and total fucking moron with your revisionist history


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I heard the House GOP fell in love with Obama.  They all got shivers down their legs.
> 
> But then they could not show weakness and give in, so they sent him a message that they can not be sweet talked into doing the right thing for 90% of the American people.  They only work for the top 10%.
> 
> ...



How exactly does this horrendous legislation help the American people?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I heard the House GOP fell in love with Obama.  They all got shivers down their legs.
> ...



It will get people working and get money circulating again.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?
> ...



And between them and the Centrist Clinton, they set the ball in motion to turn America into a fascist state.  

This is one of the reasons I didn't vote for Hillary.  She's a sellout too.  Maybe a little better than the GOP, but Bill Clinton served the rich bankers too much.  

1. Raised the interest that they could charge us.
2. Made it harder for people like us to file bankruptsy but easier for the rich
3. NAFTA and CAFTA
4. Deregulated the media
5. He appointed people that the FEDS told him to appoint.

People who say this economy is clinton's fault are a joke.  You are a joke.  Watch Freedom to Fascism.  Until you do, you remain under informed.


----------



## clars (Jan 29, 2009)

The joke is, the economy will only get worse each time we stretch it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


youn are a fucking CLOWN
no one here takes you any more seriously than they do the moron troofers


you show over and over how clueless and out of touch you are


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



No Dive.  No one takes you seriously.  We privately email about you all the time.  We laugh at you Dave.  

Anyways, I'm trying to get us to stop fighting.  Because you are not the enemy.  You are just one of the poor morons the enemy has convinced to argue with me.

Like abortion, guns, god, gays, etc.  

To give the stimulous, to not give it, more tax breaks, sending jobs overseas, doing away with unions.

It is all irrelivent if you don't do away with the Federal Reserve.  They own this country.

So you can go back to arguing about things they LOVE to hear you argue about.  Shit that doesn't matter.  Should they vote on the stimulous package, should they give phone companies retroactive immunity, should we torture, did saddam have wmd's, etc.

YOU ARE AN ASS CLOWN DAVE.


----------



## FXASHUN (Jan 29, 2009)

What kills me about this bill is that it instantly sends almost a trillion dollars into the crapper, just like the last pointless stimulus bill.  My family got a check for $1500.  Big f'n whoop.  That's hardly half of what I'm paying on my mortgage to try and pay if off early.  That's about 2.5 months of good childcare.  That's not even a decent used car.  Who cares?

Yaay we are gonna build bridges and roads!!!!  Woo hoo.  I know a lot of highly educated guys with engineering and other advanced degrees that are out of work right now looking forward to digging ditches...yeah right.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2009)

FXASHUN said:


> What kills me about this bill is that it instantly sends almost a trillion dollar into the crapper, just like the last pointless stimulus bill.  My family got a check for $1500.  Big f'n whoop.  That's hardly half of what I'm paying on my mortgage to try and pay if off early.  That's about 2.5 months of good childcare.  That's not even a decent used car.  Who cares?
> 
> Yaay we are gonna build bridges and roads!!!!  Woo hoo.  I know a lot of highly educated guys with engineering and other advanced degrees that are out of work right now looking forward to digging ditches...yeah right.



They are dumbing down America.  

If we don't manufacture anything, then we don't need engineers.  

Why pay your white American buddies when they can hire indians or chinese for less?  Last year Bill Gates went to Washington to ask for MORE F1 worker visas.  (may not be called F1, but you get the point).

He says he can't find enough Americans to do the IT work.  He is a liar!  If it were true, companies like IBM wouldn't have cut their IT salaries by 15%.

That's right, white collar is next.  Oh you thought they were only fucking with blue collar workers?  Oh no.  Divide and concur.  We're next.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


oh i dont doubt you morons laugh in PM's
but everyone of you are fucking MORONS
and guess what
the rest of us do at you too
LOL
btw, my name isnt dave
asshole


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> They are dumbing down America.
> 
> If we don't manufacture anything, then we don't need engineers.
> 
> ...


you are PROOF of the dumbing down
LOL


----------



## FXASHUN (Jan 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you are PROOF of the dumbing down
> LOL


What do you mean?  With no manufacturing, our country of 300 million is screwed.  We built this country dependent on each other.  How many towns are built on the backs of "The Mill".  When GM closes a plant in the middle of BFE IOWA, there's not jack else there to drive that town's economy and eventually it will die.  There's not enough service in the world when a town loses the manufacturing base of 1500 to 2000 jobs with the infrastructure that it takes to support it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2009)

FXASHUN said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > you are PROOF of the dumbing down
> ...


i wasnt talking to you
i was talking to the fucking moron i quoted


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> It will get people working and get money circulating again.



You have no clue what's actually in the legislation do you? 

How exactly do you think the economy is going to have a solid foundation when its based on money we dont have?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?
> ...


Did you read the entire article sealybobo? In 1993 the stimulus package was just 10-30 billion, far less than the 800 Billion "Porkulus" Bill that the Dems are trying to pass now. 
I think DiveCon is right, the Republicans are gonna' gain by opposing the "Porkulus" bill. Government spending is the problem and the public knows it. 

