PDA

View Full Version : The American stimulus package


Gengarchomp
February 10th, 2009, 08:22 PM
With the economy in the worst recession since the Great Depression, Congress has decided to pass a Stimulus Package (here is the link to an online version if anyone wants to read it: http://readthestimulus.org/) which will cost $819 billion dollars. The package is supposed to create or save 4 million jobs by 2010. In my opinion, this is completely ridiculous. Not only would this create jobs for roughly 1% of America, which would, by the way, be temporary construction jobs, but it would cost $205 Thousand per job. That is such a massive amount of money to waste that it would likely bankrupt the U.S, but also the countries that depend on America for their own economic survival. Since there is a pretty good chance that this will fail in the long run, and that almost all jobs created would likely be temporary, in addition to the fact that the next 3 or 4 generations will be paying this off, can anyone really think that wonton spending will solve anything?

BenjiTheKid
February 10th, 2009, 08:44 PM
I honestly don't know what to think of it yet.

On one hand, it will help some families to get back on their feet for a while. However, when it runs out- if they're still at the same dead-end job- it won't do much to help. On the other hand, it seems a lot of money to waste while we're in such a terrible recession.

Agent Cobalt
February 10th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Since when hasn't spending trillions, enslaving future generations of Americans with debt, and integrating socialism into the economy helped us? After all, spending got us out of the Great Depression and Jimmy Carter's recession. Oh wait.

This whole situation was brought about because of government intervention in our economy, and the dumbies like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd that created this mess are the geniuses we need to fix this? Why can't the people demand their representatives legislate and execute the law along the guidelines of the Constitution? I have to wonder if the jerks in Congress that can't be bothered to read the spending bills they vote to pass because they're hundreds of pages long even have the time to read the Constitution.

I wish we'd stop thinking that the government's job is to ensure the general welfare rather than promote it; that they'd stop supporting the nanny state. I wish we'd return to Laissez-faire economics and remember that government that governs best governs least. But then if the Obama administration and the do-nothing stalinists in Congress want to ruin our currency, raise taxes, give in to big labor and the unions, and start a trading war with Europe, Canada, and our other trading partners, then by all means let them.

Hope. Change. Obey.

Gengarchomp
February 10th, 2009, 09:34 PM
Since when hasn't spending trillions, enslaving future generations of Americans with debt, and integrating socialism into the economy helped us? After all, spending got us out of the Great Depression and Jimmy Carter's recession. Oh wait.

This whole situation was brought about because of government intervention in our economy, and the dumbies like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd that created this mess are the geniuses we need to fix this? Why can't the people demand their representatives legislate and execute the law along the guidelines of the Constitution? I have to wonder if the jerks in Congress that can't be bothered to read the spending bills they vote to pass because they're hundreds of pages long even have the time to read the Constitution.

I wish we'd stop thinking that the government's job is to ensure the general welfare rather than promote it; that they'd stop supporting the nanny state. I wish we'd return to Laissez-faire economics and remember that government that governs best governs least. But then if the Obama administration and the do-nothing stalinists in Congress want to ruin our currency, raise taxes, give in to big labor and the unions, and start a trading war with Europe, Canada, and our other trading partners, then by all means let them.

Hope. Change. Obey.

I completely agree with this post. It has been about three weeks since America became an "Obamanation," and I've already had enough change. I miss captialism already. If government decides to just inflate the economy for every little downturn, we're doomed. A free market economy is bound to have some recessions, and it is best to just let them go away naturally. If anything, this package will make things worse.

Agent Cobalt
February 10th, 2009, 09:45 PM
I completely agree with this post. It has been about three weeks since America became an "Obamanation," and I've already had enough change. I miss captialism already. If government decides to just inflate the economy for every little downturn, we're doomed. A free market economy is bound to have some recessions, and it is best to just let them go away naturally. If anything, this package will make things worse.

You got that right. Free markets for free people. :cool:

Otter Mii-kun
February 13th, 2009, 05:36 PM
The federal government is once again, experimenting with failed economic policies that will only make things worse in the long run and continuing to prop up the biggest financial bubble in history with dangerous monetary pumping, "bridge loans", trillion dollar "recovery packages", among other things-all in the name of "jump starting the economy", "reducing unemployment", even "saving the middle class" and "preventing certain economic doom"!
Instead of listening to people like Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Ron Paul, and Lew Rockwell, they chose to follow the broken and otherwise disproven fallacies of Keynesian economics.
How can more spending, more debt, and more inflation get us out of a depression caused by these very things?
As the late economics professor Murray N. Rothbard put it- (the federal government has) proposed to cure the disease--the crash and future recession--by pouring into the economy more of the very virus (inflationary credit expansion) that caused the disease in the first place.
The quote was written in early 1988 in response to the stock market crash the previous October. (http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch48.asp)


This latest inflationary (and I mean Inflationary) "stimulus" package will do little good to "revive the economy" or "save jobs". In fact, there will probably be a third (this is the second one), and a fourth, and so on, with even larger spending. As Peter Schiff said, they'll keep upping the ante on this stuff, and eventually a currency crisis (such as in Iceland) will result-with no real recovery in sight. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/download.php?filename=2008-11-20_072_how_the_government_wrecked_the_economy.mp3)

Despite what the mainstream media wants you to believe, economists across the board do NOT "agree" that we need big government spending to "stimulate the economy" to "prevent a much worse downturn" and whatever other lines of propaganda may be pitched justifying such.
Austrian School economists such as Lew Rockwell and Peter Schiff vehemently disagree with government/Federal Reserve intervention by inflation/monetary pumping and giveaway programs.

Lots of malinvestments and other bad decisions were made during the boom (which we were told would never end-that home prices would keep rising forever and ever). A recession such as this is neccesary to clean out these malinvestments and allow for solid recovery-basically starting over from scratch.

See my previous posts on this Fed-created 'crisis':
How bad it will get (with links to Fed M1, M2, Monetary Base) (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=4195488&postcount=10)
Monetary Policy history (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=4060335&postcount=22)
Banking Policy and Moral Hazard (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=3969241&postcount=10)
On Bailout Propaganda and power grabs (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=3966833&postcount=6)

John Stossel also has written about the dangers of Fed intervention in our economy
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=6385348&page=1

This is NOT "change we need" but more of the same-policies right from the Hoover/Roosevelt playbook. The change we need is to abolish the Federal Reserve (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-833), return to a gold standard (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440593696275773.html), and become a nation of savers again.

Netto Azure
February 13th, 2009, 05:44 PM
Argh...XD

I was hoping to make this thread once the Bill is signed on Monday. XPPPPP

Eh IMO, this bill is just what we need at a time like this. I can see that the Conservatives and Libertarians are squeeling like crazy on this but this thing has 1/3 in Tax-cuts already for you guys!

Seriously 5/8 Years of Republican rule/deregulization not enough for you guys?

Otter Mii-kun
February 13th, 2009, 05:59 PM
this thing has 1/3 in Tax-cuts already for you guys!Problem is, we've cut taxes so much and expanded the size and scope of government so much we've become $11 TRILLION in debt. You can't keep cutting taxes and expanding the size and scope of government (without turning up the printing presses and stoking massive inflation).

Seriously 5/8 Years of Republican rule/deregulization not enough for you guys? The last 8 years of Republican rule have been nothing but imposing new regulations, expanding the size and scope of government, and spend spend spending like never before.

Agent Cobalt
February 13th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Otter Mii-kun is pretty much right on the money, though I must say I almost threw up because he referenced nutjobs like RuPaul and Pete Schiff.

Eh IMO, this bill is just what we need at a time like this. I can see that the Conservatives and Libertarians are squeeling like crazy on this but this thing has 1/3 in Tax-cuts already for you guys!

