House Passes $819 Billion Economic Stimulus

^^^
RCW, I agree that our infrastructure is a mess and we need to invest in mass transit. The WSJ editorial about the stimulus bill was complaining about the $1 billion for Amtrak. Uh, how many times have we bailed out the airlines? And trains carry more people and are more resourceful.
Originally Posted by BB

Exactly. It's ridiculous that the conservatives don't want to invest in mass transit. That tells me they are more concerned about being in power than in fixing our country, because any idiot knows that we NEED mass transit.

We also need birth control. I'm so sorry that Obama caved so quickly on that one. For some people, the only healthcare they get is their visit to Planned Parenthood for birth control. We need to do everything we can to get people medical care, especially in areas of sexual health and family planning.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
It would help if you weren't conflating terms as conservative can apply to more than Republicans on social and economic issues. Sorry to burst your bubble but any politico or political party is mostly concerned about being and staying in power, that is the nature of the game. Hence why we have "checks and balances" and are supposed to have a limited federal government.

No one is denying that people need birth control or quality medical care. But how do condoms for the poor in anyway stimulate the economy? I have a problem with the way bills are festooned with unrelated pork and policy. It was actually smart for Obama to remove it, it is not economic stimulus. And if Democrats want it, they can present again. They have at least 2 years to pass most anything they want.



The Republicans are doing everything they can to sabotage Obama, so he will fail and they can get back into power next election cycle. They are doing this even though the f*cking country is falling down around our ears. They don't care if we all fail along with Obama. Yeah, that's the "right thing".
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Please "the Democrats & liberal's" who had sense shouldn't have voted against this wacky bill. GOP didn't have nothing to do with their foolishness of sabotaging their own butts. I give props to the
GOP for having the guts to stand up against this hot mess!
Originally Posted by 3cCurly


"Didn't have nothing"? Is that English?


And what is your alternative plan to keep Americans working?
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Does that make you feel all swole in the chest? I know nitpicking is your way of dealing with your rage and confusion but if try getting a hobby it will make you feel a whole better about youself.

Now back to the second question, cutting taxes for businesses and consumers to all time low, or just eliminating all types of taxes for everyone across the board. Would create more revenue for businesses to keep people employed and consumers to have more money to invest - buy/spend on all products, goods, services, housing and etc. We need to create that cycle of capitalism this is the way ultimately help saving jobs. It's that simple!

Last edited by MedussaGuide; 01-29-2009 at 06:28 PM. Reason: Edited to remove offensive picture

Offensive photo posted by 3CCurly removed per request of guide.
Originally Posted by 3cCurly
Oh, that's lovely.

Last edited by RedCatWaves; 01-29-2009 at 05:12 PM.
Yeah I have to go with RedCatWves on that last one. That picture and comment was completely uncalled for and in poor taste 3cCurly.
If they really want to save the economy, for starters, they can cut income and business taxes. Everyone is taxed to the hilt. "Oh", some will say, "but if we cut taxes, how will we be able to fund all of our wonderful programs?!" Short answer: we won't. Shorter answer: good!

I'm no economic expert, but common sense tells me that if you let people keep more of their own money they will have more money to spend. If you let employers keep more of their profits they will be able to hire more employees. It's a win-win situation.

They can also start drastically reducing those who are on the dole. You want to have 16 kids out of wedlock? Be my guest, but YOU can pay for it. I don't want to pay for your kids, your kid's food, your kid's housing, or you and your children's health care. Period. You made them, you get to pay for them. I have my own family to take care of, and I don't need to take care of yours, too.

If we get some of these people off the dole, they will start working. They will have no choice. If they start working, they will pay taxes just like the rest of us mere mortals. Then the US will have more tax revenue to work with, which means those of us who are NOT on the dole can stop shouldering all the tax responsibilities.

Sound harsh? Yes. But someday we are going to have to start making people embrace the concept of "personal responsibility". When are we going to stop bailing people out of their self-made problems? When the economy completely crashes and there is no more money left? Is that when we're going to wake up?

Here is a classic example of what I'm talking about: I worked with a very nice women, my age, who made the same exact amount of money I did. The difference? She was a single mother with 3 children (out of wedlock) and I was married with one. She got housing vouchers, free medical and dental insurance, food stamps, and day care vouchers. Who paid for all that? I, the taxpayer, paid for it. Meanwhile I was struggling to get food on the table.

