Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: shootfighter1 on February 06, 2009, 06:31:10 AM
-
Editor's note: Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. This commentary was adapted from remarks he made last week to the House Republican Conference.
(CNN) -- These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.
Mitt Romney says Obama's spending bill would stimulate the government rather than the economy.
We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.
We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.
It's still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.
It's his job to set priorities. I hope for America's sake that he knows that a chief executive can't vote "present." He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.
As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.
First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.
As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.
Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.
Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.
There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.
Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.
And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?
In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mitt Romney.
-
Romney, as VP, would be running shit right now.
mccain had to pick someone without economic experience. mistake.
-
I can't believe the repubs nominated McCain instead of Romney. A guy like Romney would have been a wise choice with our economic problems.
It appears Obama is not doing enough to reign in the partisan BS from Pelosi and the left of his party. It is inconceivable that this stimulus package has anything other than economic stimulus policies. Many ignore that we just spent $700 billion of taxpayor monies in the TARP bailouts. Also that the rebates of last year didn't do shit. We are setting ourselves up for inflation, big government, bigger debt and tax increases coming. People are ignoring the future price of this additional 900 billion.
Besides the democratic pet projects, this package stimulates temporary government work, not permanent jobs and little for the private sector who really create jobs, as Michael Steele said this AM.
-
I'd like just one these Republican drones to show some proof that tax cuts actually stimulate spending. Lack of spending (aka demand or the capacity to spend) is the problem. If the govt starts spending it puts $$$'s in people's pocket and they start spending and the whole thing starts loosening up. It's Econ 101.
-
Straw if you want to put $ in people's pocket, reduce payroll tax. Everyone that works will take home more and the employers will have more money to invest in their business, purchase items or hire more people. To me, that is economics 101. It is a double bang for your buck. This bill has no provisions on payroll or capital gains taxes! Give people incentive to spend...tax credits for home and auto purchases make a lot of sense.
Giving everyone $500-600 already failed, why the hell would we take that approach again?
By the way, these "republican drones" are trying to protect abuses of your tax money against many of the pet projects people in your party put in there.
Did you know there is a provision to double the amount of federal spending for education? We've tried pouring money into education, that is not the best way to improve education...and its certainly not a good short term stimulus.
Dude, please read what is in this bill.
-
I can't believe the repubs nominated McCain instead of Romney. A guy like Romney would have been a wise choice with our economic problems.
at the time, iraq was more important than the economy.
economy tanked in mid-september. In early october, Mccain should have let Palin 'switch over' to be "energy czar". After all, his quote was "she knows more about energy than ANYONE ELSE IN THE UNITED STATES"
Let Dr./Mayor Palin have the energy title and still motivate the zealots. let Romney calm all the financial fears. Mccain would have won.
-
I'd like just one these Republican drones to show some proof that tax cuts actually stimulate spending. Lack of spending (aka demand or the capacity to spend) is the problem. If the govt starts spending it puts $$$'s in people's pocket and they start spending and the whole thing starts loosening up. It's Econ 101.
Huh??? How about, if you want to put money in people's pocket, PUT MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKET. Or more to the point, DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF THEIR POCKET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Your theory just sounds like a liberal version of "voodoo economics." I mean, really. WTF ???
-
Huh??? How about, if you want to put money in people's pocket, PUT MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKET. Or more to the point, DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF THEIR POCKET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Your theory just sounds like a liberal version of "voodoo economics." I mean, really. WTF ???
Funny - the term voodoo economics was first used by Bush1 on the campaign trail to decribe Reagans (now proven failed) theory of trickle down economics, aka "supply side" economics. It's the demand side of the equation that you need to tweek not the supply side. We have the last 30 years of supply side economics (aka - tax cuts, tax credits, etc..) that have turned us from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation and helped to create the current economic shitstorm
-
Straw if you want to put $ in people's pocket, reduce payroll tax. Everyone that works will take home more and the employers will have more money to invest in their business, purchase items or hire more people. To me, that is economics 101. It is a double bang for your buck. This bill has no provisions on payroll or capital gains taxes! Give people incentive to spend...tax credits for home and auto purchases make a lot of sense.
Giving everyone $500-600 already failed, why the hell would we take that approach again?
By the way, these "republican drones" are trying to protect abuses of your tax money against many of the pet projects people in your party put in there.
Did you know there is a provision to double the amount of federal spending for education? We've tried pouring money into education, that is not the best way to improve education...and its certainly not a good short term stimulus.
Dude, please read what is in this bill.
you're right that a reduction in payroll tax would have an immediate and permanent effect on stimulating/creating demand. They could even lower it on the first 100k and then add back the part they deducted to people making over 500k or some similar plan. I'm not buying the idea that Repubs are looking out for my interest. If they were they would have showed some fiscal discipline on the money that was wasted or simply lost in Iraq and all the $$$'s that were lost through graft and corruption in Katrina relief, etc...
I think any Repub who votes against the stimulus plan should have their state eliminated from receiving any federal funds. Let's help them make their actions consistent with their words.
-
Funny - the term voodoo economics was first used by Bush1 on the campaign trail to decribe Reagans (now proven failed) theory of trickle down economics, aka "supply side" economics. It's the demand side of the equation that you need to tweek not the supply side. We have the last 30 years of supply side economics (aka - tax cuts, tax credits, etc..) that have turned us from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation and helped to create the current economic shitstorm
There are many people that would disagree with you.
Stating that the problem was the fact that there was over involvement by government in the first place, by having groups like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide loans to people that don't qualify.