Tax cuts? You mean welfare checks right? And even assuming they were taxcuts, it won't do squat considering the Congress is planning on spending trillions of dollars. You can't outspend yourself out of poverty. Look at FDR's New Deal, JFK's New Frontier, LBJ's Great Society and the War on Poverty. If making government programs, regulating the system, destroying the foundations of capitalism and free markets, enslaving future generations of Americans with debt, making new government departments, raising taxes, and spending unprecedented amounts of money could end economic downturn and fix our problems it would have worked by now. In fact the opposite is true; every time the government has tried to play the role of knight in shining armor when it came to the economy, the government has screwed things up and made them worse off than before. I'll take supply-side and Laissez-faire economics over progressivism any day of the week.

Seriously 5/8 Years of Republican rule/deregulization not enough for you guys?I'm sorry, what? Republicans were the ones shouting about the upcoming economic crisis, and liberal Democrats like Maxine Waters were defending Fannie Mae and such and saying there was no problem. Anyone with an understanding of the economic crisis knows its origins are in overregulation of the economy and social engineering, not capitalism and Republicans. Bush warned us about this, McCain warned us, the Republicans in Congress were warning us since the 90's. The housing bubble and this economic crisis can be traced to liberal Democrats like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter supporting things like the Community Reinvestment Act which interfered in banking structure and encouraged a business environment where people could be given loans and sold houses despite their bad credit and inability to pay what they owe.

It is a myth, no a lie, that this crisis started because of free markets or unregulated capitalism; it was started by a trend since the 70's where big government bureaucrats and politicians decided to interfere with the markets.

Mario The World Champion
February 13th, 2009, 08:05 PM
I really don't know what to expect in the long run. The only thing I'm concerned is trying to find a new job after I got laid off at my last one. With the economy this bad and just about everybody having layoffs and or hiring freezes, it's difficult for anybody laid off to find a new job.

Gengarchomp
February 14th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Argh...XD

I was hoping to make this thread once the Bill is signed on Monday. XPPPPP

Eh IMO, this bill is just what we need at a time like this. I can see that the Conservatives and Libertarians are squeeling like crazy on this but this thing has 1/3 in Tax-cuts already for you guys!

Seriously 5/8 Years of Republican rule/deregulization not enough for you guys?

Yeah, we definitely need Nancy Pelosi giving $30 million to some mouse that I've never heard of to stimulate the economy. And how can we go without all those temporary construction jobs, which will result in just as many people loosing their jobs when the projects are over? And how has this nation survived so long without being $11 Trillion in debt? This plan is the absolute antithesis of what we need. If we're this far in debt, and the Dems in Congress are being like this, we might as well learn L'internationale.

TRIFORCE89
February 14th, 2009, 08:37 PM
I think a little spending on the government's part is needed. But the bill is too large and a lot of stuff in it isn't long-term or job-creating. I think that overall it will hurt the economy even more. There is good in the bill, but there is also a lot of unnecessary bad.

I'm a little more accepting of a stimulus package than I am of a bailout.

Ruphire
February 14th, 2009, 08:48 PM
I really don't know what to think of it yet. We'll just have to see.

Working Class Hero
February 14th, 2009, 08:54 PM
I wish we'd stop thinking that the government's job is to ensure the general welfare rather than promote it; that they'd stop supporting the nanny state. I wish we'd return to Laissez-faire economics and remember that government that governs best governs least. But then if the Obama administration and the do-nothing stalinists in Congress want to ruin our currency, raise taxes, give in to big labor and the unions, and start a trading war with Europe, Canada, and our other trading partners, then by all means let them.

Hope. Change. Obey.
Oh dear mother of god, are you serious? Do you really think doing nothing at all is better? It is our government's job to help us out and it is our government's job to help the economy in which IT destroyed. In the Depression, Hoover believed that people shouldn't get help from the government. We have to tighten our belts and it will fix itself. Well guess what, that made to economy worse. Ten-fold. Hoover is now down as one of the worst presidents because of that very thing. And it wasn't until someone, would you look at that, who actually DID something which fixed the economy. Doing nothing is the worst thing to possibly do. And this stimulus isn't all about giving us money. It is also about tax cuts. Which is when I last checked, good. The concept of actually doing something to help people is such a strange and scary thought but we have to do it! Even if it means...-tear- helping middle class families. Now I admit, this stimulus package is not the best. But it is better than nothing. Doing nothing will put us in a depression. Stimulus plans helps the economy, which we both already establish. My point is, this plan is good, we should support it because it will help! It is the governments job to provide welfare, and help. If they don't, welcome back Black Tuesday. And news flash, we are already in a trillion dollars of debt. Another trillion wont really effect us right now. We are still paying off the first and it will take awhile to do that. Something is better than nothing, this plan is something, a good (but not the best) something. It will put money into our economy, helping it to recover. It will create tons of jobs which is another plus.

You know what would be funny? If I read the quoted post wrong and this rant was for nothing. o_O That happens a lot.

Agent Cobalt
February 14th, 2009, 11:20 PM
Oh dear mother of god, are you serious? Do you really think doing nothing at all is better?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

It is our government's job to help us out and it is our government's job to help the economy in which IT destroyed.Uh, no, actually it's not the government's job. Show me where in the Constitution the government has to "help out" failed businesses and spend trillions of dollars. I dare you. I've read and studied our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, for years and I can tell you that the limits on government are very clear in the Constitution. It's not nor has it ever been the government's job to control the economy. The government was intended to have very little influence regarding money. The government's job when it comes to the economy is to coin money, set tax rates, and set commerce between the states and foreign nations. No, it's not our government's job to strangle us with debt, central planning, and welfare statism. Look up a term called "enumerated powers." Then look up the Tenth Amendment. The powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states and the people.

In the Depression, Hoover believed that people shouldn't get help from the government. We have to tighten our belts and it will fix itself. Well guess what, that made to economy worse. Ten-fold. Hoover is now down as one of the worst presidents because of that very thing.Correction- Hoover increased government spending for public works projects like the Hoover Dam because he, like Obama, thought it would stimulate the economy and create jobs. He also, like Obama, went after free trade and worsened our economy by supporting protectionist policies and high tariffs. Take a look at the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. Was that a hands off approach to the economy? Hoover should have stood by the legacy of Coolidge and instead went the progressive route and it screwed us in the long run and lost him the presidency.

And it wasn't until someone, would you look at that, who actually DID something which fixed the economy. Like... Like what? What did FDR do to *fix* the economy? The New Deal was a failure. All of FDR's government spending, tax hikes, business regulations, wealth redistribution, central planning, and welfare programs failed to stimulate the economy or recover our industrial base. Do you have ANY idea how long FDR was president? He was the only president to get four terms. Four. You'd think if his policies were such a success that the economy would have done well under him. It didn't. Unless your idea of fixing the economy is increasing food stamps and lines at unemployment, he didn't fix anything. In fact it's generally understood now that FDR did even more damage to the economy than Hoover and in fact prolonged the Great Depression. The United States endured many depressions and recessions before the Great Depression and yet always managed to get out of them over time. FDR's decades of rule did nothing to help us and in fact hurt us. The reason FDR gets credit for "fixing" us is because of the sentimental connection people have to his era because he kept the faith, and because he was president during WWII which is what really ended the Great Depression. WWII saved us, not the government. WWII forced us to go back to our industrial base. Tanks and Planes don't build themselves. But no, someone "doing something" really did nothing but hurt us.

Doing nothing is the worst thing to possibly do.History says otherwise. When left to itself the economy corrects and returns to normal. Any free economy should experience downturns every now and then. The crisis we have now wouldn't have happened if the government minded its own business and didn't try its hand at social engineering.

