PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Stimulus Package



bighead384
02-02-2009, 07:04 PM
Do you support the stimulus package? Or would lower taxes and tax cuts be a better answer to the problem.

Mota Boy
02-02-2009, 08:28 PM
Quite frankly, when the GOP's response to everything is "tax cuts", good economy or bad, budget surplus or budget deficit, you have to see it as blatant pandering. Worse, it's a pandering that is going to destroy our economy, if it hasn't already doomed it.

That said, the Democrats scare the hell out of me, because I fear they may not have learned the lessons of the Republican failure and may end up mismanaging Congress so badly they they hand power back over to a Republican party that needs a good decade or two of wandering in the wilderness in order to rebuild into a coalition that can actually govern. I think the Democrats can govern on a scale of average to poor, but I don't have any faith that the Republicans could govern at all.

The stimulus package is exactly the type of BS that we don't need. Under the threat of a faltering economy, we're being force-fed a "vital" stimulus that needs to be passed, and passed now. However, the package is about half stimulus and about half funding for Democratic pet projects. Democrats are using the urgency of aiding the economy to pass through their political agenda. Now, granted, I agree with most of their political agenda, but to force it through as part of needed aid is ridiculous, undermining both the aid (the percentage of the package devoted to actually stimulating the economy may be too small to be effective, leaving us worse off) and their legitimacy as a party, substituting politicking for effective governance.

bighead384
02-02-2009, 09:14 PM
Quite frankly, when the GOP's response to everything is "tax cuts", good economy or bad, budget surplus or budget deficit, you have to see it as blatant pandering. Worse, it's a pandering that is going to destroy our economy, if it hasn't already doomed it.

That said, the Democrats scare the hell out of me, because I fear they may not have learned the lessons of the Republican failure and may end up mismanaging Congress so badly they they hand power back over to a Republican party that needs a good decade or two of wandering in the wilderness in order to rebuild into a coalition that can actually govern. I think the Democrats can govern on a scale of average to poor, but I don't have any faith that the Republicans could govern at all.

The stimulus package is exactly the type of BS that we don't need. Under the threat of a faltering economy, we're being force-fed a "vital" stimulus that needs to be passed, and passed now. However, the package is about half stimulus and about half funding for Democratic pet projects. Democrats are using the urgency of aiding the economy to pass through their political agenda. Now, granted, I agree with most of their political agenda, but to force it through as part of needed aid is ridiculous, undermining both the aid (the percentage of the package devoted to actually stimulating the economy may be too small to be effective, leaving us worse off) and their legitimacy as a party, substituting politicking for effective governance.

Why exactly would tax cuts be a poor option right now? Wouldn't that simulate the economy? I'm not saying I feel that way, but I just thought I'd bring up that point since it's a popular argument right now.

I definitely agree that it's a mistake to pass a stimulus bill that includes funding for pet projects. Especially considering how good Republicans are at propaganda. It really gives guys like Rush Limbaugh a chance to undermine the credibility of Obama's administration. I haven't heard anyone publicly state that they support the stimulus package, and dishonesty like this is going to make it even harder to support it.

Llamas
02-02-2009, 09:26 PM
I like Obama's package. ;)

bighead384
02-02-2009, 09:49 PM
I like Obama's package. ;)

You might be the first person I've heard say this. I guess maybe a lot of people support it, but choose not to be vocal about it. I think the success of conservative propaganda and talking points has a lot to do with this. A lot of the people who bash the idea of a stimulus package probably don't really understand how it's supposed to work in the first place. But they just repeat conservative talking points loud and proud, and it sounds like they know what they're talking about. Meanwhile, the people who support it generally keep quiet, because it's more complicated to justify (and all the non-stimulus stuff in the bill isn't making it any easier). I kind of think this is important, because masses of people can end up supporting ideas that are easier to understand, rather than the best ideas, thanks to propaganda.

XYlophonetreeZ
02-02-2009, 09:54 PM
Anyone hear that? It sounded like a "whoooooosh" to me.

bighead384
02-02-2009, 09:59 PM
Anyone hear that? It sounded like a "whoooooosh" to me.

And I still don't get it.

IamSam
02-02-2009, 10:01 PM
Do I have to say it?

Learn to read. Hell learn to read into things.

WebDudette
02-02-2009, 10:03 PM
his package is stimulating.

its a penis joke.

Llamas
02-02-2009, 10:09 PM
Stimulus packages get me all hot and bothered.

bighead384
02-02-2009, 10:10 PM
Do I have to say it?