You are also not looking back far enough demand side economics were really popular up until about 82 but these cause their own problems of discouraging growth and creating stagnant economies, this was the case in both England and the US.
The real solution is to use both vehicles on order to help the economy.
Also the fundamental underlying problem with all of this is that people aren't going to jail for fraud and no one is accountable for their actions. This has to change. Either through more government oversight in the economy, through a stronger regulatory body, or by bringing charges against the executives that over state their books instead of just letting, them correct them.
-
There are many people that would disagree with you.
Stating that the problem was the fact that there was over involvement by government in the first place, by having groups like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide loans to people that don't qualify.
You are also not looking back far enough demand side economics were really popular up until about 82 but these cause their own problems of discouraging growth and creating stagnant economies, this was the case in both England and the US.
The real solution is to use both vehicles on order to help the economy.
Also the fundamental underlying problem with all of this is that people aren't going to jail for fraud and no one is accountable for their actions. This has to change. Either through more government oversight in the economy, through a stronger regulatory body, or by bringing charges against the executives that over state their books instead of just letting, them correct them.
I agree that we can definitely take action on both sides of the supply/demand equation but for the last ~ 30 years the majority of the action has been on the supply side and we are now reaping what we have sown.
Fannie/Freddie were very late the bad mortgage gangbang. Lehman and Bear Stearns were the ones that introduced -true No Doc loans on a large scale that they were able to put in pools and then slice into various securities to be sold around the world. I'm 100% with you on the lack of punitive measures for the people who perpetrated this fraud.
-
I can't believe the repubs nominated McCain instead of Romney. A guy like Romney would have been a wise choice with our economic problems.
That, seriously, is partly due to the elements within the GOP, the same racist type elements - which the GOP attracts. Sure legit issues with him flip/flopping eetc - but the whole "Mormon" thing got people. Who cares? Many in the GOP did.
Besides, he, of all the GOP, lived the Christian life - one marriage, great kids, no affairs on record, clean living wife, even his kids had all their kids in wedlock with no divorces. Plus, he donated his whole Olympic salary to charity - sure hes loaded and can afford, but nice all the same. McCain - divorced, records of affair, left wife kids for a younger lady, wifes stealing etc - very "unchristian" lifestyle
Romney, IMO, was the best choice of all parties, head`and shoulders above them all.
Romney, as VP, would be running shit right now.
mccain had to pick someone without economic experience. mistake.
Exactly. I truly think with a Romney VP, it would be a Prez MCain now. As the timing of the economic meltdown, Romney would have been a *serious* ace in the hole late in the campaign - his financial skills are undebatable. Instead Mccain had Palin making an ass of herself with Couric, under investigation and all sorts for all the world to see.
-
I agree that we can definitely take action on both sides of the supply/demand equation but for the last ~ 30 years the majority of the action has been on the supply side and we are now reaping what we have sown.
Fannie/Freddie were very late the bad mortgage gangbang. Lehman and Bear Stearns were the ones that introduced -true No Doc loans on a large scale that they were able to put in pools and then slice into various securities to be sold around the world. I'm 100% with you on the lack of punitive measures for the people who perpetrated this fraud.
I fundamentally agree with a Keynesian style of economics, with tax cuts to create growth during stagnation.
Slow growth is better then a large amount of growth, then depressions or large recessions, this is the ugly side of supply side economics that people don't talk about.
The other part about supply side economics is that it needs new markets to create growth. When any large market slows down growth stops and recessions start.
The final part is that infrastructure deteriorates because in order to reduce taxes less money is spent repairing or building infrastructure,which was the largest American advantage.
-
That, seriously, is partly due to the elements within the GOP, the same racist type elements - which the GOP attracts. Sure legit issues with him flip/flopping eetc - but the whole "Mormon" thing got people. Who cares? Many in the GOP did.
Besides, he, of all the GOP, lived the Christian life - one marriage, great kids, no affairs on record, clean living wife, even his kids had all their kids in wedlock with no divorces. Plus, he donated his whole Olympic salary to charity - sure hes loaded and can afford, but nice all the same. McCain - divorced, records of affair, left wife kids for a younger lady, wifes stealing etc - very "unchristian" lifestyle
Romney, IMO, was the best choice of all parties, head`and shoulders above them all.
Exactly. I truly think with a Romney VP, it would be a Prez MCain now. As the timing of the economic meltdown, Romney would have been a *serious* ace in the hole late in the campaign - his financial skills are undebatable. Instead Mccain had Palin making an ass of herself with Couric, under investigation and all sorts for all the world to see.
How many people know that Harry Reid is also Mormon? Although personally I consider him a disgrace to my religion. But why isn't it a big issue with Reid but it was with Romney?
-
Yep, big blunder when McCain didn't pick Romney. CQ, respectfully, I disagree that racism had anything to do with Romney not being picked...if you meant more that some people in the party didn't like him on religious basis...perhaps so. Thats where the party has to change some, as I think you will agree. The party has to be more inclusive on social/religious matters without throwing away some conservative social principles (ie family values, definition of marriage, etc). The republicans, if smart, would be uniformly conservative on economic issues but pick their battles on the social side.
Romney should have been the nominee. Can you imagine the debates on the economy with Obama? Romney knows far more than Obama or McCain on these matters.
-
I just have the impression that Obama wants this bill passed regardless of whats in it at this point. I feel this is completely irresponsible. If this is not calculated spending that directly benefits the economy, then its a shit bill and a waste of money. Obama is cheerleading too much this week. He said every economist believes a bill of this magnitude needs to be passed. That is just not honest. Many economists have come out in the past 1-2 weeks and disagree. I heard 2 just yesterday on the news.