And this stimulus isn't all about giving us money. It is also about tax cuts. Which is when I last checked, good. The concept of actually doing something to help people is such a strange and scary thought but we have to do it! Even if it means...-tear- helping middle class families.That's a lie. The left has been saying that a third of the package goes towards taxcuts. However the budget analysis says otherwise. $100 billion is government spending because it's giving government handouts to people that don't pay taxes; that's a welfare check, not a taxcut. Any real tax cuts would only be around 22% of the final package. You know what the rest of the more than $600 billion remaining will go towards? The federal government! It's a SPENDING BILL! I'm middle class and this "stimulus" isn't going to help me at all. It doesn't help me when Congress is giving billions of dollars to failed businesses that can't push their products to make a profit, is printing money to fund itself, and is giving tax cuts to people that don't pay taxes. Propping up failure isn't a form of success, never has been, and never will be.

Now I admit, this stimulus package is not the best. But it is better than nothing.No it's not. Spending nothing would be better than wasting money we don't have. You know what could have been done with this money? We could have paid off every American's mortgage instead of giving it to water parks. We could have given every American $5,000 dollars each, direct stimulus, which would actually make a difference in the lives of Americans unlike giving the money to bureaucracies. Are we doing any of that? No, instead we're trusting the same government that bankrupted social security to raise our economy from the ashes like a phoenix. Guess what- much of the money isn't even going to take effect for two to three years. Just in time for the next elections. Yay. The Democrats stuffed this thing full of pork to hold on to their constituencies. In fact it almost cost us trading partners because of the "buy American" portions influenced by big labor. Europe threatened us with a trading war. This is really different from Hoover though, right?

Doing nothing will put us in a depression.No it won't. Bad fiscal policy, high taxes, the wefare state, protectionism, overregulation of business, redistributing wealth, punishing success, and devaluing our currency will.

Stimulus plans helps the economy, which we both already establish.Yes, they do, when there's actual stimulus involved. Paying a guy to dig a hole and paying another guy to fill in that hole might be job making in the eyes of liberals, but in the long run those are temporary jobs which will have no impact on our situation and will only prolong our problems. This idea that calling something a stimulus plan cuts off debate and requires people to give up their common sense and just accept that it has to be passed is absurd. People are supporting this package and they don't even know why. What is being stimulated? What jobs are going to be made from this? Honest to God- More than 800 billion dollars for WHAT? Almost 1600 pages, and no one has read it! But we're all just supposed to take Obama's word, Nancy Pelosi's word, and Harry Reid's word that we need this? We're supposed to just accept that all these people in Congress voted for this thing without even reading it? You know, the economy isn't great, but I think the American people are patient enough to wait to see what exactly it is their representatives are voting for. I'm willing to bet there'd be little to no support from the people for this spending package if they knew the details.

My point is, this plan is good, we should support it because it will help! It is the governments job to provide welfare, and help. If they don't, welcome back Black Tuesday. And news flash, we are already in a trillion dollars of debt. Another trillion wont really effect us right now. We are still paying off the first and it will take awhile to do that. Something is better than nothing, this plan is something, a good (but not the best) something. It will put money into our economy, helping it to recover. It will create tons of jobs which is another plus.No, the government's job isn't to provide welfare; it's to promote the general welfare. The best way to do that is to create favorable business environments and decrease taxes, not control our wallets, spend more money, and ruin our capitalist system. Black Tuesday? Fear is a powerful motivator indeed, but facts are too. So instead of realizing that trillions in debt is wrong and trying to pay it off, you'd rather just add to it? Yeah, don't stop the bleeding, make the wound bigger. In this case, less is more. No jobs will be made. This is so reckless. It's been tried before in America, in Japan, and darn near every part of the world and it doesn't work; it only hurts us.

Gunn
February 15th, 2009, 12:14 PM
Well, I don't have any opinion yet, but the Republicans are bashing Obama as a president just because they don't believe the bill is bipartisan ...AND WHADDYA KNOW, Sen. John McCain just happens to be first on the scene.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/obama.gop.stimulus/index.html :B

Aurafire
February 15th, 2009, 01:40 PM
Well, I don't have any opinion yet, but the Republicans are bashing Obama as a president just because they don't believe the bill is bipartisan ...AND WHADDYA KNOW, Sen. John McCain just happens to be first on the scene.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/obama.gop.stimulus/index.html :B

When only three Repubilcans from Congress vote for it, I wouldn't call it bipartisan either. The fact of the matter is there was no way that Obama was going to get any good amount of support from the Republicans for this particular bill...Not with all of that frivolous spending. I'm shocked that anyone from the Obama administration could say with a straight face that this was a bipartisan effort. I'm glad that the Republicans are calling Obama out on this and standing up for what they believe.

Anyway, Agent Cobalt said it all...This is just the beginning of an administration that is going to increase the size of government, which I am not in support of at all. I shudder to think what Obama plans on doing next >.<

Agent Cobalt
February 15th, 2009, 01:53 PM
When only three Repubilcans from Congress vote for it, I wouldn't call it bipartisan either. The fact of the matter is there was no way that Obama was going to get any good amount of support from the Republicans for this particular bill...Not with all of that frivolous spending. I'm shocked that anyone from the Obama administration could say with a straight face that this was a bipartisan effort. I'm glad that the Republicans are calling Obama out on this and standing up for what they believe.

Anyway, Agent Cobalt said it all...This is just the beginning of an administration that is going to increase the size of government, which I am not in support of at all. I shudder to think what Obama plans on doing next >.<

Not to mention that those Republicans are RINOs, so it's no shocker they voted with the libs. No Republicans in the House voted for this, and almost none in the Senate. On the other hand, a noticeable amount of Democrats dissented from their party and refused to support the package. If anyone's bipartisan, it's the side against this bill! :laugh:

Netto Azure
February 16th, 2009, 05:30 PM
Ok I guess I won't be able to post much right now since I'm Lazy XD there's no time.

First of all the Plan is just the start at stabilizing things across the world.

Secondly, this is just a temporary measure really. It's just trying to lessen the impact of the recession. Yeah we like to say "Putting on the backs of our children" but then again it's not politically viable to NOT do anything. Aid to States is included in that. My state of California has already cut back one day of each month in government services (Furloughs) to save money.

Third, You guys think this is big? Wait until the next Crappy TARP program comes out.
If it was me, let's go trust busting and break up the banks that are "too big to fail" since "they're too big to exist."

Eh, I know my explanation isn't really good right now but time...

Maybe tomorrow?

Gengarchomp
February 16th, 2009, 05:54 PM
Ok I guess I won't be able to post much right now since I'm Lazy XD there's no time.

First of all the Plan is just the start at stabilizing things across the world.

Secondly, this is just a temporary measure really. It's just trying to lessen the impact of the recession. Yeah we like to say "Putting on the backs of our children" but then again it's not politically viable to NOT do anything. Aid to States is included in that. My state of California has already cut back one day of each month in government services (Furloughs) to save money.

Third, You guys think this is big? Wait until the next Crappy TARP program comes out.
If it was me, let's go trust busting and break up the banks that are "too big to fail" since "they're too big to exist."

Eh, I know my explanation isn't really good right now but time...

Maybe tomorrow?

I hope it isn't just the start. I don't like being $11 Trillion+ in debt. And define"politically viable." Are you saying that the only way to get re-elected is to vote for something that looks appealing on the outside, but is really a wolf in sheep's clothing? Or are you saying that spending money will get us out of debt?

Aether
February 16th, 2009, 07:53 PM
I'm neither a politician nor a debater, so I'm just gonna drop my $.02 and say the package is all that can be done. It can't really get any worse anyway.

Raven-NAR-32450
February 16th, 2009, 09:06 PM
I've said it time and time again, the US Economy is f***ed, there is nothing that we can do to save it, and if there is our current politicians or whoever it is that actually writes the bills that "supposedly" save us from recession don't want to use it because it probably means a nice little pay cut for them, and all of the other big rich CEOs of all that banks that can't even maintain themselves, personally if a bank can't even keep ITSELF going, then there is no way in the 9th circle of hell that you will see me deposit my money in that bank!