(And that's the perfect term for it too: Porkulus)


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?
> 
> Despite the Republican criticisms, Administration officials made it clear today that they were still tilting heavily in favor of a stimulus program.
> 
> Is that how any of you remember 1990-92?  LOL.



Could you get anymore ridiculous?  I guess you need the same reminder

(eh-Hem)  FORMER President GEORGE W. BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE.

The rest of congress has a job to do.  The Republicans finally showed that maybe just maybe they have a spine and voted against this pork filled pile of crap that doesn't have a chance in hell of solving anything.

They didn't vote against in some deference GWB much as your twisted brain would like to think.  It was voted against because it is a bad piece of legislation that probably won't work and has a real potential of making things worse.

You wanna make a semi cogent argument? here's a starting point.  Let's see you defend the actual bill.  Tell us all, oh wise one, how the substance of the bill will help our economy.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 29, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?
> ...



Be nice to know where that $815 billion is going to come from since China is not lending anymore.  I doubt anyone else is interested in a debt security paying barely over 0%....even if they had it to loan, which they don't.


----------



## Killuminati (Jan 29, 2009)

I love obama but this bill will not help, we can't solve spending with more spending. The only way we can save our country is to end the federal reserve, and put the money back in the hands of the american people. As long as our money is made out of thin air and based on debt, we will never get out of debt. This plan will fail, and for all of those who don't know google the amero. America should have our money backed by silver and gold.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 30, 2009)

> I agree,if the ship was so worthy why do the Dems keep whining for the GOP to jump on and help take credit . The ship must be the Titanic in reality.



What an inane remark.  If they just pushed it through in the house like they can, you would bitch about that.  If they try to work together you bitch about that.  Obama, as president, goes to meet with them and talk.  They basically say fuck you.  

The ship is the USS US and the republicans are more worried about getting back in charge than if the ship sinks.  They already ran it aground in the last 8 years, but that doesn't concern them.

This will come back on the repubs as their constituents find out what they will lose with the righties vote.

I will be glad when Obama and the Dems finally realize that the current rightie leaders in DC  don't know what the word "collaborate" means and then say sorry we tried to work together and it didnt' work.  Now we are going to act like you did when you were in charge.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 30, 2009)

Wrong, if you spend on the right things, you can solve the problems and build our economy back to what it was.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Wrong, if you spend on the right things, you can solve the problems and build our economy back to what it was.



And based on the amount of pork in this bill it's hard to argue that it will do even that.


----------



## Munin (Jan 30, 2009)

It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...

You can not just stand, watch and give money to the taxpayers because it is the government that needs to act when the private sector fails. Even if taxpayers get a break from the government, then there is no guarantee that they will spend more and people without a job don't benefit much from a tax break because they need a job first: and jobs are not created by the private sector right now, so it is the governments job to employ the private sector by infrastructural works, ...

There is no better option then what the government does now, the GOP will have a problem if the economy recovers because they were in charge when it went wrong and the Dems cleaned their shit up after it. If someone will ask in the future what the GOP did to fix the economy, then the GOP won't have much to answer. If the economy will be fixed then the dems will take full credit for that and the GOP will get the blame for the economy that was in the shit at the end of the Bush years.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 30, 2009)

> Funny.. seems like the non-partisan side was the one voting AGAINST.. there were DEMs joining AND some of the DEMs even supported the Republican alternative



This makes no sense at all.  Because there are Dems who don't follow the party line, does not make the repubs non partisan.

They voted to a person in the typical Borg Mind against it.

Obama, could have told the house to screw themselves like the repubs did to the dems when they owned both house and senate.  He met with them to discuss the bill.

That is what is called bi fucking partisan.

I see a change coming shortly.  If the repubs refuse to work together, the dems need to tell them to piss off.  The majority of Americans voted for Obama.  It is the will of the people.

Remember when Bush squeaked by and said he had political capital to spend.  The current righties in DC don't want or care about any bipartisan work.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

I heard the Senate GOP will take more out of the bill and then sign it, and then send it back to the House where then they will sign it too.  It just had too many democratic pet projects. 

But Obama needs to be more like FDR.  FDR would have taken things out of the bill, but only if they promised to vote for it.  Obama got punked.

Also, FDR would have paid back every politician that didn't sign it.  Maybe in the future Obama won't even ask them what they think.


----------



## FXASHUN (Jan 30, 2009)

This problem started when we got the big head in the Clinton era.  It wasn't Clinton's fault thogh.  he just rode the wave of the dot.com.  As he was checking out, so was the free money that intellectual capital gives.  When the dot.com boom faded and the huge taxes it generated, if the spending wasn't incrementally lowered along with it, we are seeing the results now.  We aren't gonna spend out of this, we are gonna have to cut our spending...and unfortunately that also gonna mean a general cut in the U.S. standard of living.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

FXASHUN said:


> This problem started when we got the big head in the Clinton era.  It wasn't Clinton's fault thogh.  he just rode the wave of the dot.com.  As he was checking out, so was the free money that intellectual capital gives.  When the dot.com boom faded and the huge taxes it generated, if the spending wasn't incrementally lowered along with it, we are seeing the results now.  We aren't gonna spend out of this, we are gonna have to cut our spending...and unfortunately that also gonna mean a general cut in the U.S. standard of living.