Straw, I don't think all republicans are perfect on this either...I am disenchanted with them as well with all the spending in the last few years. We should be looking to the blue dog dems and the real economic conservatives right now to watch over this bill as it is getting shoved down our throats.
-
I just have the impression that Obama wants this bill passed regardless of whats in it at this point. I feel this is completely irresponsible. If this is not calculated spending that directly benefits the economy, then its a shit bill and a waste of money. Obama is cheerleading too much this week. He said every economist believes a bill of this magnitude needs to be passed. That is just not honest. Many economists have come out in the past 1-2 weeks and disagree. I heard 2 just yesterday on the news.
Straw, I don't think all republicans are perfect on this either...I am disenchanted with them as well with all the spending in the last few years. We should be looking to the blue dog dems and the real economic conservatives right now to watch over this bill as it is getting shoved down our throats.
I think Obama has listened in earnest and acted in good faith with the Republicans and got nothing in return. The Repubs who are so strident right now are the same ones who loaded us up with all kinds of pork over the last 8 years.
-
I think Obama has listened in earnest and acted in good faith with the Republicans and got nothing in return. The Repubs who are so strident right now are the same ones who loaded us up with all kinds of pork over the last 8 years.
The problem isn't with Obama, but with Pelosi, who isn't listening to anyone.
How many people know that Harry Reid is also Mormon? Although personally I consider him a disgrace to my religion. But why isn't it a big issue with Reid but it was with Romney?
In general there is more tolerance of differing religions in the democratic party, as long as you don't run as being religious.
Faith is much more bigger deal with Republicans especially in the south where they need to win votes.
-
How many people know that Harry Reid is also Mormon? Although personally I consider him a disgrace to my religion. But why isn't it a big issue with Reid but it was with Romney?
As its not out there I think, actually this is the first I knew "my lesson for the day" if you will, plus I was refernecing the GOP which I doubt voted Reid in lol. I constantly read/heard of Romney being a Mormon, and wondered why it even came into play. Long as someone isnt satantic, or a weirdo cult member why would their religion even matter is how I see it.
Yep, big blunder when McCain didn't pick Romney. CQ, respectfully, I disagree that racism had anything to do with Romney not being picked...if you meant more that some people in the party didn't like him on religious basis...perhaps so. Thats where the party has to change some, as I think you will agree.
Thats exactly what I meant, not saying it was the sole reason, but it played into it - I never heard about Mccains, Guilianis religion etc - just Romney being a Mormon. Who cares? My mention of racism [which obviously I think didn't play into it, GOP had options - white, white and white lol] was that those prone to dislike someone based on religion, are the same types prone to dislike someone based on race. People like say you and I aren't going to "not vote" for someone due to religion/race or even gender as someone here mentioned recently their "qualms" about a woman president. The GOP needs to flush that element, its not the officials, its a small fraction some nutty supporters. Hard to dump supporters, but somehow they need to go. GOP can't truly be inclusive with that element hindering them.
Romney should have been the nominee. Can you imagine the debates on the economy with Obama? Romney knows far more than Obama or McCain on these matters.
Agree, I still for the life of me don't see why Romney would not have cleaned up. On paper, he beats all.
-
Agree, I still for the life of me don't see why Romney would not have cleaned up. On paper, he beats all.
In spite of his photogenic qualities and scandal-free personal life he still couldn't overcome the problem that he came across as a neocon wack job.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156317&title=mitt-drops-out&byDate=true
-
That, seriously, is partly due to the elements within the GOP, the same racist type elements - which the GOP attracts. Sure legit issues with him flip/flopping eetc - but the whole "Mormon" thing got people. Who cares? Many in the GOP did.
I don't think so.
McCain won a number of early Republican primaries where independents and democrats were allowed to vote. It's a stupid method. In those primaries, Romney actually won more of the Republican vote, but lost the overall.
McCain gained too much momentum from that.
-
I can't believe the repubs nominated McCain instead of Romney. A guy like Romney would have been a wise choice with our economic problems.
It appears Obama is not doing enough to reign in the partisan BS from Pelosi and the left of his party. It is inconceivable that this stimulus package has anything other than economic stimulus policies. Many ignore that we just spent $700 billion of taxpayor monies in the TARP bailouts. Also that the rebates of last year didn't do shit. We are setting ourselves up for inflation, big government, bigger debt and tax increases coming. People are ignoring the future price of this additional 900 billion.
Besides the democratic pet projects, this package stimulates temporary government work, not permanent jobs and little for the private sector who really create jobs, as Michael Steele said this AM.
I voted for romney in the primary.
-
In spite of his photogenic qualities and scandal-free personal life he still couldn't overcome the problem that he came across as a neocon wack job.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156317&title=mitt-drops-out&byDate=true
obama needs to tell Pelosi to really STFU quick or he is going to go down in flames very quickly.
-
obama needs to tell Pelosi to really STFU quick or he is going to go down in flames very quickly.
I'm probably as sick of her and Harry Reid as any Republican on this board.
I have no clue how these two feckless morons ever got into leadership roles
I'd like to see Feingold as Senate majority leader
Not sure who I'd want in the House
-
We go back and forth, but I remember vividly the battles with clinton and newt that resulted in very good things for the public.
They acted very responsibly and Obama needs to get with it and understand that Clinton only became very popular after welfare reform, balanced budget, etc.