There is a whole lot our government could do to stop what's happening, but they won't do it. It doesn't matter what party is in office. We got a bailout in the Bush Administration. Did it solve the problem? No. Neither will this bailout.

Photo removed per mod request
Originally Posted by 3cCurly
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Last edited by JElsea; 01-29-2009 at 06:22 PM.
Are you serious?

Is the conservative memory, like, 2 minutes or something?
Originally Posted by wild~hair
Wow your so lame LOL

Do me the pleasure sweetie of reading a book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8

Start off with basic principles of Economics
Originally Posted by 3cCurly

And this, my friends, is what the "ignore user" feature is for.

ETA: As well as the above response to RCW. Jeesh.

Last edited by wild~hair; 01-29-2009 at 02:21 PM.
No one is denying that people need birth control or quality medical care. But how do condoms for the poor in anyway stimulate the economy?
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Preventing unwanted pregnancies seems a good thing to do when people can least afford more mouths to feed.

This so obvious to me, and yet the above quote is a Republican talking point in this debate.

If anyone has insight on that point, something I'm not getting, I'd be glad to hear it. [Other than from that one poster who just got all ad hominem on me. ]
I'm sure there's pork in the package. That's too bad. There have to be tax cuts and there has to be spending. The way to get it done would have been to Steve Pence (out of Indiana, should have been McCain's running mate but I digress), Nancy Pelosi, and the most moderate house person in a room. No food, no phone, no Web. Tell them that they had 10 hours of oxygen to come up with a plan. No plan - no oxygen.
Yeah I have to go with RedCatWves on that last one. That picture and comment was completely uncalled for and in poor taste 3cCurly.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Yes, absolutely offensive.
I'm sure there's pork in the package. That's too bad. There have to be tax cuts and there has to be spending. The way to get it done would have been to Steve Pence (out of Indiana, should have been McCain's running mate but I digress), Nancy Pelosi, and the most moderate house person in a room. No food, no phone, no Web. Tell them that they had 10 hours of oxygen to come up with a plan. No plan - no oxygen.
Originally Posted by Myradella3
That's actually Mike Pence.

But, I do like your novel idea.
No one is denying that people need birth control or quality medical care. But how do condoms for the poor in anyway stimulate the economy?
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Preventing unwanted pregnancies seems a good thing to do when people can least afford more mouths to feed.

This so obvious to me, and yet the above quote is a Republican talking point in this debate.

If anyone has insight on that point, something I'm not getting, I'd be glad to hear it. [Other than from that one poster who just got all ad hominem on me. ]
Originally Posted by wild~hair
I don't see how this is a talking point at all. It was actually what I first thought before I heard the Republicans give their little press conference. It actually reminds me of the other pork that irked me in the previous bailout.

The last Paulson bill had money going to bike paths and subsidies for wooden arrows among other things. And everyone is supposed to swallow it because well this is good for the environment, we should encourage people to bike and children shouldn't be playing with plastic toys yadda yadda. Yes that is all well and good but why this much spending for these programs right now and in an economic stimulus bill. Can you see how other view this as irresponsible?

The preventing unwanted pregnancies is a very expensive tangential benefit that does not stimulate the economy, which is what the bill is theoretically supposed to do. It does not create wealth, it does not create jobs, it does not have any bearing on inflation, interest rates, and a whole host of other monetary and fiscal issues. I fail to see what is complicated about wanting an economic stimulus bill to go to economic stimulus.

This justifying pork at all times because it sounds like a good thing is a very dangerous line of logic. People seem to not understand we are supposed to be on a budget. We are supposed to be spending money to right the wrongs in the economy that way we can down the road afford to do all these other giveaways Democrats are so fond of.

And what is not being discussed, is that this is all money we don't have. They are printing money out of thin air (devaluation of the dollar) to pay for those immediate contraceptives for the poor among other things. I'm sorry but this and some of the other pork is just not priority number one. Nor does it have any place in a bill that is supposed to create jobs.