All true.  But I can't help also believe that selling all of our corporations to foreigners wasn't a contributing factor in this mess.  

The baby boomers are all retiring and they are selling out America.  And no one in America can afford to buy, so foreigners are buying everything.  And so the profits are going overseas.  

And I don't think the corporations and/or rich bankers wanted to pay up what those baby boomers accumilated, so they crashed the economy at the perfect time.  Renig on Pensions, Enron people, etc.  

And if you don't manufacture anything, then you don't need engineers.  So America is being dumbed down.  Now we all work for service industries.  And how valuable are any of us really?  

It is time for revolution.  

So if they had $500K in 401k, now it is only $300k.  And they want to privatize social security?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 30, 2009)

Munin said:


> It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...



They would have failed because they were and are insolvent in the first place.  How many more hundreds of billions of dollars are you willing to waste in propping up failed businesses?  Forcing the taxpayers to bail out companies that cannot stand on their own will not help this economy.  We gave $700 billion to banks that are still failing, when that capital could have been used by the taxpayers on businesses that would be able to stand on their own.  Bailing out failed businesses is just spreading the misery around.


----------



## Munin (Jan 30, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...
> ...



It would have cost you multiple times more if the government didn't bail them out. The government is actually spending less money now compared to the money that it would loose (unemployed people and bankrupt companies don't pay taxes) by the desastrous situation that would be created when multiple big banks, big companies go bankrupt. It is better for a government to lose less jobs and spend more money, then if it would loose a huge amount of jobs and spend nothing because then all americans would pay a price that is multiple times bigger: unemployment, inflation = prices of everything (products, ...) will rise, money that vanishes because of banks that can't pay back debts -> money literally disappears, ...


----------



## FXASHUN (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> FXASHUN said:
> 
> 
> > This problem started when we got the big head in the Clinton era.  It wasn't Clinton's fault thogh.  he just rode the wave of the dot.com.  As he was checking out, so was the free money that intellectual capital gives.  When the dot.com boom faded and the huge taxes it generated, if the spending wasn't incrementally lowered along with it, we are seeing the results now.  We aren't gonna spend out of this, we are gonna have to cut our spending...and unfortunately that also gonna mean a general cut in the U.S. standard of living.
> ...


I agree.  But with no manufacturing and no intellectual productivity, soo n there'll be a lot of people with no money to buy services.  There has to be another source for capital because we can't all just keep passing the same _service_ dollar back and forth.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 30, 2009)

Munin said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Munin said:
> ...



The correction has to happen at some point.  There is absolutely no way around that.  I'd prefer not to make it worse then it has to be, but the government seems intent on doing just that by bailing out failed businesses and robbing the taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Also, inflation is the increase in the supply of money, rising prices are simply a consequence.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> What an inane remark.  If they just pushed it through in the house like they can, you would bitch about that.  If they try to work together you bitch about that.  Obama, as president, goes to meet with them and talk.  *They basically say fuck you*.



I disagree.  The Repubs don't believe the bill will work and they told Obama this.  I believe they also presented some alternatives that would cost far less but Obama didn't want to listen.  The fact that he met with the Repubs is fine, shows he was keeping his 'bipartisan' word I suppose.  But it seems to me that Obama doesn't understand that in order to be 'bipartisan' it requires compromise.  Compromise from _both _parties.   I do not believe that he is willing to do this.   I find it perplexing that Obama, who so loves history  that he continually quotes from it, does not see that this stimulus package is just going to result in history repeating itself by failing.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 30, 2009)

Let's wait and see if Obama does get back with those who opposed the bill simply because they were republicans.  He may have more up his sleeve than meets the eye.

I would love to have a Dem president who knows how to play hardball with a bunch of repubs who haven't realized yet that they lost this election and lost power in the house and senate.

This is the same shit they attacked FDR with.  The New Deal did work.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > What an inane remark.  If they just pushed it through in the house like they can, you would bitch about that.  If they try to work together you bitch about that.  Obama, as president, goes to meet with them and talk.  *They basically say fuck you*.
> ...



The GOP don't get to offer alternatives.  The Dems didn't get to offer the GOP alternatives between 2000-2006.  And the GOP's ideas failed.  And what they are proposing today, are those very same ideas.  

The Republicans never think anything Democratic will work.  That's why there is no bipartisanship.  It doesn't exist.  Obama needs to use a carrot sometimes and other times he needs to use a stick.  He needs to make these Republicans look bad for not going along.  They will stab him in the back the minute they get a chance.  

And Obama has tried to unite more in 3 days than Bush did in 8 years.

And this stimulous package will work.  And after it gets under way, Obama will THEN do things that will prevent this from ever happening again.

The question is, in 8 years will you be dumb enough to vote for Jeb Bush, who will then undo all the good and put us back into a fascist/feudal state?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Let's wait and see if Obama does get back with those who opposed the bill simply because they were republicans.  He may have more up his sleeve than meets the eye.
> 
> I would love to have a Dem president who knows how to play hardball with a bunch of repubs who haven't realized yet that they lost this election and lost power in the house and senate.
> 
> This is the same shit they attacked FDR with.  The New Deal did work.