If he aligns himself with Pelosi, he will be a one termer at best.
-
Agreed straw. Obama cannot allign himself with Pelosi and company. If so, he will loose the support of the moderates and independents, most of who supported him.
I know he reached out to talk to republicans but little action happened. Most of the republican suggestions have been shot down so it doesn't matter how much Obama talks to them, if we see no action then its a failed effort. It looked good but little else.
-
it's funny. the same people who declared obama was toast back in the rev. wright days, are doing the same now. It's less than 3 weeks into his term. He's completely reversing economic policy - in essence, taking it FROM the rich and giving it TO the poor.
Are you sure you want to make your evaluation already? He does have 201 weeks left in office, or 409 weeks, if he wins in 2009.
-
it's funny. the same people who declared obama was toast back in the rev. wright days, are doing the same now. It's less than 3 weeks into his term. He's completely reversing economic policy - in essence, taking it FROM the rich and giving it TO the poor.
Are you sure you want to make your evaluation already? He does have 201 weeks left in office, or 409 weeks, if he wins in 2009.
THAT IS COMMUNISM BUDDY.
-
it's funny. the same people who declared obama was toast back in the rev. wright days, are doing the same now. It's less than 3 weeks into his term. He's completely reversing economic policy - in essence, taking it FROM the rich and giving it TO the poor.
Are you sure you want to make your evaluation already? He does have 201 weeks left in office, or 409 weeks, if he wins in 2009.
you should really be carful 240...
if you keep your head up obamas ass all day when he sits down youre just gonna slide right up there.
-
It sure is (communistic/socialistic). Those that thought he wouldn't push for a more socialist style government are being proven wrong.
Man, I am really disappointed with the nation. Although numbers have dropped, 51% of people in a CNN poll still favor the 'economic stimulus' spending package. How f'n ignorant and irresponsible. If the people can't reign in their own government in regards to excessive spending then we are doomed to high taxes and the inefficiencies of big government. We've bitched about excessive spending for the last 6-7 yrs...why is this different?
How can anyone back this piece of shit bill in its current form. I chaulk it up to people not informing themselves. At least 49% of the nation has some sense. People make too many damn decisions with emotion without evaluating whats really going on. This whole election has been about emotion and what makes people feel good. Discouraging.
-
it's funny. the same people who declared obama was toast back in the rev. wright days, are doing the same now. It's less than 3 weeks into his term. He's completely reversing economic policy - in essence, taking it FROM the rich and giving it TO the poor.
Are you sure you want to make your evaluation already? He does have 201 weeks left in office, or 409 weeks, if he wins in 2009.
We don't yet know what Obama and Congress are doing so it's a little premature to say he's taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor"
-
But we do have some indication based on this horrible bill, limiting compensation of executives, expanding medicaid and food stamp programs, increased funding to education, support of unions, denying logical tax breaks for people and businesses, expanding government, increasing government jobs. These are socialistic ideas.
Its hard to say which is the far left democrats and which of these ideas are Obamas...nevertheless, Obama isn't changing the direction of flow so he is ultimately responsible for the direction of things.
You guys notice there is no money going toward nuclear power? tons of money into green projects but no nuclear. Guess that sums up how Obama feels about Nuclear energy. Man, I hate to say it, but things are becoming clearer to me. Many of the reservations some of us had about full democratic control are coming to fruition.
-
But we do have some indication based on this horrible bill, limiting compensation of executives, expanding medicaid and food stamp programs, increased funding to education, support of unions, denying logical tax breaks for people and businesses, expanding government, increasing government jobs. These are socialistic ideas.
Its hard to say which is the far left democrats and which of these ideas are Obamas...nevertheless, Obama isn't changing the direction of flow so he is ultimately responsible for the direction of things.
You guys notice there is no money going toward nuclear power? tons of money into green projects but no nuclear. Guess that sums up how Obama feels about Nuclear energy. Man, I hate to say it, but things are becoming clearer to me. Many of the reservations some of us had about full democratic control are coming to fruition.
the only exec's getting pay limits are from those companies who got our tax $$$'s
what's your beef with increased funding for education and govt. jobs which will probably go to things like infrastrucure, etc.? What's the problem with support of Unions - that's what built the middle class in this country which is the majority of consumer spending. This is all basic stuff that we've seem to have forgotten.
We didn't hear a peep out the Repubs the last 8 years and they wasted our money on their own port and as Bush piled up huge amounts of debt and blew up the size of govt.
I'm willing to sit back and wait and see what's actually in this bill before I get all worked up.
-
Straw, we'd have to agree to disagree on Unions and education. We've had the union debate before...while they had a good purpose historically, they are a huge albatross now.
Strategic focus on education is good but this bill blindly doubles spending. We have seen increased spending on education the last 20 yrs...obviously blind spending is not the answer. (I don't think our schools will ever regain their prominence unless families and the culture change...teachers aren't parents).
I am ok with putting limitations on money given to private institutions though I feel tax money should not have been given in the first place. Still, as a whole, these are socialistic ideas.
Again, no need to compare with Bush as a justification. Liberals keep doing that. Bush made bad judgements economically and it seems Obama is making his own mistakes in allowing Pelosi and the far lefties have their way with our money and our country. Treat them separate.
-
Straw, we'd have to agree to disagree on Unions and education. We've had the union debate before...while they had a good purpose historically, they are a huge albatross now.