There are all kinds of things in the bill that is just nonsense. I think the contraceptive thing just got the most media buzz. What the hell is the $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects for? Why do Americans need to pony up Billions of taxpayer dollars for others to upgrade their freaking TV. Well they got an extra $650M all in the name of economic stimulus. This is a joke.

And here's the kicker:
"12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html)

I wish people could get the irony of having an economic stimulus bill in the first place. Because the government has never been the economic engine of the country. It's the people, their small business, their ingenuity. There is nothing in that bill that gives me any indication the politicos in Washington understand that fact.
I wish people could get the irony of having an economic stimulus bill in the first place. Because the government has never been the economic engine of the country. It's the people, their small business, their ingenuity. There is nothing in that bill that gives me any indication the politicos in Washington understand that fact.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
That, in a nutshell is very brilliant indeed.
In theory, trickle down economics makes sense. Give businesses more money, they can create more jobs, and everyone wins.
But in practice, we are seeing such abuses in power, that it doesn't work so well.
I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination. It seems like some economists like this stimulus package, and some don't. I don't know what to believe.
I just hope that something positive comes out of this!
What a mess we're in!
That's right, I said it! I wear scrunchies!!

I am a sulfate washing, cone slabbing, curly lovin' s.o.b. The CG police haven't caught me yet.


3a/3b
In theory, trickle down economics makes sense. Give businesses more money, they can create more jobs, and everyone wins.
But in practice, we are seeing such abuses in power, that it doesn't work so well.
I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination. It seems like some economists like this stimulus package, and some don't. I don't know what to believe.
I just hope that something positive comes out of this!
What a mess we're in!
Originally Posted by Boomygrrl
What I proposed was not trickle down economics or is it theoretical.

Herein lies the problem with your comment. I never said give more business money, that is corporate welfare which I am against. We should create a healthy competitive business climate where people can be productive and maximize their talents.

I'm proposing that we cut unnecessary spending that creates disincentives for people to be productive or efficient. I'm proposing we have a simplified tax plan that so corporations can be competitive and people can keep more of their hard earned money in their wallets. Individuals have a much better sense of how their money should be spent than a distant and unaccountable bureaucrat in DC.

You don't have to be an economist to follow that. But clearly there is a lot of effort and ink spilled to obscure the very simple and obvious. The people who benefit from this misinformation and confusion are obviously the same ones eating at the taxpayer trough. Is it any wonder that DC has some of the wealthiest districts in the country even though they produce nothing?

The abuse in power is from overspending, creating huge unsustainable deficits and then offering more borrowing and spending as the solution. The abuse in power is from the government over-regulating everything and when they do regulate its with woeful misapplication often creating perverse economic incentives.

Clearly no one has learned from history but I shouldn't be surprised. We're in a mess, and unfortunately it is only going to get worse. And that's just sticking to the domestic front. Once we're even more screwed up economically, I don't even want to imagine what some of these rogue nations and enemy states have planned.
Originally Posted by misspam
You mean not every economist is for the taxpayer subsidized digging of holes and filling them back up again. That's crazy talk. The irony of Keynes telling the country to dig a hole is lost on too many.
on the Reagan quote, it's still funny.
Guide34
Guest
Posts: n/a
3cCurly, posting that picture was totally uncalled for. You could have made your point/snark without resorting to that. Please remove the image.

RCW and JELsea, could you please remove the image from the quoted portion of your posts? I don't want to edit for you.

Thanks.
I don't see how this is a talking point at all. It was actually what I first thought before I heard the Republicans give their little press conference. It actually reminds me of the other pork that irked me in the previous bailout.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Kudos on that prescience [no snark here], but it is a talking point on this issue. Seen it in many, many places in the last several days.

But I disagree with you. I think it's a good thing to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that goes eleventy-billion-gazillion times when economic times are tough.

Because who cares for the children when their parents cannot? We do and that costs $$$$$$. A condom is cheap by comparison.
Why do Americans need to pony up Billions of taxpayer dollars for others to upgrade their freaking TV. Well they got an extra $650M all in the name of economic stimulus. This is a joke.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
I do agree with you on this. I don't give a rat's azz about people's teevees.

And I have to say, I am glad conservatives voice these concerns. Even though I don't always agree, I appreciate that balancing viewpoint.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com