They attacked Clinton like this too.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...




Whatever you say, sealy.   Just curious, what's Obama's Plan C when this thing tanks?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > Funny.. seems like the non-partisan side was the one voting AGAINST.. there were DEMs joining AND some of the DEMs even supported the Republican alternative
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you considered that they all voted against it because that is what their constituency wants them to do?  

No one can accuse Obama of being bi-partisan.  He said he was going to meet with Republicans about there ideas and obviously he didn't listen at all if every single Republican  voted against his plan.

Think about this objectively for a second.  What are the reasons someone would be against this stimulus package?  You honestly believe it's about party politcs?  Or that people just want to stick to Obama?  Or that people want to continue to suffer through this economy and want to continue to see others suffer through it?  No to all of the above.  I and many others are against it because we beleive and there is ample evidence to support that not only will it not work, but could make things worse for us and future generations.  We oppose it because if you thought you saw ridiculous government expansion under Bush, you ain't seen nothin' yet.   We believe that if this goes through it only continues to encourage our government to spend like drunken sailors and renders little chance of government every reigning itself in.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> And this stimulous package will work.



I'll ask again seeing as how it seems you were too chicken shit to answer the first time.

WHY will it work?  What is in this bill that you believe is going to provide an immediate needed boost to our economy and sustain it into the future?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > Let's wait and see if Obama does get back with those who opposed the bill simply because they were republicans.  He may have more up his sleeve than meets the eye.
> ...



What is one suppossed to do when they feel ones policies are wrong?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



I don't know.  At least he admits we have a problem.  If the GOP thought they could have gotten away with it, they would still be pretending that nothing is wrong.  They like the status quo.   

Lets face it, the rich people the GOP serve sort of like what is going on.  They aren't unemployed.  They are still working.  They're buying homes & stocks cheap.  They're consolidating power.  Didn't we break up their monopolies in the past?  

And every day more people get laid off, the easier it is to lower wages.  

I think this current economy is all about lowering wages.  Apparently the GOP didn't like how well the middle class did in the 90's.  

So what is Obama's plan C?  

First you tell me what Bush's plan B was.  Because the only thing he knew to do was more tax breaks.

You know what makes me mad?  We could have taken the $750 billion dollars and just purchased all the bad loans instead of giving the money to the banks.  Then the banks wouldn't have anything to cry about.  

PS.  Plan C?  End the Federal Reserve and forgive the national debt.  Of course we will pay China back, but the Federal Reserve/Private Bankers can fuck off.  They already have enough of our money.  They think they own us?  I would love to sieze all their assets and throw them in jail.  

Lets see their spoiled kids achieve without the silver spoons.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...



I just wish they would stop playing politics.  The GOP are more worried about the 2010 election than they are the fucked up economy.


----------



## Munin (Jan 30, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



The correction happens earlier if the government acts and if the government doesn't do it the correction will happen at a point when more of your economy is even more seriously damaged. And to restore that economy will take less time if you don't have huge unemployment, a lot of money that has "disappeared", a small number of companies left that can make goods and services.

Yes I know that inflation is the increase of money, but it makes people poor because they will loose more money on buying products that would be cheaper in a normal economic situation.


----------



## editec (Jan 30, 2009)

Done correctly this stimulus package can stimulate our economy.

Done incorrectly all it will do is inflate our money supply without stimulating our economy one bit.

The more I read about the current plan, the less confidence I have it is going to work.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 30, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Let's wait and see if Obama does get back with those who opposed the bill simply because they were republicans.  He may have more up his sleeve than meets the eye.
> 
> I would love to have a Dem president who knows how to play hardball with a bunch of repubs who haven't realized yet that they lost this election and lost power in the house and senate.
> 
> This is the same shit they attacked FDR with.  The New Deal did work.



No, the New Deal did not work.  It prolonged and worsened the Great Depression.


----------



## FXASHUN (Jan 30, 2009)

editec said:


> Done correctly this stimulus package can stimulate our economy.
> 
> Done incorrectly all it will do is inflate our money supply without stimulating our economy one bit.
> 
> The more I read about the current plan, the less confidence I have it is going to work.



How do you give away enough money to make this work?  How does the Federal Government hire enough people to offset the monetary drain their salaries are creating on the still shrinking tax base?  I don't see how this can work.  We have to creaete money out of thin air like we did during our heyday in the 80's, and giving away and hiring people with money we don't have is not the key.

I have a hard time seeing how this or any "stimulus" plan will work until it addresses the meat and potatoes of the problem.  Otherwise it's like putting jelly on burned toast.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 30, 2009)

Munin said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Munin said:
> ...



The correction is not being allowed to happen because the government keeps tampering with the market.  By bailing out insolvent businesses the government does not allow the reallocation of resources that has to happen in the correction.  By taking hundreds of billions of dollars from the private sector the government is not allowing them to stimulate the economy, and the private sector is where wealth and jobs are really created.


----------



## editec (Jan 30, 2009)

FXASHUN said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Done correctly this stimulus package can stimulate our economy.
> ...


----------



## FXASHUN (Jan 30, 2009)

editec said:


> No you have to invest it into productive projects that actually have some benefit to society.