Learn to read. Hell learn to read into things.
Geez, man. I just didn't get the joke. And you're going to use it as chance to bash me? That's pretty lame.

IamSam
02-02-2009, 10:30 PM
Geez, man. I just didn't get the joke. And you're going to use it as chance to bash me? That's pretty lame.

Sorry. It was lame. But that was the second easy joke that you've missed in a week.

I do have to say that I agree with what Mota Boy about it. Is throwing more money at it going to quench it's hunger?

bighead384
02-02-2009, 10:35 PM
Sorry. It was lame. But that was the second easy joke that you've missed in a week.

I've got no excuse for this one, but the "jokes" in the other thread? No shame here.

Thomas
02-02-2009, 11:10 PM
And I still don't get it.

<3333333333


*pinches cheeks*

Mota Boy
02-02-2009, 11:34 PM
Why exactly would tax cuts be a poor option right now? Wouldn't that simulate the economy? I'm not saying I feel that way, but I just thought I'd bring up that point since it's a popular argument right now.It's always a popular argument, because people want more money. Cutting taxes may stimulate the economy but...

1) Americans spent a lot of surplus money (the few hundred dollars they may get from extra taxes) on foreign goods. Were the government to spend it, a more sizeable chunk would cycle through the American economy.

2) We're going to be in a recession anyway. I'm feeling, with my limited economic knowledge, there's a good possibility of a very serious depression and there's very little that can be done to avert it. At the same time, we're in a very serious situation with our debt, a situation that I feel could do serious, serious damage to our long-term health as a nation. Assuming the government will invest in infrastructure and other projects that will reap a long-term benefit for the nation, I am much more in favor of that than means of further bankrupting this country than I am of tax breaks.

But my main point is that I'm suspicious of the "cut taxes" argument, because it's a solution to everything. Every goddamn cycle of the economy, every budget situation with which we're faced, the answer is always "cut taxes" from the "conservative" crowd. It's very much "boy cried wolf". Until I hear a time that the GOP would ever consider a good time to raise taxes, or a situation in which taxes may be necessary, I will continue to be suspicious of every call, simply because I know they mindlessly call for tax cuts simply because they know it sounds good, even if it is not a sound decision for the country. In the rabid tax cut mode, Republicans are putting the good of their own party over the good of the country.

Little_Miss_1565
02-03-2009, 07:04 AM
Agreed as always, Claibe. Tax cuts, while rad, are pretty useless, especially considering our debt load, and especially considering that taxation is basically the only way for the government to raise funds without contributing to that debt load. The stimulus plan should stick to what will stimulate the economy. While donating to Planned Parenthood et al is something close to my heart, I don't think strengthening PP is going to help the economy in the least. All that stuff needs to get stripped out of that bill ASAP.

Paint_It_Black
02-03-2009, 08:42 AM
I think Mota Boy has said everything that needs to be said on the subject unless anyone can reasonably argue a different perspective.


Democrats are using the urgency of aiding the economy to pass through their political agenda. Now, granted, I agree with most of their political agenda, but to force it through as part of needed aid is ridiculous

I agree with everything else you said completely. This is the only thing I am not entirely with you on, mostly because I don't quite see how there is too much harm in doing this. And honestly, anyone would do this, wouldn't they?

Little_Miss_1565
02-03-2009, 08:58 AM
I agree with everything else you said completely. This is the only thing I am not entirely with you on, mostly because I don't quite see how there is too much harm in doing this. And honestly, anyone would do this, wouldn't they?

Anyone would, yes. But Obama has based much of his 'brand' on doing what should be done, rather than what anyone would. Y'know?

Paint_It_Black
02-03-2009, 09:38 AM
True. But it could be argued that if he didn't do this he would be squandering a great opportunity. I think his "brand" will be judged more on what he accomplishes and not how he does it. Even Obama will have to play the game. I'm hoping either you or Mota Boy can further explain why this is a bad thing because I'm definitely willing to be convinced.

Basically I'm feeling comfortable with the "good" guys using "bad" tactics, as long as they work.

bighead384
02-03-2009, 11:18 AM
Agreed as always, Claibe. Tax cuts, while rad, are pretty useless, especially considering our debt load, and especially considering that taxation is basically the only way for the government to raise funds without contributing to that debt load. The stimulus plan should stick to what will stimulate the economy.

I thought I remember you saying that you're a fiscal conservative...

Little_Miss_1565
02-03-2009, 01:12 PM
I thought I remember you saying that you're a fiscal conservative...