Strategic focus on education is good but this bill blindly doubles spending. We have seen increased spending on education the last 20 yrs...obviously blind spending is not the answer. (I don't think our schools will ever regain their prominence unless families and the culture change...teachers aren't parents).
I am ok with putting limitations on money given to private institutions though I feel tax money should not have been given in the first place. Still, as a whole, these are socialistic ideas.
Again, no need to compare with Bush as a justification. Liberals keep doing that. Bush made bad judgements economically and it seems Obama is making his own mistakes in allowing Pelosi and the far lefties have their way with our money and our country. Treat them separate.
Obama (and really all of us) are left to deal with Bush's crap for years to come and I think it's valid to compare Bush and more importantly the Repubs in Congress who are still there now and were there for all of Bush's term. The same Repubs who loaded up the pork the last 8 years are now all of sudden against virtually any kind of domestic spending in favor of tax cuts.
-
I'd like just one these Republican drones to show some proof that tax cuts actually stimulate spending. Lack of spending (aka demand or the capacity to spend) is the problem. If the govt starts spending it puts $$$'s in people's pocket and they start spending and the whole thing starts loosening up. It's Econ 101.
Socialist spending like they're doing in Europe, has never worked to stimulate the economy, how much more proof do you need......
-
Socialist spending like they're doing in Europe, has never worked to stimulate the economy, how much more proof do you need......
Some people never choose to understand certain things. Socialism has failed in almost every instance, but some people still, for some reason, think it will work in this country.
-
Government spending is not socialism and no one is suggesting a fundamental change in the nature of country.
-
Government spending is not socialism and no one is suggesting a fundamental change in the nature of country.
Your buddy obama is suggesting fundamental change.
-
Your buddy obama is suggesting fundamental change.
I don't see it
-
Oh, change is coming because the needs of the world outweigh your's. If the dollar collapses then we will all be equal. If you have 100k in your account and the bank lets you withdraw it..it wont matter.....youll have as much money as the bag lady on the street.
Youll be wiping your ass with 100 dollar bills soon. Remember when i said your 8 hrs a day of work aint worth any more than anyone elses 8 hrs a day. Its only your imagination that you thought you were better to society, than the guy sweeping the parking lot.
But you say. Hey, Im an architecht, im educated, i deserve 40 times your pay....................h ahahaha......good stuff coming.
-
you're right that a reduction in payroll tax would have an immediate and permanent effect on stimulating/creating demand. They could even lower it on the first 100k and then add back the part they deducted to people making over 500k or some similar plan. I'm not buying the idea that Repubs are looking out for my interest. If they were they would have showed some fiscal discipline on the money that was wasted or simply lost in Iraq and all the $$$'s that were lost through graft and corruption in Katrina relief, etc...
I think any Repub who votes against the stimulus plan should have their state eliminated from receiving any federal funds. Let's help them make their actions consistent with their words.
Sure guy,
And could those states then be exempt from having to pay into the asinine bailout? Can they get away from paying taxes that go to all your Dems liberal financial ratholes?
-
What got cut from the stimulus billStory Highlights
- Bipartisan group of senators reaches compromise on stimulus bill
Items partially cut include funds for FBI construction, federal hybrid cars, EPA
Items entirely cut include funds for federal prisons, NASA, school construction
(CNN) -- A coalition of Democrats and some Republicans reached a compromise that trimmed billions in spending from an earlier version of the Senate economic stimulus bill.
CNN obtained, from a Democratic leadership aide, a list of some programs that have been cut, either entirely or partially:
Partially cut:
• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)
• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)
• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)
• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)
• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)
• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)
• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)
Fully eliminated
• $55 million for historic preservation
• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters
• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization
• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
• $100 million for distance learning
• $98 million for school nutrition
• $50 million for aquaculture
• $2 billion for broadband
• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology
• $50 million for detention trustee
• $25 million for Marshalls Construction
• $300 million for federal prisons
• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program
• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program
• $10 million state and local law enforcement
• $50 million for NASA
• $50 million for aeronautics
• $50 million for exploration
• $50 million for Cross Agency Support
• $200 million for National Science Foundation
• $100 million for science
• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees
• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration
• $89 million General Services Administration operations
• $50 million fromDepartment of Homeland Security
• $200 million Transportation Security Administration
• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use
• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife
• $55 million for historic preservation
• $20 million for working capital fund
• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement
• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management
• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start
• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity
• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants
• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)
• $16 billion for school construction
• $3.5 billion for higher education construction
• $1.25 billion for project based rental
• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization
• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing
• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)
-
I'd like to see more given to NASA actually.
-
I'd like to see more given to NASA actually.
me too
-
Paul Krugman with Joe Scarborough explaining why it's crucial for the govt to spend $$$'s
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/#29051511
-
me too
Not me... I'm kind of tired of giving money to the space program.
They don't really do jack.
-
Not me... I'm kind of tired of giving money to the space program.
They don't really do jack.
space is the unlimited future of science (and probably defence too)
I'm all for more $$$
-
Government spending is not socialism and no one is suggesting a fundamental change in the nature of country.
Read the cover of Newsweek.
This plan is a disaster and Obama is liar. The people who predicted this disaster, Roubini, Schiff, et al, all say Obama's plan is going to lead to an even worse disaster.
Another thing, there are many things I personally would like to buy, but I cant afford it so I dont buy them.
Why do you think we as the taxpayers should be doing anything different????
-
Read the cover of Newsweek.
This plan is a disaster and Obama is liar. The people who predicted this disaster, Roubini, Schiff, et al, all say Obama's plan is going to lead to an even worse disaster.