Such as?  Bridges and roads aren't really gonna make that much of a difference.



> The government mostly doesn't hire anyone...it pays for profit companies to do work like building bridges and roads.


Direct hiring, hire by proxy, it's still the same.  Just because I buy my milk at the store just means I've hired the guy to milk the cow and another one to bring it to the market.  Either way, the government still makes it's money through taxes, and you can't tax more money than you pay. 



> It doesn't...it creates fiat dollars (or borrows money from other economies) to foot the costs temperarily hoping that by breaking increasing confidence (because people have jobs) those who are hoarding their money right now will start spending it again.


Smart people are hoarding their money because they see that we are decimating our infrastructure.  When we have no manufacturing economy and our intellectual economy is leaving with it, there are fewer "economies" to borrow from.  Still a failing proposition.



> That is true...except most of those fiat dollars went to a very small segment of the population who do not spend them, but rather who invested them in bubbles like real estate, bonds on real estate, the hi tech bubble and so forth.


You only need to spend so much to live.  The rest are luxuries.  Long term rich people don't spend money like poor people.  They save.  The richest people drive Accords, not Bentleys.



> And then those bubble popped and suddenly there's no money in circulation and people get scared.


 



> How did the massive spending of FIAT dollars that paid for WWII get us out of the depression?
> 
> That's, in theory, how this will work.
> 
> But as I have pointed out already, I grow increasingly *less confident* that the money we're currently going to spend_ is enough_, AND it is going to exactly the wrong people, too.


On this we can agree.  That theory worked because of the mass manufacturing base we used to have.  It's dwindled to near nothing.



> Our economy (and probably all the industrial economies on earth) are now so out of kilter precisely because too few people who too much money, and the consumers therefore do not have enough to SPEND MONEY.
> 
> It's way more complex than that, of course, but there's the root cause of our current crises in a nutshell.


The federal tax system only taxes what people earn, not what they have.  You tax profits and earnings, but once money is yours, it's yours.  No one can make you spend it. 



> Years and years and years of rewarding the supply side (the rich)  while demanding that the demand side (the working class) pay most of the bills.
> 
> Well, now the rich have the vast majority of  the money and how well is the economy going?


So what are you suggesting?  Raiding rich people's bank accounts and taking their money?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Sorry for being so partisan, but lets not forget that the GOP along with Clinton sent jobs overseas.  We need to get those jobs back home.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm done listening to Republicans cry PROTECTIONALISM and ISOLATIONISM when we talk about bringing jobs back home.  

They are soooo concerned with the corporations profits.  FUCK the corporation.  Fuck the CEO's giving themselves bonus' with the bailout money.  What did Obama call it?  Disgusting?  What did Bush call it?  Free market.  

Bring manufacturing back home.  We had a god damn economy.  That's how you fix the fucking economy.  Have an economy.  Stop giving it to China.  Who says we have to buy from China?  But then we owe China everything, which means they own us.  

But they don't own the international bankers who sold China this country.  Who cares about one country when you can obtain the world.

We own this country.  Time to take it back.  

You guys want the government to do the right thing.  Call them!!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're right they probably were worried about re-election and not pissing off their constiuency.  Isn't that what our elected officials are suppossed to do?  Don't we elect them to do what we want them to do?  I think maybe what we're seeing are some Americans finally waking up.  Remember the first bail out?  Remember how almost everyone thought it was a done deal?  Maybe what congress didn't count on was their phones ringing off the hooks with disgusted Americans.  I can't really complain that the right's motivation was getting re-elected as a result of listening to their constiuents.  Perhaps you should be asking why the left _didn't_ listen to their constituents.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 30, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Let's wait and see if Obama does get back with those who opposed the bill simply because they were republicans.  He may have more up his sleeve than meets the eye.
> 
> I* would love to have a Dem president who knows how to play hardball with a bunch of repubs who haven't realized yet that they lost this election and lost power in the house and senate*.
> 
> This is the same shit they attacked FDR with.  The New Deal did work.





You keep saying stupid inane shit like this. Of course they realize it. That dosen't mean they have to cave to stupid ideas does it? No, it dosen't.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I don't think it is Republican voters who are leading the way in the GOP buddy.  I thnk it's the corporate media and John Boehner/McCain liars that tell people like you lies and get your broke ass to vote against your own best interests.  


Are you a corporation or a bank?  Then you're an idiot.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I don't know.  At least he admits we have a problem. * If the GOP thought they could have gotten away with it, they would still be pretending that nothing is wrong*.  They like the status quo.
> 
> *Lets face it, the rich people the GOP serve sort of like what is going on*.  They aren't unemployed.  They are still working.  They're buying homes & stocks cheap.  They're consolidating power.  Didn't we break up their monopolies in the past?
> 
> ...



You hate Bush, you hate anyone who has money, everything that is wrong now is Bush's fault, blah, blah, blah.  You repeat the same thing over and over . . . playing the blame game solves nothing. Didn't you learn the lesson the bailout taught? Yes, Bush was a moron for not putting any stipulations on how it should be spent, for not having a method of accountability, but . . . .  BOTH Dems and Repubs voted for this assinine thing.  McCain AND Obama voted a resounding 'YES' for it.  What does that tell you??   BOTH parties screw John Q. Public.   You don't seem to get this, in your unfettered adoration of Obama.   Please take him off the pedestal, sealy.  I am wondering, though, if you will cry this loudly about Obama when his plan fails.