The GOP as it stands is about as far from true conservativism as it gets.

bighead384
02-03-2009, 02:04 PM
The GOP as it stands is about as far from true conservativism as it gets.
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it really that different? Isn't it true that both true conservatism and the GOP want less government when it comes to fiscal issues? So as a fiscal conservative, wouldn't that put you in opposition to many of Obama's policies?

Al Coholic
02-03-2009, 04:47 PM
No, it really isn't. The GOP would love to cut on more liberal programs, and did after the 2001 Bush tax cuts. Medicaid, welfare, and the like. It seemed asinine to me that the tax cuts largely favored the rich, and gave a small sort of compensation prize to the middle class and poor. But since they cut on programs that benefit you more the poorer you are, and put the responsibility of the national debt on everyone's shoulders; you essentially had a concentration of wealth amongst the wealthy.

The GOP backed what was, as far as I know, the first war ever fought almost purely on credit. Other presidents would raise taxes to pay for war, the GOP raised the debt. And what an expensive war. They weren't just fiscally nonconservative, they were fiscally irresponsible.

Sure, the "brand" of the GOP is that they're fiscally conservative, cockblocking those damn democrats from wasting your tax dollars. But that's a brand, and if you're dumb enough to buy into that you probably have a Ronald Reagan tatoo, or atleast a commemorative plate. There's always going to be a big deal made out of pet projects, but I never gave a flying fuck. Earmarks account for 0.5% of our budget( I think interest on debt is somewhere around 11%?). And many of those are necessary projects, building bridges and shit with federal money that states/districts/citys can't afford. This bill will be about 1% pet projects, maybe two. We can tack those pet projects onto this bill or the next one anway. The republicans are going to stick to their talking points so should the economy still be tanking in 2 and 4 years, they can say they opposed it from the start. And we start to do well, then they'll say they heroically balanced out the Dems and we're the sole reason this bill was sucessful.

Ah talking points. You gotta love em, because no matter what the issue you're always right.

Mota Boy
02-03-2009, 08:26 PM
I agree with everything else you said completely. This is the only thing I am not entirely with you on, mostly because I don't quite see how there is too much harm in doing this. And honestly, anyone would do this, wouldn't they?The harm is that you divert so much money away from an actual stimulus into pet projects that you undermine the stimulus itself. Likewise, government is far too short-sighted. You score a meager short-term victory in passing legislation you desire, but you do so at the cost of losing credibility, which over the long term is worth much more than forcing through whatever legislation seems oh-so important at the moment. Political parties, it seems, almost always are willing to sacrifice long-term repute for short-term gains, but it's that type of bullshit mindset that will get you kicked out of office within a decade and cause everything you fought for to be undermined. See: Karl Rove running domestic policy with the stated goal of ensuring a permanent Republican majority, handing the Democrats their most power since Clinton tried to force through an uncompromising health care plan.

At least, roughly, that's my hypothesis of how politics and the world work. I call it the "amoral hazard".

Llamas
02-03-2009, 08:41 PM
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it really that different? Isn't it true that both true conservatism and the GOP want less government when it comes to fiscal issues? So as a fiscal conservative, wouldn't that put you in opposition to many of Obama's policies?

I just want to say... not all liberals are democrats, and not all conservatives are republicans. Democrat and Republican are smaller sects of a bigger category such as liberal or conservative. Democrat and Republican are Cat and E Coli, while liberal and conservative are Animalia and Monera.

Just because you're conservative doesn't mean you agree with Republicans... but I still definitely think that the GOP is conservative; it just only fits one small portion of conservative beliefs and policies.

Paint_It_Black
02-04-2009, 06:35 AM
but I still definitely think that the GOP is conservative; it just only fits one small portion of conservative beliefs and policies.

The GOP is socially conservative. Meaning they hate change and want to force their traditional values on to all of us. Jesus is more important than science etc. and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry (or breathe if you ask them in private).

The GOP pretends to be fiscally conservative. This would be funny if so many people didn't still believe it.

I always get a little sad whenever I meet someone I think I really like only to discover they are Republican. I immediately have to conclude that they are either horribly misguided or else inherently evil. Very stupid people and the elderly are exempt of course. I know how wrong this sounds but I truly can't ever fully like a Republican. 99% of what they stand for repulses me. This forces me to love the Democrats and give them my full support simply for being the only viable alternative.