Another thing, there are many things I personally would like to buy, but I cant afford it so I dont buy them.
Why do you think we as the taxpayers should be doing anything different????
I'll read the cover of newsweek if you'll watch this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/#29051511 (if it doesn't start hit the refresh button)
I think I'll defer to the opinion of the guy who won the nobel prize in economics rather than a bunch of talking heads from MSNBC
-
Thanks for posting those straw. It has been difficult to find what was cut this week. Glad they partially cut many of those items but its appauling Pelosi and company tried to put that crap in there in the first place. Very hard to argue any of that should be in an emergency economic bill. I still disagree with much of the bill. We will be passing nearly 1.6 trillion dollars of stimulus in 6 months total. That is not considering interest either. No one discusses the impact on debt and interest payments as a portion of GDP. This gets us farther from the ultimate goal of reigning in government spending overall (I don't care if its repub or democrat...we have allowed our gov to spend way too much of our money).
-
Krugman did not predict this disaster the way Schiff and Roubini did. They were spot on on this, Krugman was not.
Thus, I will take their take on this as probably more correct than his.
BTW- Yasser Arafat and Al Gore also won the noble prize.
-
Krugman did not predict this disaster the way Schiff and Roubini did. They were spot on on this, Krugman was not.
Thus, I will take their take on this as probably more correct than his.
BTW- Yasser Arafat and Al Gore also won the noble prize.
Krugman addresses each argument from the right and explains what went wrong in the efforts of Japan in the 90's and the US in the 30's.
The current Repubs in Washington pretty much have only one answer - tax cuts. Tax cuts give you the least bang for your buck and take a long time to kick in.
-
Krugman addresses each argument from the right and explains what went wrong in the efforts of Japan in the 90's and the US in the 30's.
The current Repubs in Washington pretty much have only one answer - tax cuts. Tax cuts give you the least bang for your buck and take a long time to kick in.
Ok. lets do this again.
Krugamn did not even see this coming. Also, in that interview he completely ignorted the fact it was only until the GOP ran the congress that things began to turn around.
KSchiff and Roubini called this one 10000% dead on abnd krugman did not. Thus, i will consider what they say to have more wieght.
-
Ok. lets do this again.
Krugamn did not even see this coming. Also, in that interview he completely ignorted the fact it was only until the GOP ran the congress that things began to turn around. KSchiff and Roubini called this one 10000% dead on abnd krugman did not. Thus, i will consider what they say to have more wieght.
Bernake and Greenspan and a bunch of other supposedly smart people didn't see this coming but plenty of others did.
Just becasue Schiff predicted the sky was falling doesn't mean he's got the solutions and the same goes for Krugman for that matter.
I don't know all of Krugmans writing or comments from the recent past but he's studied the RE bubble and bank failures of Japan and knows a little something about the Depresion of the 30's too.
edit - it apears that Krugman did see some of the some of these problems early on too:
from Wiki: "In 2008, amid the subprime mortgage crisis in the US, Krugman predicted that housing prices would drop 25% overall and up to 50% in locations such as Miami or Los Angeles.[34] Krugman has appeared several times as a guest on MSNBC, particularly since the onset of the economic crisis in September 2008. He has repeatedly expressed his view that Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm are the two people most responsible for causing the crisis. As early as 2005 Krugman was critical of Greenspan's reluctance to regulate the mortgage markets, and his shifting positions on the impending housing bubble."
Doing nothing (or just a shit load of tax cuts) will certainly only make things worse. At this point (not that it matters what either of us think) I'm thinking along the same lines as Krugman that massive spending is the key to stopping this from getting much much worse.
I assume since you're a fan of Schiff that you've converted all your worldy assets into gold
-
Bernake and Greenspan and a bunch of other supposedly smart people didn't see this coming but plenty of others did.
Just becasue Schiff predicted the sky was falling doesn't mean he's got the solutions and the same goes for Krugman for that matter.
I don't know all of Krugmans writing or comments from the recent past but he's studied the RE bubble and bank failures of Japan and knows a little something about the Depresion of the 30's too.
edit - it apears that Krugman did see some of the some of these problems early on too:
from Wiki: "In 2008, amid the subprime mortgage crisis in the US, Krugman predicted that housing prices would drop 25% overall and up to 50% in locations such as Miami or Los Angeles.[34] Krugman has appeared several times as a guest on MSNBC, particularly since the onset of the economic crisis in September 2008. He has repeatedly expressed his view that Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm are the two people most responsible for causing the crisis. As early as 2005 Krugman was critical of Greenspan's reluctance to regulate the mortgage markets, and his shifting positions on the impending housing bubble."
Doing nothing (or just a shit load of tax cuts) will certainly only make things worse. At this point (not that it matters what either of us think) I'm thinking along the same lines as Krugman that massive spending is the key to stopping this from getting much much worse.
I assume since you're a fan of Schiff that you've converted all your worldy assets into gold
Brass and Lead!
-
Doing nothing (or just a shit load of tax cuts) will certainly only make things worse. At this point (not that it matters what either of us think) I'm thinking along the same lines as Krugman that massive spending is the key to stopping this from getting much much worse.
It's worked well so far.
-
It's worked well so far.
this time we'll try spending it here and on stuff we'll use for the next 50 years rather than just spending it to blow shit up.
This is really pretty simple - the less money people have the less they spend. The more people get layed off the more they tighten up and spend less, leading to more layoffs and less spending. If you put people to work they have money and they start spending, companies start seeing demand rise and they start hiring, etc..