UltimaLink007
February 16th, 2009, 11:47 PM
My answer simply: No.

I've been sick for two weeks, and last Thursday, I was sick enough to spend the entire day watching the Senate debate this "Stimulus Package" on C-SPAN2. It was introduced, and then thoroughly ripped apart. Using backing from Historical facts based upon the Kennedy Term and the Reagan Term, as well as the agreement from the Clinton Administration Budget Secretary, the Republicans led by Arizona Senator John McCain destroyed it. Most Republicans were quite vicious in their attacks, but John McCain was subtle, quiet, and offered a well thought out compromise plan which cut the cost by more than half, and planned for immediate relief and stimulation through the public. Others, including a Democrat came on to support this idea, but then Chuck Schumer (Democrat from New York) came on, and in summary stated "Yes this is a gargantuan waste of money. No it will not bring the immediate relief we need. Even if we waste money and don't get what we're paying for, we need to do this." Eventually it was passed. The reason why I believe this will not stimulate the economy, is that it's a larger-scale version of what Franklin Delano Roosevelt implemented with his "New Deal." Essentially, it's a massive increase in TEMPORARY jobs and work, such as construction and road repairs and the like, among other things. This also failed to stimulate the economy if you look back. The Great Depression lasted throughout the Thirties and went right into World War II, which the boom in production and such boosted the economy to a point where it leaped out of the Depression. This plan is also supposed to be spread out over ten years, so the relief won't be here anytime soon unless we get lucky. Jobs do not historically fix or stimulate the economy. They keep it running smoothly when it's up, sure. Tax Cuts have traditionally worked in stimulating a Recessive economy, using the Kennedy and Reagan Administrations as prime examples. Yes, the package holds tax cuts, but not nearly big enough ones. $13 a week is not going to dig you out of a mountain of debt or buy you a house if you were foreclosed upon. Tax cuts = Money to the People, and the flow of money goes: Government -> People -> Paying off Bills (Saves the People) / Liesure -> Businesses (Saved as well).

It's also cool to look at how this mess started anyway. The Economy has its ups and downs, and after the especially high point of the Reagan Era, it was headed downward for Bush Sr. and Clinton. Clinton did some decent things and was able to hold it off for Bush Jr., but he was not the one (despite popular ignorant belief) that set us into our current economic divebomb. Three major factors tore the economy down to its current state, those being: The greedy lenders and mortgage people, the banks and such; the Credit Card companies; the American Public. This is a very special case, where even people thinking "Oh, a Democrat who regulates every aspect of the economy would have prevented this." are completely wrong. The Lenders and Mortgage companies deceived the public into poor mortgages with extremely variable adjustable-rate mortgages, which rose and rose and rose in cost until the people could not afford them and in turn were foreclosed upon. I forget the complete process, but essentially it came down to the banks and lenders were betting on the loans and didn't get any collateral for them in case something happened, using a loophole and changing the terminology around so they could get around government regulations. They lost money every time that a foreclosure occured and someone could not pay their bills, and that quickly got out of control. To a lesser extent, the Credit Card companies are to blame, allowing people to drown themselves in debt and ruin their credit, and thus any chance at a good loan for a house, which is one of the factors that helped lead to the first part. As for the people, some are entirely innocent, others are not. Perhaps they never read the contract and were beguiled into signing upon the dotted line for the trouble they got themselves into. I am certain it is not completely their fault, there are many honest, good, hard-working people out there who are in situations that they don't deserve in the least...

Anyway, I digress...

Netto Azure
February 17th, 2009, 01:09 PM
US President Obama signs $787bn stimulus plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7895078.stm)

US President Barack Obama has signed his hard-fought economic stimulus plan in Denver, after Congress approved the $787bn (£548bn) package last week.
At a signing ceremony in Denver, he said it was "the most sweeping recovery package in our history".
The plan is aimed at saving or creating 3.5 million jobs and boosting consumer spending and rebuilding infrastructure.
Ok now that it's been signed...I hope it does something positive. =P
Yeah I know it's not a "Silver Bullet" but hey anything that Politicians do isn't perfect.

I hope it isn't just the start. I don't like being $11 Trillion+ in debt. And define"politically viable." Are you saying that the only way to get re-elected is to vote for something that looks appealing on the outside, but is really a wolf in sheep's clothing? Or are you saying that spending money will get us out of debt?

Please don't put words in my mouth. ^_^

Let's be realistic here. The Democrats have been itching for spending and is using this as an opportunity to KEEP CAMPAIGN PROMISES. >.>
I know it's hypocritical, but they're politicians. They sway through the winds of public opinion, and right now the public wants regulation.

I have to say that at this moment we truly need bigger government spending and programs due to the lack of consumer confidence. We have already used the Conservative option of tackling recessions through tax-cuts and Libertarian de-regulization during the 2001-2002 US recession. It might have worked too well at creating the bubble of confidence that has exploded recently. An increased budget deficit due to the Bush Tax Cuts and resulting less government revenue, plus the massive increase in government defense spending for the War on Terror (Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) did not necessarily add up. Now were in quite a hole. Isn't it hypocritical that the Republicans are complaining the "We're saddling later generations with debt" when they signed into law BILLIONS in Tax-Cuts on 2001 (which was slanted heavily to the rich WHO DON'T NEED IT!) and keeping interest rates so low that unrelenting lending was spurred?

Yes, it might seem ironic on how spending got us into this and now the need to use the Liberal option of government spending and activism. But I have to agree that the long term needed investments in infrastructure, energy independence, health-care reform, education reform and domestic strengthening can be put forward much easier under this Activist Government. This needs massive Public Funds and commitment, and why not use the Economic Crisis as an umbrella to put these forward easier. No matter how much liberals are bashed, FDR comes into mind with the "New Deal." The Government Backstops created under his administration such as the FDIC, Social Security, plus the Infrastructure (ex. Golden Gate Bridge) has been life savers for this generations economic crash and has helped assured America's continued prosperity. =D

Corvus of the Black Night
February 17th, 2009, 01:36 PM
Ugh, I really hope that GM is able to keep itself afloat. I don't think that Chrystler is gonna make it.

In actuallality, pure capitalism is far worse than it seems. You guys are scaring me with your uber-capitalism posts, and it's important to point out that capitalism is solely based on greed and dog-eat-dog. Can't get a job? Too bad. Too old to work? Die in the gutter, worthless scum. Can't get health care? Let that infection kill you. One less worthless member of our society gone.

Now, we aren't all like that, right?

On the other hand, communism is bad as well, for the exact opposite reasons. It looks nice on paper - "Hey, we get supported no matter what, we get housing, food and health care! Yippie!!..." But then it soon comes apparent that if you don't have to work for your house, you're just given it, the government isn't getting enough money because people aren't making as much money, and everything collapses. Like the USSR.

I may not agree with a lot of Obama's plans, but the country does need to at least be a bit more like the socialist* countries of Europe. We need universal things, such as definate health care, food, water, housing, electricity, and the such.

But back on topic...

Living in Michigan, right near Detroit (only an hour's drive), I realize how imperative that at least GM stays afloat. Michigan is almost like a forecasting state - years before the recession hit the rest of the United States, we were feeling the pinch. People were moving outta there. I can't believe the rest of the country couldn't see it comming.

It is imperative for the survival of our economy that these steps are taken:
- STOP THE F*CKING OUTSOURCING. If people in the US don't have jobs, they can't buy your damn merchendise.
- Make more things in America. Just give the finger to China, they're a huge part of why our economy is failing.
- Cooperations such as Wal-mart get punished by law through their horrible way of treating employees. If Wal-mart can screw around with their employees and get payed with money though it, don't you think other companies will do the same? If we punish them, they'll be more inclined to give them humane services, and then, all those people on the welfare system will be off of it, and thus suddenly the government has a lot more money. Funny how it works, hmm?
- Make it so that foreign goods, especially Chinese goods, are raised in price so that American companies can actually compete. I.E. a tariff.