Little_Miss_1565
02-04-2009, 07:30 AM
All I can really add to the discussion at this point is this: Last night, Obama kept talking about "the size of my package" to Anderson Cooper. It was like glorious financial gay porn.

bighead384
02-04-2009, 12:17 PM
1) Americans spent a lot of surplus money (the few hundred dollars they may get from extra taxes) on foreign goods. Were the government to spend it, a more sizeable chunk would cycle through the American economy.

Do you have statistics that prove that Americans spend a lot of surplus money on foreign goods? This point came up on another forum I go to. The conservatives claimed that most Americans paid off bills and debt, which did not stimulate the economy. They were also critical of the "buy American" clause of the stimulus package because it almost caused huge problems in international relations.

HornyPope
02-04-2009, 02:33 PM
Depending on how the rest of the world responds, the "buy American" act may have horrible repercussions for the entire global economy. If this issue escalates into a trade war, then the Hussein administration will be held responsible for the biggest mistake since the Iraq invasion.


Do you have statistics that prove that Americans spend a lot of surplus money on foreign goods?

Do you really need to ask? Walk into any retail store and see for yourself that everything is made in Asia already.

wheelchairman
02-04-2009, 03:34 PM
God you're such a retard Vlad, haven't you ever heard of like those organic food stores and locally grown farmers markets.

Think before you speak retard!

jacknife737
02-04-2009, 03:38 PM
Yeah, i'm (especially as a Canadian) not really pleased about the "buy American" rhetoric; if it is carried out, there will be repercussions.

An amusing observation, is that although the overwhelming majority of Canadians would have preferred Obama to McCain; A McCain win would probably have been better for our economy.

IamSam
02-04-2009, 03:41 PM
Yeah, i'm (especially as a Canadian) not really pleased about the "buy American" rhetoric; if it is carried out, there will be repercussions.


Dammit, Jacknife! We can make our own whiskey! Ok?

chicapowerpunk
02-04-2009, 04:04 PM
I believe we must take action before the crisis, however it is assumed that before a crisis the president must help the citizens by reducing taxes and costs, no?.
:confused:

HornyPope
02-04-2009, 05:12 PM
God you're such a retard Vlad, haven't you ever heard of like those organic food stores and locally grown farmers markets.

Think before you speak retard!

I think you're just looking for an excuse to call me a retard. :( Well, just cause you're kidding don't mean it doesn't hurt!


An amusing observation, is that although the overwhelming majority of Canadians would have preferred Obama to McCain; A McCain win would probably have been better for our economy.

Maybe, maybe not. It's so hard to tell how the politicians will act once elected. The republicans have also fucked over Canada with the softwood lumber dispute that has been carrying over for years, but the democrats risk making the situation much worse.

I read the papers today and everybody (like Harper) is talking as if nothing is certain and the trade war could be averted with just a little communication. I don't know... I guess we'll have to wait and see. But I am sure it's not going to be pretty.

Llamas
02-04-2009, 05:17 PM
I admit to being uninformed about this... but can someone explain to me why the GOP is not fiscally conservative? I think I just don't fully understand the GOP's stance on that.

T-6005
02-04-2009, 07:07 PM
I'm sorry - are we talking about the GOP's neoliberal economic stance?

Terms are too easily manipulateable to really be meaningful.

Al Coholic
02-04-2009, 09:13 PM
I admit to being uninformed about this... but can someone explain to me why the GOP is not fiscally conservative? I think I just don't fully understand the GOP's stance on that.

Fiscally conservative is a broad term. But look it up and get a general understanding of it. Expanding spending as much as they have, increasing the national debt to record numbers, ect. is not at all fiscally conservative. Their actions are not in line with what one might consider 'fiscally conservative.'

Though there are members of congress that are truely conservative, I doubt if you put them in the executive branch more than a few would stick to their guns.

Sin Studly
02-05-2009, 01:04 AM
However, the package is about half stimulus and about half funding for Democratic pet projects.

That's generous. The wall street journal estimates it less than 10% legitimate stimulus.

Personally, I love the stimulus package. It opens a lot of new opportunities for people like me (to make jokes about "at least he didn't spend it all on spinning rims and rhinestone bling-blings"). Oh, and I've always had fantasies of running away from home and becoming a pirate, which is probably what half of Australia will have to do once the global economy crashes, so this will work out pretty good.

Hypno Toad
02-05-2009, 02:08 AM
It's only going to make the economy better. it won't fix anything, but should make the upcoming years a little less rough for a while.

bighead384
02-05-2009, 02:13 PM
That's generous. The wall street journal estimates it less than 10% legitimate stimulus.