Why haven't you answered Bern's question?


Bern80 said:


> WHY will it [the stimulus package] work?  What is in this bill that you believe is going to provide an immediate needed boost to our economy and sustain it into the future?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > Let's wait and see if Obama does get back with those who opposed the bill simply because they were republicans.  He may have more up his sleeve than meets the eye.
> ...



Why not?  The Dems did for 8 years.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


uh, who owns those corporations and banks you dumb fuck?


----------



## editec (Jan 30, 2009)

FXASHUN said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > No you have to invest it into productive projects that actually have some benefit to society.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know.  At least he admits we have a problem. * If the GOP thought they could have gotten away with it, they would still be pretending that nothing is wrong*.  They like the status quo.
> ...




You thinking Bush was an idiot proves you don't get it. 

And I don't hate rich people.  I hate rich people with power that abused it.  PNAC for example.  Oil execs.  

Here is who you defend you fucking idiot.

$18.4 billion in 2008 bonus payouts at a time when taxpayers' money was shoring up a financial system in crisis.

UPDATE 2-Obama scolds Wall Street executives over bonuses | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

And here is your take on it, straight from the man himself.

Obama Rips CEO Bonuses. Soon, He Will Decide What You Can Earn


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

editec said:


> FXASHUN said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You missed the point.  

How to you assume that I'm defending anyone, especially crooks?  

You hate rich people that abused power?  So do I.  I think anyone who abuses power should be tossed out on their ass.    

Do you believe that the government should tell CEO's of businesses what they can and cannot earn?  Why?   

You still haven't answered Bern's question.


----------



## Munin (Jan 30, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



What are you talking about? Nobody is taking money from the private sector, the government is spending money on private companies. The government is making sure that the private sector is employed so it can create wealth and jobs.

The correction will happen anyway, it is the speed to recover from it that is the problem. Circulation of money = the economy, that is the main reason why the government must spend: to get a circulation of money that can be like an "engine" for the rest of the private sector. If you have no more circulation of money or the speed at which money circulates lowers significantly then you have a problem that has nothing to do with the correction. A private sector that does not spend is the problem here, therefor the government must spend money to replace the spending that the private sector has stopped with. 

The government is not taking money from them, it is employing the private sector by spending government money to let them do something. This will create stability that will allow those companies (who get paid by the government) to invest on the long term, hire more people.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



If they are financial institutions that are being bailed out, yes.  If they are oil companies that use our federal lands, yes.  If they are auto ceo's asking for billions?  Yep!

If they work for Home Depot, no.  Knock your socks off.  Give yourselves as much as you want.  

AIG or Lehman Brother CEO's?  Fuck no!  

The BOD are all CEO's for other corporations.  It's a joke too if you realize how it works, but it was all good until the bankers, defense contractors & oil men or "robber baron's" decided to push too far.  Now you're asking us to take pay cuts?  

Let me ask you, "do you think a ceo giving himself a million dollar raise should be asking his workers to take a pay cut?"


----------



## editec (Jan 30, 2009)

Sealy opines:


> You should give rich people tax breaks, when they buy and when they hire.


 
ACtually I think that's part of the economic stimulus package. 




> I was saying this for 8 years. The GOP just gave rich people the tax breaks and promised it would trickle down.


 
Yup



> Just like Bush/Paulson handed Paulson $350 billion and now that money is GONE!!! And unaccounted for.


 
As Zoomie quite correctly pointed out that is a BIPARTISAN screwup.

And I for one cannot understand how nobody noticed that this would happen before they gave the banks that money, either.

Do remember that when I heard that we were bailing out these bankrupted banks I was calling for them to be nationalized, instead.

After all, their net worth was less than ZERO, so if we were taking on their toxic debts, we might as well take everything.

Instead we handed the dumbest bankers free money.


----------



## del (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...



and that's worked out sooooo well, hasn't it, bozo?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

editec said:


> Sealy opines:
> 
> 
> > You should give rich people tax breaks, when they buy and when they hire.
> ...



LOL.  Hey, was it you that I said, "there's more gold to be found out there"?  How funny a co-worker just sent me this headline, "Sewage yields more gold than top mines" 

TOKYO (Reuters) - Resource-poor Japan just discovered a new source of mineral wealth -- sewage.

Yes we should have nationalized the banks.

PS.  Remember when we found this from Bush's original bailout proposal?

A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

del said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


but thats typical for a partisan hack, like bobo


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Here's what we should do Dive.  Undo all this:  

Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (theyre still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world). 

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. 

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagans tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadnt been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s. 

ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts
And, most tragically, Reagans tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, weve been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s. 
We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress at a Howard Johnsons restaurant (what my wife did in the late 60s - I did so working as a near-minimum-wage DJ) now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today. 
The Associated Press reported on August 4, 2007, that the president of Nike, Mark Parker, raked in $3.6 million [in compensation] in 07. Thats $13,846 per weekday, $69,230 a week. And yet it would still keep him just below the top 70% tax rate if this were the pre-Reagan era. We had a social consensus that somebody earning around $3 million a year was fine, but above that was really more than anybody needs to live in America. 
When Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from over 70% down to under 30%, all hell broke loose. With the legal and social restraint to unlimited selfishness removed, the good of the nation was replaced by greed is good as the primary paradigm. 
In the years since then, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance conservative think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the estate tax to the death tax), lobby congress and the president (who calls the haves and the have-mores his base), and work to strip down public institutions. 
The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying. 
And Bush, following closely in Reagans footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bushs new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget: 
Since Bush has been president: 
	over 5 million people have slipped into poverty; 
	nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance; 
	median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300; 
	three million manufacturing jobs have been lost; 
	three million American workers have lost their pensions; 
	home foreclosures are now the highest on record; 
	the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasnt happened since the great depression; 
	the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years; 
	entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%; 
	wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929. 
The debate about whether or not to roll Bushs tax cuts back to Clintons modest mid-30% rates is absurd. Its time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagans debt and rebuild this nation.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The debate as to which one of us is lacking a brain would be long and unfruitful.  This whole you believe what you're told argument is rather weak.  I'm sure you have pundits you agree with as well.  That of course (sarcasm here) means all you are is a sponge used to regurgiate what they've told you to.

It was reported through various media and is on the record that many constituants did in fact contact their representives in oppossition to the first bail out.  Explain how it is my best interests to support Obama's bill.  For the FOURTH time sealy, what SPECIFICALLY is in this bill that you believe is my best interest and will turn around our economy?

Your question about whether I am a corporation or bank makes no sense either.  After all if it is good for me shouldn't it ultimately be good for them too?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Obama's plan is part of the solution.  Trust me, much more to come my friend.  

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in todays dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us. 

And, most tragically, Reagans tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, weve been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s. 

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress at a Howard Johnsons restaurant (what my wife did in the late 60s - I did so working as a near-minimum-wage DJ) now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.


----------



## Angel Heart (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I don't think it is Republican voters who are leading the way in the GOP buddy.




I know first hand that we are. If they wish to get involved we welcome them in. You how ever are not active in the Republican party and doing no more than comment from a hateful view of the Republican party. I think if you could completely do away with the Republican party you would. Myself, I like having the Dems around. It keeps us balanced. Too far right or too far left doesn't work. And you... Well you're too far left to even see what balance really looks like.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> > Obama's plan is part of the solution.  Trust me, much more to come* my friend*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2009)

Angel Heart said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is Republican voters who are leading the way in the GOP buddy.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > > Obama's plan is part of the solution.  Trust me, much more to come* my friend*.
> ...


----------



## indago (Jan 30, 2009)

indago said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > We have shifted from manufacturing and production to service oriented industries in this country.
> ...



What, no response from Bern80?  Must have really stumped on that one.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2009)

indago said:


> indago said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I find guys like him are always right, IF a b and c aren't true, and they usually are.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


so bobo the moron, thinks we should roll back the Reagan tax cuts
yeah, that will help the economy


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 30, 2009)

Munin said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Munin said:
> ...



Where does the government get all of it's money, considering it earns no money of it's own?  The private sector.  When the government takes money from the private sector they (the private sector) have less money to spend on the things they actually need.  The government is "employing" parts of the private sector at the expense of the rest of the private sector.  The Keynesian idea that the government can spend us out of a recession is absolutely wrong.  It needs to cut taxes and cut it's own spending.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I'm not sure how you can know that when you refuse to answer a simple question.  All you keep saying is 'it will work', 'it will work'.  Yet it is brutally obvious (since this will be the fifth time I have asked) that you don't know what's in the bill at all and therefore can't explain WHY it will work.

Let's try AGAIN; WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS IN OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN THAT WILL PROVIDE IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC RELIEF AND SUSTAIN IT INTO THE FUTURE?

And just so you don't trip up again the answer to the question is NOT some regurgitation of what you thinik an ex-President did.


----------



## Munin (Jan 30, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Look man, I know countries in europe that have the highest taxes in the world. Yet they do belong to the most high ranked economies in the world. High taxes doesn't mean that the private sector is poor, it is the economy itself that determines wether your sector is poor or not. It could be that you have higher taxes then in another country, like for example in Belgium and yet you still earn more money then people in other european countries with lower taxes earn (who have the same currency): How is this possible? Because of economic prosperity that is caused by good education, good infrastructure, ... all funded by the government so companies have an efficient workforce and a good environment to work in (transport, ...).

I m not saying high taxes are good, I m saying that the economy is more relevant then your taxes. If your infrastructure and education system is screwed up then your economy suffers on the long run (less educated workers that are badly needed can be employed, ...).

The government will get this money on the long run payed out from taxes by both companies & taxpayers, because when the economy will run normal/good you will have more income as a government. It is an investment that repays itself back to the government on the long run if their government spending works to get the economy back on track (get the money circulation back).