*Socialist is not synomonous with Communist. It's basically inbetween capitalism and communism.

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 02:39 PM
We need universal things, such as definate health care, food, water, housing, electricity, and the such.

I'm going to put aside the generalizations about what capitalism is and single this out here. We have right here the basis of everything that is wrong with leftist thought. This country was founded on a belief in something called liberty, not statism. It was founded as a republic, not a socialist republic. It was founded in opposition to the idea that men should have things handed to them by the government. Rather the pursuit of happiness was understood to actually mean the pursuit of property. That is, if you work hard, then you'll be rewarded for your hard work whether it be in the form of money or land. Property, what we work for with our hands and minds. If you could work hard you could own a farm, you could make a living, you could succeed. This country was founded on what we call today "negative liberties." God given liberty. Rights that can't be taken away or transferred because they're rights that exist in a state of nature. You're advocating collectivism and positive rights, which is nothing but government tyranny veiled under the banner of equality and necessity. Nobody of the Revolution wanted the government to have such an immense amount of power that it had the ability to control who gets treatment and who eats. Even the Federalist Party, the big government party of the day, wouldn't support this. What ever happened to the wisdom of statesmen like Jefferson, that a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. What of the wisdom of Franklin who said that when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

You do not have the *right* to health care. You do not have the *right* to food, water, housing, or electricity. You have the right to PURSUE those things. Nobody is supposed to just give them to you, least of all the government. You need to work for happiness, not demand it. That's why the Founders used "the pursuit of happiness" and not just happiness. Who gives you happiness? The state? Can you demand it from the state? Can you sue the government for denying you your right to happiness? Is the government violating your rights if you aren't given happiness? Life and liberty are defined and protected under the law and Constitution, and so are property rights and so on, but where do you see in the Constitution that the government won't violate your right to happiness? It's not there. The Founders believed that true rights are about what the government WON'T do to you, NOT what they'll give to you or supply you with.

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville

Again, freedom means being able to succeed AND fail. The welfare state isn't something we need or should strive for.

Corvus of the Black Night
February 17th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Hmmm... that makes you rather Dog-eat-dog.

Don't you find it wrong that a society can be run completely on greed and selfishness, and that you can kick sand in anyone's face without fear of persecution? Because that's real capitalism there.

If we don't give someone healthcare, then why shouldn't we just shoot them right in the face? They'll die early, anyhow.

That is capitalist logic. I'm no commie, but with things like this, we need a middle ground.

Netto Azure
February 17th, 2009, 04:17 PM
In order to understand what the hell happened On the Fall of 2008 I recommend watching this on PBS tonight at 9:00 PST: FRONTLINE: coming soon: inside the meltdown | PBS (http://pbs.org/frontline/meltdown), The whole episode: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

v/ZFVFTPAjs4I

Gengarchomp
February 17th, 2009, 04:36 PM
Hmmm... that makes you rather Dog-eat-dog.

Don't you find it wrong that a society can be run completely on greed and selfishness, and that you can kick sand in anyone's face without fear of persecution? Because that's real capitalism there.

If we don't give someone healthcare, then why shouldn't we just shoot them right in the face? They'll die early, anyhow.

That is capitalist logic. I'm no commie, but with things like this, we need a middle ground.

If we don't give healthcare, then the person has to work for it by getting a job, thus stimulating the economy. Adam Smith recognized things like this, and showed that in order to make money, you must offer your products at competetive prices. You can call it greed, but doing competetive is really one of the major principles of our economy. What this package is is socialism, and it will not work out.

Netto Azure
February 17th, 2009, 04:40 PM
If we don't give healthcare, then the person has to work for it by getting a job, thus stimulating the economy. Adam Smith recognized things like this, and showed that in order to make money, you must offer your products at competetive prices. You can call it greed, but doing competetive is really one of the major principles of our economy. What this package is is socialism, and it will not work out.

Don't get me started on Universal Healthcare! Last time I did that, I almost wrote an entire essay on the fact that the rest of the Western World is pitying us for not having it. Taking the health-care burden out of businesses will allow them to put more into salaries which people can spend more on our capitalistic ways. =P

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 05:45 PM
Hmmm... that makes you rather Dog-eat-dog.
No, it makes me pro-freedom and anti-statist.

Don't you find it wrong that a society can be run completely on greed and selfishnessDear God you could learn a lesson from Milton Friedman. I suggest you watch this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

You're confusing greed with self-interest. Tell me, what socialist society, what worker's paradise, what People's Republic, what utopia functions without greed? From Fascism to Communism socialists have tried to remake man, to rewrite human nature and create this fantasy utopia without "greed" which has always translated into punishing self-interest and personal success.

and that you can kick sand in anyone's face without fear of persecution? Because that's real capitalism there.Yeah, because the economic system of capitalism has to do with lawlessness. Institute Laissez-faire economics and suddenly America will become the Wild Wild West. What is with your obsession with writing in hyperbole?

If we don't give someone healthcare, then why shouldn't we just shoot them right in the face? They'll die early, anyhow.Because we're not Nazis? That's like saying that since the government doesn't give you a house then you should live in the jungle. Your notion that the value of human life is in any way determined by government welfare programs is astonishing. I'm a capitalist, which means I believe in economic freedom. Believing in one kind of freedom doesn't mean I oppose all others. In fact I support economic freedom, liberty, AND life. Life, liberty, property. I can support capitalism while also supporting the idea that we all have God-given rights and shouldn't be slaughtered for no reason. I can't believe you'd even raise such a hyperbolic query.

That is capitalist logic. I'm no commie, but with things like this, we need a middle ground.No, that's your logic attempting to interpret capitalist logic, and failing.

Tinhead Bruce
February 17th, 2009, 05:49 PM
Wait, can I just ask, I know this is a bit off topic, but what is your opinion on welfare Agent Cobalt?

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 05:54 PM
Wait, can I just ask, I know this is a bit off topic, but what is your opinion on welfare Agent Cobalt?

Social or corporate welfare?

Netto Azure
February 17th, 2009, 05:57 PM
Social or corporate welfare?

For me Corporate Welfare. ^_^

As for MO, it's somewhat needed but the government is too socialistic towards businesses nowadays. =/

Tinhead Bruce
February 17th, 2009, 06:00 PM
I'm wondering your opinion on both.

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 06:06 PM
For me Corporate Welfare. ^_^

As for MO, it's somewhat needed but the government is too socialistic towards businesses nowadays. =/

I oppose corporate welfare. Part of Laissez-faire economics is - actually the only part of it- is that you don't interfere with the economy. I don't believe in punishing business but I also don't want to help them. I think both are forms of socialism. On one hand we're asked to tax and regulate and control the corporations we don't like (oil companies and other corporations) and nationalizing them, but then on the other hand we're handing out government money and favors to businesses we do like (the farming industry and others) and are in essence subsidizing them. Whether businesses are good or not will be determined by the people that use them, and they'll succeed or fail based on that and not based on the government's wishes. So corporate executives and labor union bosses can both hit the road if they expect the tax payers to be burdened by their failures or successes; the people can decide if they're worth it and so businesses will have to work and compete to survive just like citizens. No punishment, but no handouts. Competition is important in a free economy.

I'm wondering your opinion on both.

Crud, I thought that was you I was replying to before. Dangit Azure, you messed me up! >=/ Anyway...


“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” -John Adams

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” -James Madison

Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed- charity should not be the role of the federal government, whose powers are very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Promoting the general welfare is different than ensuring it. Welfare should be left to the charity of the American people and local government, not federal bureaucracy.

Tinhead Bruce
February 17th, 2009, 07:38 PM
Mmk, just wondering. It's just cuz I wouldn't be here without the kindness of welfare. My father grew up on welfare, eventually got out of that loop and become a hardworking member of society, who now makes good money and can afford to give his children many things he never had.