I've heard a number of estimates similar to this, so obviously it's mostly true. I really don't understand why Obama's administration would fuck around with something that's already controversial. Especially after the way he ran he campaign based on "Change".

bighead384
02-05-2009, 03:19 PM
Someone brought this statistic to my attention...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/05/news/economy/tarp_oversight_hearing/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

Apparently, 78 billion dollars of the Bailout was wasted. That's ridiculous. Maybe it WOULD be better to reduce taxes. I'm really confused about all this.

Al Coholic
02-05-2009, 03:28 PM
Yeah, well public opinion about this stuff is basically a repetition of what they've already heard. 1/1000 Americans might have actually read this bill. And 90% of us probably don't have a good idea of how economics work. So they watch the news and hear that most support the bill, then decide that yes, this is probably a good idea.

Raise some doubt though, and things can spiral downward. Especially with a mirror effect of media reporting on less public support, which results in less public support, which reults in the media reporting on less public support, etc. I believe that's the current trend we're on.

BTW, can anyone define 'legitimate stimulus'? In what sense, exactly? Building up schools, for example, in the short run helps out the construction industry and may create a few jobs. In the long run, infastructure spending can be very stimulating, but how the hell do you measure that?

If someone could post the actual breakdown of the bill as it stands that'd be real helpful. I've seen it somewhere but I'm way too lazy to look it up.

HornyPope
02-05-2009, 04:21 PM
If someone could post the actual breakdown of the bill as it stands that'd be real helpful. I've seen it somewhere but I'm way too lazy to look it up.

LOAL me too!!

Mota Boy
02-05-2009, 07:07 PM
I've heard a number of estimates similar to this, so obviously it's mostly true.That's a fallacy. I've heard a number of people claim that the human body is 98% liquid, but that doesn't mean it's true. Especially like this, in a situation where the Republican party has an incentive to lie, and does a much better job of controlling the media message.


That's generous. The wall street journal estimates it less than 10% legitimate stimulus.

Oh, and I've always had fantasies of running away from home and becoming a pirate, which is probably what half of Australia will have to do once the global economy crashes, so this will work out pretty good.Well, I put significantly less stock in the WSJ after Murdock purchased it. A few days ago they ran an editorial by Rush Limbaugh, in which he called for Obama to split the stimulus 54/46 between spending and tax cuts, based on the 54/46 percentage of the popular vote he received... with Rush Limbaugh deciding how to divvy up the tax breaks.

And good luck with piracy. Indonesia's already got the competitive advantage in terms of shipping lanes, hiding places and experience.

Paint_It_Black
02-06-2009, 05:17 AM
Especially after the way he ran he campaign based on "Change".

Change sounds about right. A few dimes is all that will be left after he spends all the money on pet projects!

I should write for Bill O'Reilly. Nah, fuck it. He'll do it live.

Al Coholic
02-06-2009, 08:50 PM
LOAL me too!!

What's with the sarcasm man?

Jesus
02-09-2009, 03:29 PM
Yeah, i'm (especially as a Canadian) not really pleased about the "buy American" rhetoric; if it is carried out, there will be repercussions.

An amusing observation, is that although the overwhelming majority of Canadians would have preferred Obama to McCain; A McCain win would probably have been better for our economy.

How would a McCain win be good for the Canadian economy? Looking at how the GOP is basically a bastion of monetarists and supply-siders their response would be to cut taxes and still talk about monetary policy with interest rates at zero (like Mankiw, that guy is still advising monetary policy). All of this would definitely cause another Great Depression and wreck the US (and world) economy. At which point you'll export next to nothing to the US cause they won't be able to buy it. So some temporary protectionist measures like 'buy american american steel and iron' that allow the stimulus plan to get passed and to get the US economy going again are better than the McCain option.

There is quite a good case for temporary protectionist measures too, because it stops spill over effects from a stimulus plan and thereby free riding by other countries. Because of these spill over effects countries will delay and "underfund" their stimulus. Causing the economy to underperform.


It's always a popular argument, because people want more money. Cutting taxes may stimulate the economy but...

1) Americans spent a lot of surplus money (the few hundred dollars they may get from extra taxes) on foreign goods. Were the government to spend it, a more sizeable chunk would cycle through the American economy.

Nah, regardless of the spill over effects to foreign countries, it's a pretty weak argument against tax cuts cause it misses the biggest problem with tax cuts. Because the biggest argument against a tax cut in a recession is actually that people won't spend much of the increased income. They'll use the money to pay off debts, or because of economic uncertainty (can be fired any day) and loss of stock wealth/housing wealth they'll save the money... which is the opposite of what's needed. There is a lack of demand, so government spending is better. This increases actual demand.