What's happening now is that everyone is scared and even people with jobs and good income are tightening up and spending less.
BTW - I did my part. I just went out and spent $3700 for new appliances for my kitchen (range, microwave, dishwasher, refrigerator). Been putting it off for years and finally decided to do it now. Paid for it with cash (well a check).
-
The easiest quickest way to syimuluate the economy IMMEDIATELY is to cuyut the payroll tax.
-
The easiest quickest way to syimuluate the economy IMMEDIATELY is to cuyut the payroll tax.
you and I are in 100% agreement on that.
-
you and I are in 100% agreement on that.
You do know why they wont do that right?????????
-
You do know why they wont do that right?????????
I wish they would so bad man. People don't realize how much money they lose out of each check because of payroll tax.
BTW, why won't they cut it?
-
I wish they would so bad man. People don't realize how much money they lose out of each check because of payroll tax.
BTW, why won't they cut it?
Because people will get very comfortable with taking home more of their own money each week and not be so happy when it comes time to reimpose it.
It basically represents another way the government controls you and the ability of yourself and the individual to make ecomonic decisiosns.
-
Because people will get very comfortable with taking home more of their own money each week and not be so happy when it comes time to reimpose it. It basically represents another way the government controls you and the ability of yourself and the individual to make ecomonic decisiosns.
sounds like what's happening right now to the primary recipientst of the Bush tax cuts
btw - weren't you the guy who predicted Leon Panetta was toast when his name was first announced?
-
sounds like what's happening right now to the primary recipientst of the Bush tax cuts
btw - weren't you the guy who predicted Leon Panetta was toast when his name was first announced?
HAS HE BEEN CONFIRMED YET?
Also, have read about the million dollars he made last year from defunct banks and groups with business in front of the CIA?
-
HAS HE BEEN CONFIRMED YET?
Also, have read about the million dollars he made last year from defunct banks and groups with business in front of the CIA?
he has not
but I'm pretty sure you said something about him being toast because Feinstein wasn't on board
sounds like he has more experience with the CIA than anyone knew about
anyway, I admit this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread other than obliquely at best
I guess I'm just saying that anyone can make predictions about the future
most of our opinions don't matter at all
-
Panetta is another hack who cashed in. We the people are being terribly served with these horrible choices of obama.
-
Panetta is another hack who cashed in. We the people are being terribly served with these horrible choices of obama.
I didn't mean to muddy up this topic with Panetta
it's just that your predictions so far aren't that great
time will tell
-
I didn't mean to muddy up this topic with Panetta
it's just that your predictions so far aren't that great
time will tell
Dsachle????
I called that one asap.
Check thid out.
http://www.howestreet.com/index.php?pl=/goldradio/index.php/mediaplayer/1065
-
Dsachle????
I called that one asap.
Check thid out.
http://www.howestreet.com/index.php?pl=/goldradio/index.php/mediaplayer/1065
congrats
-
Also that the rebates of last year didn't do shit.
Exactly as we predicted.
The cost of administrating the program made the entire thing a net loss for the country. It was a stupid, 'feel good' idea that Bush never should've pursued.
-
I'd like just one these Republican drones to show some proof that tax cuts actually stimulate spending. Lack of spending (aka demand or the capacity to spend) is the problem. If the govt starts spending it puts $$$'s in people's pocket and they start spending and the whole thing starts loosening up. It's Econ 101.
As a small-business owner, if I'm paying less to the IRS, then I have more to spend on my business, which means hiring more independent contractors, who will then pay taxes on their earnings while also spending their money on goods and services.
As you said, Econ 101.
-
Straw if you want to put $ in people's pocket, reduce payroll tax. Everyone that works will take home more and the employers will have more money to invest in their business, purchase items or hire more people. To me, that is economics 101. It is a double bang for your buck. This bill has no provisions on payroll or capital gains taxes! Give people incentive to spend...tax credits for home and auto purchases make a lot of sense.
Giving everyone $500-600 already failed, why the hell would we take that approach again?
By the way, these "republican drones" are trying to protect abuses of your tax money against many of the pet projects people in your party put in there.
Did you know there is a provision to double the amount of federal spending for education? We've tried pouring money into education, that is not the best way to improve education...and its certainly not a good short term stimulus.
Dude, please read what is in this bill.
x2
-
As a small-business owner, if I'm paying less to the IRS, then I have more to spend on my business, which means hiring more independent contractors, who will then pay taxes on their earnings while also spending their money on goods and services.
As you said, Econ 101.
I keep telling my liberal friends, the best way to do this is a payroll tax deduction.
People will spend on food, bars, going out to eat, stores, clothes, etc.
The plan as it is, is a complete mess.
-
I can't believe the repubs nominated McCain instead of Romney. A guy like Romney would have been a wise choice with our economic problems.
A few things at work:
1) there's reason to believe that elements of the GOP honestly didn't want to win the White House, hoping against hope that they could possibly limit a 4-year Obama presidency to 1 possibly 2 Supreme Court selections - an 8-year GOP run after that would make it possible to get 4-5 selections - the rationale is that the nation was headed for serious economic collapse and it's easier to put the blame for it at the foot of the guy who holds the office at the time (stranger things have happened)
2) No matter how nice or 'normal' he seems, Mitt is still a Mormon and many Americans - despite his obvious economic brilliance - aren't comfortable with the idea of a Mormon holding such a high office in our nation's government.