That's why I feel it can be necessary in situations. It's not always (it's hardly ever) the faults of the person who needs the welfare checks that makes them need those checks. People cannot overcome obstacles if they are too weak to do so. They need a boost, and in turn they can help other people over the obstacle once they are over themselves.

Melody
February 17th, 2009, 08:30 PM
My answer simply: No.

I've been sick for two weeks, and last Thursday, I was sick enough to spend the entire day watching the Senate debate this "Stimulus Package" on C-SPAN2. It was introduced, and then thoroughly ripped apart. Using backing from Historical facts based upon the Kennedy Term and the Reagan Term, as well as the agreement from the Clinton Administration Budget Secretary, the Republicans led by Arizona Senator John McCain destroyed it. Most Republicans were quite vicious in their attacks, but John McCain was subtle, quiet, and offered a well thought out compromise plan which cut the cost by more than half, and planned for immediate relief and stimulation through the public. Others, including a Democrat came on to support this idea, but then Chuck Schumer (Democrat from New York) came on, and in summary stated "Yes this is a gargantuan waste of money. No it will not bring the immediate relief we need. Even if we waste money and don't get what we're paying for, we need to do this." Eventually it was passed. The reason why I believe this will not stimulate the economy, is that it's a larger-scale version of what Franklin Delano Roosevelt implemented with his "New Deal." Essentially, it's a massive increase in TEMPORARY jobs and work, such as construction and road repairs and the like, among other things. This also failed to stimulate the economy if you look back. The Great Depression lasted throughout the Thirties and went right into World War II, which the boom in production and such boosted the economy to a point where it leaped out of the Depression. This plan is also supposed to be spread out over ten years, so the relief won't be here anytime soon unless we get lucky. Jobs do not historically fix or stimulate the economy. They keep it running smoothly when it's up, sure. Tax Cuts have traditionally worked in stimulating a Recessive economy, using the Kennedy and Reagan Administrations as prime examples. Yes, the package holds tax cuts, but not nearly big enough ones. $13 a week is not going to dig you out of a mountain of debt or buy you a house if you were foreclosed upon. Tax cuts = Money to the People, and the flow of money goes: Government -> People -> Paying off Bills (Saves the People) / Liesure -> Businesses (Saved as well).

It's also cool to look at how this mess started anyway. The Economy has its ups and downs, and after the especially high point of the Reagan Era, it was headed downward for Bush Sr. and Clinton. Clinton did some decent things and was able to hold it off for Bush Jr., but he was not the one (despite popular ignorant belief) that set us into our current economic divebomb. Three major factors tore the economy down to its current state, those being: The greedy lenders and mortgage people, the banks and such; the Credit Card companies; the American Public. This is a very special case, where even people thinking "Oh, a Democrat who regulates every aspect of the economy would have prevented this." are completely wrong. The Lenders and Mortgage companies deceived the public into poor mortgages with extremely variable adjustable-rate mortgages, which rose and rose and rose in cost until the people could not afford them and in turn were foreclosed upon. I forget the complete process, but essentially it came down to the banks and lenders were betting on the loans and didn't get any collateral for them in case something happened, using a loophole and changing the terminology around so they could get around government regulations. They lost money every time that a foreclosure occured and someone could not pay their bills, and that quickly got out of control. To a lesser extent, the Credit Card companies are to blame, allowing people to drown themselves in debt and ruin their credit, and thus any chance at a good loan for a house, which is one of the factors that helped lead to the first part. As for the people, some are entirely innocent, others are not. Perhaps they never read the contract and were beguiled into signing upon the dotted line for the trouble they got themselves into. I am certain it is not completely their fault, there are many honest, good, hard-working people out there who are in situations that they don't deserve in the least...

Anyway, I digress...

I agree with you. Most of the economic downfall is caused by too much credit being handed out to people who obviously could not pay for it. Even worse is that companies exploited loopholes in the laws and made things even more difficult for those likely to default on their loans by raising interest rates and generally loan sharking. Rather than making it easier for low income families/individuals to pay their debt back, they slap on a large amount of fees and such. Here's a quote from my livejournal posting on this subject:
My solution to the crisis would be very simple. Nullify all interest on ALL HOUSING, CAR AND BUSINESS LOANS, and reset the loan interest rate to 15%, and then tell everyone to get to working to pay off their bills. Now I know that some of you would say that's not exactly a capitalist approach, and all but at this point I really think it doesn't matter. Someone has to fix the problem. And we have to put a cap on the interest rate for ALL LOANS AND CREDIT CARDS, and enforce it STRICTLY! I think a cap of 20% would be fair.

Why? Someone has to make sure that people aren't being taken advantage of.

Another thing that bugs me is how the banks like to advertise at people who DO care about their credit and AREN'T up to their necks in debt.
Seriously, they should stop doing that. I dont think banks should encourage anyone to lean on their credit, even if they do have good credit.


As you can see, I am an advocate for controlling credit availability. Too much of the current economic crisis has been caused by people's lack of responsibility, and people capitalizing on that to the point where people cant pay back their debts anymore.

Now I know that bankruptcy is a godsend for some, but the bankruptcy laws are less than friendly when it comes to getting things back on track, because they usually mandate that you must pay back ALL or most of your debt. I believe that in some cases...it even empowers those you owe money to, to seize your property and sell it.
This definitely isn't going to make things easy for someone to start back up, especially when the economy is in a slump.

Instead of sitting here and pointing fingers at the politicians for this problem, we have to recognize that some of us are just as irresponsible with cash as they are. No one is perfect and I do believe that each and every one of those people in office right now is doing what they feel is right. The Obama Administration may not be the cure for the disease, I dont think any one administration will ever be able to cure a problem like this singlehandedly. All we can do is hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst.

Ugh, I really hope that GM is able to keep itself afloat. I don't think that Chrystler is gonna make it.

In actuallality, pure capitalism is far worse than it seems. You guys are scaring me with your uber-capitalism posts, and it's important to point out that capitalism is solely based on greed and dog-eat-dog. Can't get a job? Too bad. Too old to work? Die in the gutter, worthless scum. Can't get health care? Let that infection kill you. One less worthless member of our society gone.

Now, we aren't all like that, right?

On the other hand, communism is bad as well, for the exact opposite reasons. It looks nice on paper - "Hey, we get supported no matter what, we get housing, food and health care! Yippie!!..." But then it soon comes apparent that if you don't have to work for your house, you're just given it, the government isn't getting enough money because people aren't making as much money, and everything collapses. Like the USSR.

I may not agree with a lot of Obama's plans, but the country does need to at least be a bit more like the socialist* countries of Europe. We need universal things, such as definate health care, food, water, housing, electricity, and the such.

But back on topic...

Living in Michigan, right near Detroit (only an hour's drive), I realize how imperative that at least GM stays afloat. Michigan is almost like a forecasting state - years before the recession hit the rest of the United States, we were feeling the pinch. People were moving outta there. I can't believe the rest of the country couldn't see it comming.

It is imperative for the survival of our economy that these steps are taken:
- STOP THE F*CKING OUTSOURCING. If people in the US don't have jobs, they can't buy your damn merchendise.
- Make more things in America. Just give the finger to China, they're a huge part of why our economy is failing.
- Cooperations such as Wal-mart get punished by law through their horrible way of treating employees. If Wal-mart can screw around with their employees and get payed with money though it, don't you think other companies will do the same? If we punish them, they'll be more inclined to give them humane services, and then, all those people on the welfare system will be off of it, and thus suddenly the government has a lot more money. Funny how it works, hmm?
- Make it so that foreign goods, especially Chinese goods, are raised in price so that American companies can actually compete. I.E. a tariff.

*Socialist is not synomonous with Communist. It's basically inbetween capitalism and communism.