The stimulus package is exactly the type of BS that we don't need. Under the threat of a faltering economy, we're being force-fed a "vital" stimulus that needs to be passed, and passed now. However, the package is about half stimulus and about half funding for Democratic pet projects. Democrats are using the urgency of aiding the economy to pass through their political agenda. Now, granted, I agree with most of their political agenda, but to force it through as part of needed aid is ridiculous, undermining both the aid (the percentage of the package devoted to actually stimulating the economy may be too small to be effective, leaving us worse off) and their legitimacy as a party, substituting politicking for effective governance.

I'd say it's the opposite, if only they would pass through more of their political agenda, well the agenda conservatives always blame the dems to have like: public health care, food stamps, keeping the local budgets not balanced, big government etc. All of that stuff would be a sweet stimulus. But what the Dems appear to do is adopt, some republican light program, a small stimulus (900 billion, except the over 2 trillion needed) , too many tax cuts, some useless housing subsidy etc.
Regardless, the stimulus package won't leave you worse off though (heck you could even put some hundred dollar bills in some candy bars and that would make you better off too, there isn't that much you can do to make you worse off), it however does seem to get less and less effective with every revision. So it's definitely better than nothing and probably better than the next one that would be made.

bighead384
02-25-2009, 03:38 PM
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92310/?fp=1

^Jindal caught bullshitting^

Thomas
02-25-2009, 03:41 PM
That train thing looks dumb, but I'd totally support the volcano one. There's my input for this thread.

Al Coholic
02-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Am I the only one that really doesn't give a shit about pet projects? When republicans go on the air and say "8.6 million for cosmic bowling alleys" am I the only one that thinks "you know, that's not too bad. That'll put some constuction guys to work and give those damn underage stoners a place to go after 10pm"

And some of the stuff they do name sounds pretty legitimate. But they figure if they list them all in bullet point fashion, we wont notice. 40 million for weather proofing and environmentally renovating government office buildings? What an outrage! Making our buildings more efficient is wasteful spending!

And Bobby Jindall is a joke.

bighead384
02-26-2009, 01:54 PM
Am I the only one that really doesn't give a shit about pet projects? When republicans go on the air and say "8.6 million for cosmic bowling alleys" am I the only one that thinks "you know, that's not too bad. That'll put some constuction guys to work and give those damn underage stoners a place to go after 10pm"


I don't disagree with the stimulus package, but I'd rather see all those pet projects substituted for more tax cuts.

Thomas
02-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Actually, I think Al Coholic has a point. Even if they are just pure, juicy pork, it does give people jobs, which you'd think might help boost the economy as much as a tax cut, except people, ya know, have jobs. I don't know enough about economics or the stimulus plan to really say something worthwhile here, but I think it's good to look at it from that perspective.

Al Coholic
02-26-2009, 06:02 PM
Please, call me Al. And while you can kind of argue wether or not tax cuts or willy nilly spending will better stimulate the economy - personally I don't think it matters much either way - my point was more that its all blown out of proportion.

FTR, I'm cool with my taxes being spent on things that actually show up, buildings, bridges, roads, volcanic monitoring systems, bowling alleys, the slip-and-slide hall of fame, whatever. Tax cuts just create a little extra cash thats spent, and then you're right back where you were. The argument here is that instead, we could spend the money on things that create jobs, the money goes back into the economy when those paychecks are spent(also reducing welfare dependancy), and you get to keep the infastructure and other stuff you built to boot, which if done wisely, gives you a much more efficiently run country at the benefit of taxpayers.

What I have complete disdain for is the republicans, who have not a shred of real principles left when it comes fiscal policy just shooting down anything that isn't another investor class tax cut. How this party talks down to the poor, panders to the blue collar workers, and then no matter what the situation continue to propose corporate and investor class tax cuts, while screwing over the poor with welface cuts - AND gets elected is beyond me.

So bighead, I'd respectfully like to disagree, and believe your idea of tax cuts belongs right back up your ass.

metalmania
03-28-2009, 05:30 PM
im waiting for obama's views 1-2 weeks later ,im really waiting!

metalmania
03-29-2009, 06:09 AM
'cause many problems re waiting for him like "armenian subject" .this law plan will go to assembly in april.

Al Coholic
03-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Obama signed for the Stimulus Package at the same desk that Clinton got his Package Stimulated....

Nice..........