3) Mitt would love to be the VP right now - to have his foot in the door - and probably would've stuck around if McCain had really had a chance to win. This is conjecture. Knowing that the GOP was so far behind, though, Mitt got away from the race as quickly as possible in order to protect his brand for a run in 2012. He's going to emerge as a very solid candidate in 3 years and he will NOT be selecting Palin as his running mate.
...
That said...
I hope that President Obama is listening to Mitt (because he's 100% correct in his statements here), but I'm afraid that Obama - like Bush before him - intends to 'stay the course', no matter how disastrous it might be for our nation's financial future. :-\
-
There are many people that would disagree with you.
Stating that the problem was the fact that there was over involvement by government in the first place, by having groups like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide loans to people that don't qualify.
You are also not looking back far enough demand side economics were really popular up until about 82 but these cause their own problems of discouraging growth and creating stagnant economies, this was the case in both England and the US.
The real solution is to use both vehicles on order to help the economy.
Also the fundamental underlying problem with all of this is that people aren't going to jail for fraud and no one is accountable for their actions. This has to change. Either through more government oversight in the economy, through a stronger regulatory body, or by bringing charges against the executives that over state their books instead of just letting, them correct them.
Exactly.
People need to understand that economies operate in cycles, so the policies which guide us must be adjusted as well.
At the end of the day, though, the one thing we should ALL agree on is the need for a smaller federal 'workforce'.
-
As a small-business owner, if I'm paying less to the IRS, then I have more to spend on my business, which means hiring more independent contractors, who will then pay taxes on their earnings while also spending their money on goods and services.
As you said, Econ 101.
lower taxes on biz are fine but what if another small business person decides to just retain the savings and build back up his cash reserves. I'm self employed too and that's what I would do right now if I got any tax savings. Tax cuts are fine but they don't return the same economic stimulus as direct spending (from what I've read and heard)
-
lower taxes on biz are fine but what if another small business person decides to just retain the savings and build back up his cash reserves. I'm self employed too and that's what I would do right now if I got any tax savings. Tax cuts are fine but they don't return the same economic stimulus as direct spending (from what I've read and heard)
This is not direct spending as it first must go through the govt agencies.
Additionally, most of this spending is completely wasteful and going to the states to prop up entitlement and welfare spending.
-
This is not direct spending as it first must go through the govt agencies.
Additionally, most of this spending is completely wasteful and going to the states to prop up entitlement and welfare spending.
how much of this new bill is going to entitelments
I know part of it was for extending food stamps but I saw something last week that stated food stamps have a greater dollor on dollar return than tax cuts
-
how much of this new bill is going to entitelments
I know part of it was for extending food stamps but I saw something last week that stated food stamps have a greater dollor on dollar return than tax cuts
Well, this is supposed to be a jobs and stimulus plan.
-
Well, this is supposed to be a jobs and stimulus plan.
yes it is.
Seems kind of weird to cut these things like: 16 billion for school construction, $3.5 billion for higher education construction.
Wouldn't constrution jobs be good and eventually new teaching jobs, administrators, janitors, etc...
-
My problem with those things are are that once those projects are over, the local taxpayers are going to killed with higher school taxes to keep those things going.
School taxes are already devasting many homeowners and these plans dont make the schools make the cuts and get rid of the weaste that is necessary now.
-
My problem with those things are are that once those projects are over, the local taxpayers are going to killed with higher school taxes to keep those things going.
School taxes are already devasting many homeowners and these plans dont make the schools make the cuts and get rid of the weaste that is necessary now.
that varies state to state.
either way, assuming the school is actually needed then let's build it and deal with the other issues later. If it's not needed then redirect the $$$'s to some more worthy project.
-
3 words in summary....cut payroll taxes! :)
-
3 words in summary....cut payroll taxes! :)
Obama is going to get roasted tonight.
I really hope he does not run over into "24"
-
Obama is going to get roasted tonight.
I really hope he does not run over into "24"
his town hall is going very well so far in indiana.
They'd have to pre-empt 24 and start it late. I can't wait to see this week's episode when Bauer squares off with the president.
-
his town hall is going very well so far in indiana.
They'd have to pre-empt 24 and start it late. I can't wait to see this week's episode when Bauer squares off with the president.
Do you think these people are going to pick up shovels and picks?
-
So we are debating if and how much this stimulus may effect the economy now but few are talking about the enormous debt we are building, the effect of increasing the yearly debt interest payments, the higher taxes that are coming to support these bloated gov bill and the fact that we are printing more money...all which have negative long term consequences.
-
Do you think these people are going to pick up shovels and picks?
??? And find a job?
-
Do you think these people are going to pick up shovels and picks?
Well, Obama did say that we've got a lot of 'shovel-ready projects' awaiting approval of his huge spending bill. ;D
-
Well, Obama did say that we've got a lot of 'shovel-ready projects' awaiting approval of his huge spending bill. ;D
Those companies are going to hire illegal aliens since the Senate is not including E Verify in the plan.
Anyone with any sense knows this.
You morons who buy into this Obama garbage really are pathetic and have no idea what goes on on the street level.
The contractors who are going to get these jobs are going to be politically connected companies who donate to local Democrat party pols and not be scrutinized for hiring policies.
Only a liberal dope addict actually believes these companies are going to hire legal Americans.
-
Strawman, here is the first question I have for you about the "stimulus"
1. Where are we going to get this money from?
America is broke, we can either borrow more money or print more. Either way those two options suck.
2. When have we ever been able to spend our way out of a recession?
FDR tried and most economists agree it only prolonged the depression.