----------



## StaleBO (Jan 30, 2009)

Ahhhh, stimulus via BIG government...trickle down economics the left way.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

StaleBO said:


> Ahhhh, stimulus via BIG government...trickle down economics the left way.


yeah, where the big money gets wasted in the bureaucracy


----------



## StaleBO (Jan 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> StaleBO said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh, stimulus via BIG government...trickle down economics the left way.
> ...



All the while the central government is amassing more power by creating the Dependent States of America. Sometimes I feel its a matter of deciding of whom do I distrust less those who covet money more than power or those who covet power more than money. I view the left agenda as the latter which I fear more.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 30, 2009)

OP: And just like Bush, Obama ignored the opposing side.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> OP: And just like Bush, Obama ignored the opposing side.


except for one thing

Bush bent over backwards to work with the dems


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > OP: And just like Bush, Obama ignored the opposing side.
> ...



They must have deleted all that from the media.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


too bad some people actually have memories that cant be deleted, like the internet can be.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Didn't realize they could delete live TV broadcasts of his speeches ... while live.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


thats not what i was talking about
Bush did tons of things to get along with dems and not ONCE did i ever see him do things that were divisive in domestic politics
do you have an example?


----------



## jeffrockit (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The problem with the Republicans here is they can knock down this package all they want; but the American people want solutions.
> 
> The Republicans as far as I know have offered none other then to let all these companies and businesses fail.
> 
> That's not a solution, that's called sitting on your ass when you're suppose to represent the people who vote for you; the same ones who are losing their jobs right now.



Wrong! The Republicans had several (12 I think) amendments and all were rejected by Pelosi and her brood. So much for Bi-partisanship. 
There were also a small number of Democrats (the one's with brains) who voted no.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jan 30, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I can already see the major problem with this thread when it comes to people who feel this businesses should just fail.
> 
> Many did what you say Avatar, "Be honest, work hard, and live within your means."
> 
> I hate it when people assume that everybody who is broke or going out of business is because they are greedy.



I did not see that assumption anywhere. Some businesses fail because of mis-management or because the individual that started the business did not research enough to find out if it would work. Other reasons are businesses that were started as a get rich quick venture and failed as most of those types do. 
I realize there are some exceptions but going into business is a risk from the start even in a good economy.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He knocked down every proposal to help the economy that the Dems put out and passed every one that the Reps put out without even reading them. He always went against the Dems and always bad mouthed them whenever he could. I hate both parties equally, because of this, both do it.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jan 30, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has met with the Repubs three times so far.  When did Bush ever do that?  *They refused to compromise even though they lost the election and 65% of the nation support Obama.*
> ...



Not only were they against the bill, all of their amendments were denied by Pelosi and her gang.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


um, sorry kitten, but thats not how it works
Bush doesnt "pass" any bill
he can either sign it or veto
and since he didnt veto anything for the first 5 years, i guess you have a massive fail on that one


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



"A rose by any other name ..." Just because my language is different it's the same concept. Vetoing is technically "not passing" something, signing into law is techniclly "passing" something as well. Different words, same effect.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jan 31, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > I agree,if the ship was so worthy why do the Dems keep whining for the GOP to jump on and help take credit . The ship must be the Titanic in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, rejecting all of the Republican's amendments to the bill was really "working together". The Dems clearly showed that they have no interest in working together. Unlike some on this board, I have looked into the bill. There are so many "non-stimulus" items in  it. In reality, it is just a big way for the Dems to get all of their pet projects done in one bill.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


but Bush didnt veto ANYTHING for the first 5 years
and his first veto was something to do with abortion(i dont remember exactly what it was)

i remember this because i was pissed he wasnt vetoing some of the shit that was coming out


----------



## jeffrockit (Jan 31, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Sorry for being so partisan, but lets not forget that the GOP along with Clinton sent jobs overseas.  We need to get those jobs back home.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm done listening to Republicans cry PROTECTIONALISM and ISOLATIONISM when we talk about bringing jobs back home.
> 
> They are soooo concerned with the corporations profits.  FUCK the corporation.  Fuck the CEO's giving themselves bonus' with the bailout money.  What did Obama call it?  Disgusting?  What did Bush call it?  Free market.
> 
> ...



Obama called it disgusting? I guess he was disgusted with his new treasury secretary then because he got over 430 thousand from his old job. Can you say Hypocrite?


----------



## Ishmael (Jan 31, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> The CBO says it will.



The CBO says it will provide SOME stimulus primarily through tax "credits" for people that don't pay taxes and some investment in small business loans.  Hell anytime the government spends money it provides some stimulus.

I don't even think Oboma likes what Nancy and the boys dreamed up.  The fact is and it is not disputable the only bipartizan ship shown in the house was AGAINST this bill.  The press happily states ALL the republicans voted against it.  They conveniently leave out that some democrats voted against it also in the headlines.

Jim


----------



## Munin (Jan 31, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for being so partisan, but lets not forget that the GOP along with Clinton sent jobs overseas.  We need to get those jobs back home.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm done listening to Republicans cry PROTECTIONALISM and ISOLATIONISM when we talk about bringing jobs back home.
> ...



Who knows, maybe he was disgusted by it? Do you think he would have said it publicly if he did think that?
You might as well shoot yourself in the foot.


----------