I disagree. Socialism is not the answer. There has to be some consequences felt, at the lowest level to promote people to spend their money responsibly.

I know it sounds like a Dog-Eat-Dog world but that's how it is. You have to learn to live with it. No one is going to coddle you forever, and the same goes for everyone. You have to see that. I know life is hard, and sometimes there are things which are indeed outside your control, but you have to step up and take responsibility for what you CAN control or else you'll never be able to make a difference in the world.

I'm going to put aside the generalizations about what capitalism is and single this out here. We have right here the basis of everything that is wrong with leftist thought. This country was founded on a belief in something called liberty, not statism. It was founded as a republic, not a socialist republic. It was founded in opposition to the idea that men should have things handed to them by the government. Rather the pursuit of happiness was understood to actually mean the pursuit of property. That is, if you work hard, then you'll be rewarded for your hard work whether it be in the form of money or land. Property, what we work for with our hands and minds. If you could work hard you could own a farm, you could make a living, you could succeed. This country was founded on what we call today "negative liberties." God given liberty. Rights that can't be taken away or transferred because they're rights that exist in a state of nature. You're advocating collectivism and positive rights, which is nothing but government tyranny veiled under the banner of equality and necessity. Nobody of the Revolution wanted the government to have such an immense amount of power that it had the ability to control who gets treatment and who eats. Even the Federalist Party, the big government party of the day, wouldn't support this. What ever happened to the wisdom of statesmen like Jefferson, that a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. What of the wisdom of Franklin who said that when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

You do not have the *right* to health care. You do not have the *right* to food, water, housing, or electricity. You have the right to PURSUE those things. Nobody is supposed to just give them to you, least of all the government. You need to work for happiness, not demand it. That's why the Founders used "the pursuit of happiness" and not just happiness. Who gives you happiness? The state? Can you demand it from the state? Can you sue the government for denying you your right to happiness? Is the government violating your rights if you aren't given happiness? Life and liberty are defined and protected under the law and Constitution, and so are property rights and so on, but where do you see in the Constitution that the government won't violate your right to happiness? It's not there. The Founders believed that true rights are about what the government WON'T do to you, NOT what they'll give to you or supply you with.

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville

Again, freedom means being able to succeed AND fail. The welfare state isn't something we need or should strive for.

I agree. We dont need to hand out welfare to everyone. Though in some cases, it cant be helped. The main problem with welfare is the number of people who exploit it. There has to be strict control over all welfare programs if we are to have any at all. I'm not saying that welfare should be abolished, there are cases where it DOES make a difference, but there has to be strict checks and balances in order for it to work.

This also goes back to what I said before, to the previous post that was quoted:
"There has to be some consequences felt, at the lowest level, to promote spending money responsibly."
Without that, people will never learn.

In order to understand what the hell happened On the Fall of 2008 I recommend watching this on PBS tonight at 9:00 PST: FRONTLINE: coming soon: inside the meltdown | PBS (http://pbs.org/frontline/meltdown)

v/ZFVFTPAjs4I


I just watched the last half of that on PBS tonight, and I have to say that it makes a lot of good points. There had to be some intervention by the government this time because our banks would have failed explosively if they hadn't. Then we'd all be in an even worse mess. Because so many other countries' economies rely upon ours, it's our job to ensure that we dont let them down too.

Mmk, just wondering. It's just cuz I wouldn't be here without the kindness of welfare. My father grew up on welfare, eventually got out of that loop and become a hardworking member of society, who now makes good money and can afford to give his children many things he never had.

That's why I feel it can be necessary in situations. It's not always (it's hardly ever) the faults of the person who needs the welfare checks that makes them need those checks. People cannot overcome obstacles if they are too weak to do so. They need a boost, and in turn they can help other people over the obstacle once they are over themselves.
I agree and I have addressed the matter in my reply to Agent Cobalt's quoted post.

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Mmk, just wondering. It's just cuz I wouldn't be here without the kindness of welfare. My father grew up on welfare, eventually got out of that loop and become a hardworking member of society, who now makes good money and can afford to give his children many things he never had.

That's why I feel it can be necessary in situations. It's not always (it's hardly ever) the faults of the person who needs the welfare checks that makes them need those checks. People cannot overcome obstacles if they are too weak to do so. They need a boost, and in turn they can help other people over the obstacle once they are over themselves.

Well if you have the idea that I'm against poor people or those that actually need help, let me say I don't. I used to be poor. Very poor. I had a very bad beginning, but hard work, patience, and sturdiness got me into the middle class where I'm helping to support my family. I'm against welfare when it comes from the federal government. If you read my post and the quotes of the Founders I used, it's opposed to the federal government getting involved in the lives of the individual because the federal government by design is supposed to have important enumerated powers but few of them; it's supposed to be limited and we have a Constitution to back that up. The separation of powers is usually described as separating the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), but there's also a separation of powers people don't too often think it- levels of government (federal, state, local). I believe that communities should look out for themselves and not rely on Washington for everything, but state and local governments exist to give greater representation to the people and better serve them. Now I'm not saying that means to turn America into 50 separate welfare states, but I am saying that as the 10th Amendment says- the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means it's up to the state and local legislatures to take care of or local communities and charities.

I try my best not to take on an argument from an emotion position because it weakens arguments and exploits. Rather I try to look at issues from a constitutional perspective. I don't just go by my feelings or my gut; I consult the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, as well as the wisdom of the men that wrote and influenced it and this nation at its birth.

Melody
February 17th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Well if you have the idea that I'm against poor people or those that actually need help, let me say I don't. I used to be poor. Very poor. I had a very bad beginning, but hard work, patience, and sturdiness got me into the middle class where I'm helping to support my family. I'm against welfare when it comes from the federal government. If you read my post and the quotes of the Founders I used, it's opposed to the federal government getting involved in the lives of the individual because the federal government by design is supposed to have important enumerated powers but few of them; it's supposed to be limited and we have a Constitution to back that up. The separation of powers is usually described as separating the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), but there's also a separation of powers people don't too often think it- levels of government (federal, state, local). I believe that communities should look out for themselves and not rely on Washington for everything, but state and local governments exist to give greater representation to the people and better serve them. Now I'm not saying that means to turn America into 50 separate welfare states, but I am saying that as the 10th Amendment says- the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means it's up to the state and local legislatures to take care of or local communities and charities.

I try my best not to take on an argument from an emotion position because it weakens arguments and exploits. Rather I try to look at issues from a constitutional perspective. I don't just go by my feelings or my gut; I consult the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, as well as the wisdom of the men that wrote and influenced it and this nation at its birth.

Your neutral views of the issues is applaudable, but it's not wrong to look at things through your own moral standpoints as well. You have to realize that despite the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country, that there are things they probably didn't expect to happen.

Netto Azure
February 17th, 2009, 09:28 PM
I just watched the last half of that on PBS tonight, and I have to say that it makes a lot of good points. There had to be some intervention by the government this time because our banks would have failed explosively if they hadn't. Then we'd all be in an even worse mess. Because so many other countries' economies rely upon ours, it's our job to ensure that we dont let them down too.

Thanks...
The whole episode: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

IT's quite a descriptive documentary. I'm recording it. ^_^

Oh...Well I agree with you guys somewhat...I'll explain tomorrow?

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 09:39 PM
Your neutral views of the issues is applaudable, but it's not wrong to look at things through your own moral standpoints as well. You have to realize that despite the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country, that there are things they probably didn't expect to happen.

But I do refer to my morals. Law is a part my morals, the social contract agreed to by the people and states known as the Constitution fits in that category. And the Founding Fathers themselves DID understand that things and problems would arise that they couldn't foresee. That's why they included in the Constitution a system in which the Constitution could be changed with majorities of the Congress and States approving; that's the amending process. In fact the problem of slavery was one of the things they hoped would be resolved over time by the force of the law; and it was with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

I have no problem with helping others; I've donated clothes and money to others and donated to groups that help the families of soldiers. I just wish that before we went on crusades telling tax payers that they're going to have to subsidize the lives of others that they'd at least be consented first and that people approached things from a legal aspect from time to time rather than just outbursts of "I want this" or "We should get that for free." It's what Founders referred to as Mobocracy, where people think they can just want something and get it by voting for it. It creates a society of dependency in my view.

