The American stimulus package
- Thread starter Gengarchomp
- Start date
Raven-NAR-32450
The Great and Powerful RAVEN
- 122
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 34
- My Secret Lab
- Seen Apr 15, 2022
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
Czechmate
- 34
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Among the Heavens...
- Seen May 13, 2013
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'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
Kiel
- 9,468
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
US President Obama signs $787bn stimulus plan
US President Obama signs $787bn stimulus plan
Yeah I know it's not a "Silver Bullet" but hey anything that Politicians do isn't perfect.
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
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.
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
Last edited:
Corvus of the Black Night
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
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.
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
Proud U.S. Army Soldier
- 191
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- New Jersey
- Seen Dec 11, 2009
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
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
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.
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
Kiel
- 9,468
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
Well...
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, The whole episode: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
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, The whole episode: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
Last edited:
Gengarchomp
n00bier than you
- 79
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- under a rock
- Seen Oct 31, 2010
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
Kiel
- 9,468
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
Oh puhlease.
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
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
Proud U.S. Army Soldier
- 191
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- New Jersey
- Seen Dec 11, 2009
No, it makes me pro-freedom and anti-statist.
Dear God you could learn a lesson from Milton Friedman. I suggest you watch this-
https://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.
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?
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.
No, that's your logic attempting to interpret capitalist logic, and failing.
Last edited:
Tinhead Bruce
the Neighbour
- 1,110
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Seen Aug 29, 2014
Wait, can I just ask, I know this is a bit off topic, but what is your opinion on welfare Agent Cobalt?
Agent Cobalt
Proud U.S. Army Soldier
- 191
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- New Jersey
- Seen Dec 11, 2009
Social or corporate welfare?
Netto Azure
Kiel
- 9,468
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
For me Corporate Welfare. ^_^
As for MO, it's somewhat needed but the government is too socialistic towards businesses nowadays. =/
Tinhead Bruce
the Neighbour
- 1,110
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Seen Aug 29, 2014
I'm wondering your opinion on both.
Agent Cobalt
Proud U.S. Army Soldier
- 191
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- New Jersey
- Seen Dec 11, 2009
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.
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.
Last edited:
Tinhead Bruce
the Neighbour
- 1,110
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Seen Aug 29, 2014
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.
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
Banned
- 6,460
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Cuddling those close to me
- Seen Mar 4, 2018
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:
https://zazie-lavender.livejournal.com/ said:
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.
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 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.
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.
I agree and I have addressed the matter in my reply to Agent Cobalt's quoted post.
Agent Cobalt
Proud U.S. Army Soldier
- 191
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- New Jersey
- Seen Dec 11, 2009
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
Banned
- 6,460
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Cuddling those close to me
- Seen Mar 4, 2018
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.