Melody
February 17th, 2009, 10:14 PM
I agree that there should be something to stop people from being dependent on the government in that way. It's the selfish wishful thinking which gets a lot of us into some rather sticky messes. Especially when many share the same selfish wish. Now I'm not saying that it's bad to want life to be easier for you and everyone else, but people should think about the long term impact of these wishes before wasting their vote to make it come true.

UltimaLink007
February 18th, 2009, 04:07 AM
My AP Government class gets the teacher off-topic all the time so we just talk about this sometimes for the entire class. Below, I put a link to an amazing segment of 60 minutes we saw in class, which was extremely unbiased and showed some really great facts about how we got into what we're in now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/60minutes/main4502454.shtml

Raven-NAR-32450
February 18th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by http://zazie-lavender.livejournal.com/
My solution to the crisis would be very simple. Nullify all interest on ALL HOUSING, CAR AND BUSINESS LOANS, and reset the loan interest rate to 15%, and then tell everyone to get to working to pay off their bills. Now I know that some of you would say that's not exactly a capitalist approach, and all but at this point I really think it doesn't matter. Someone has to fix the problem. And we have to put a cap on the interest rate for ALL LOANS AND CREDIT CARDS, and enforce it STRICTLY! I think a cap of 20% would be fair.

Why? Someone has to make sure that people aren't being taken advantage of.

Another thing that bugs me is how the banks like to advertise at people who DO care about their credit and AREN'T up to their necks in debt.
Seriously, they should stop doing that. I dont think banks should encourage anyone to lean on their credit, even if they do have good credit.


Yes this is what we SHOULD be doing, but no, unfortunately we are doing exactly the opposite, and the reason why we are doing the opposite is because those banks, yeah the ones in that quote right there, the people who are in charge if them feel that making sure that they themselves have the money to keep the things that they have, from the Bently that was hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the house in Beverly Hills, perfectly insured, and all nice and safe........while the people that they are slapping fees and interest payments on are slowly losing everything they hold dear.

BeachBoy
February 18th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Two things: one, I'm gonna be sad to see Crysler go... oh wait, wrong topic. I mean, I really hope this bill works, but after reading some these posts, I don't know what to believe. Stuck in the middle, I suppose. I want the package to succeed! Why? Well, I don't want to have a terrible time and depression during my college years. It's signed, so I just hope it works; even though there's a chance (or maybe large chance) that it doesn't. And then we're in a bind both short and long-term. It's gonna be a bumpy ride. D:

And I kinda dislike how just this package will decide the entire success or failure of Obama, or so I've heard and what it seems like. For a president that inherited so many issues, I really think a lot of you see Obama as the guy that caused all this mess, when he didn't. Although I can see how some of you are mad at him because it could get us in deeper water. Don't come barking back at me, that's not what I came here for, I'm just here to throw what's swirling around my head at the current moment because I can't sleep. XD

Also, a warning: to those of you who are bypassing the censors, stop. I'm rather sick of reading posts that try to hint the curse word or put one asterisk to try and get by our censor. I know I read at least two last page. If you want to get that emotional and use language that isn't allowed on this forum of all ages, you're better off just not saying it. (You'll only end up getting infractions!) So yeah, carry on~

Virtual Chatot
February 19th, 2009, 03:38 AM
...while the people that they are slapping fees and interest payments on are slowly losing everything they hold dear.Because the people could not afford them in the first place...?

A bit of history for everyone, as we may be doomed to repeat it. One of the main reasons for the Great Depression was that everyone didn't actually own what they were buying. Buying products on credit became popular during this time, so people were buying things that they couldn't afford, from cars to stock. As the initial "drop" in the Stock market started to fall, people began to lose their jobs. Now, when time came around to actually pay these things back, they couldn't, and lost everything.

Now, replace stock with homes, and mix in some irresponsibility with your money, and you have exactly what's happening today :/

Now, what the current administration seems to be doing, is acting like an irresponsible person with a credit card. Yes, going out to eat at a restaurant and buying that new dress may seem like a good idea at the time, but then you have to pay it back. It'll make life good for a little while, but then it just gets worse.

Corvus of the Black Night
February 19th, 2009, 04:51 AM
I totally agree.

Another point that should be brought up is that the New Deal was NOT what took the country out of the depression, it was entering WWII that really spurred up economic activity because of the need for war materials. When the war ended, people kept the jobs, thus an economic boom began.

Which is why I disagree with Obama. Even though I'm more socialist than most of you (hides to avoid flaming from Cobalt), I realize that this isn't what's going to bring us out of this recession.

However, I think that by keeping at least GM alive that we will at least be able to survive. If GM falls, the entire country is going to fall.

Virtual Chatot
February 19th, 2009, 12:24 PM
Another point that should be brought up is that the New Deal was NOT what took the country out of the depression, it was entering WWII that really spurred up economic activity because of the need for war materials. When the war ended, people kept the jobs, thus an economic boom began.True, but its not like we can do that now. We have enough resources and people where we don't need the nations industries ( like we have many now anyways... ) will turn from making dresses and shoes to uniforms and combat boots. :P

Netto Azure
February 19th, 2009, 12:39 PM
Everyone on the right loves making fun of the President now eh?

While I agree that the New Deal didn't end the Depression, it essentially gave us so many of the infrastructure and regulatory backstops that saved the economy today, such as the FDIC and Social Security.

Canadians lurve President Obama. XD

Exporting Obama (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7898464.stm)
US president seeks to woo Canadians on first foreign trip
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Obama makes first foreign visit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7898921.stm?lss)

Barack Obama is in the Canadian capital Ottawa on his first foreign trip as president, for talks with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Trade, the global economy and the war in Afghanistan are the main issues to be discussed during the six-hour visit.
As America's biggest trade partner, Canada is worried about the "Buy American" measures in the $787bn (£546m) stimulus plan.
Canadian troops are due to pull out of the Nato force in Afghanistan in 2011.

Virtual Chatot
February 19th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Everyone on the right loves making fun of the President now eh?Now? I'd thought we had been doing it for quite a while :P
I guess everyone on the left forgot that people on the left made fun of Bush all the time, but whatever.

:P

Netto Azure
February 19th, 2009, 01:20 PM
Now? I'd thought we had been doing it for quite a while :P
I guess everyone on the left forgot that people on the left made fun of Bush all the time, but whatever.

:P

LOL, His administration was fun, very much fun, =D

Now people on the left are going crazy because of the New Prez. High Standards that are impossible to achieve. XD

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/02/17/tomo/story.gif

InMooseWeTrust
February 22nd, 2009, 07:35 PM
If anyone knows anything about history, it's that stimulus packages never work. The goal is to spend the money, right? The people who get the money usually don't need it, so they do things like give their CEO's golden parachutes while the company crumbles. Meanwhile, the people who DO need the money (families with small children and small businesses) use the money to pay off debt or they save it to replace their retirement funds or whatever. That's a GOOD thing, but handing out all this money causes massive inflation.

Netto Azure
February 22nd, 2009, 07:48 PM
Ok first of all. This stimulus package isn't like Bush's $150 Billion+ Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which basically gave everyone checks to use.

It's actually Broad-Based and a long-term plan for reconstruction and other initiatives. Yeah, I do agree that this package is basically the Dems releasing pent up spending urges that's been building up for 12 years. XD

Anyways did you know US President Obama is going to make an unoffical State of the Union address on a Joint-Session of the US Congress on Tuesday February 24, 2009 around primetime?