Obama 819b stimulus package passed

[Patton3]

Well, it's been passed, for better or for worse, let's hope for the better. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_economy
Discuss.

[SmilezRoyale]

i heard education and condoms are included in the package...

it's what Naomi Klein would call, disaster socialism.

[Patton3]

At 1/28/09 06:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: i heard education and condoms are included in the package...

it's what Naomi Klein would call, disaster socialism.

Education, yes.
Infrastructure, yes.
Tax cuts for individuals making under 200k, yes.
Tax cuts for small business, yes.
Green Technology, yes.
But condoms, I don't know where you got that.

[n64kid]

At 1/28/09 07:01 PM, Patton3 wrote:

What a waste, now we will never get out of debt. What the fuck happened laissez faire, let the economy settle with what it's got. Condoms are more useful than "green" technology anyways. >=[

[Patton3]

At 1/28/09 07:03 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 1/28/09 07:01 PM, Patton3 wrote:

What a waste, now we will never get out of debt. What the fuck happened laissez faire, let the economy settle with what it's got. Condoms are more useful than "green" technology anyways. >=[

Don't you think we should wait a couple months or so before we pass judgement on this? I mean, opinions are fine, but before you come to a conclusion, you should see how it plays out first.

In my view, this is jumping the gun, but we either pay now or later. Just hope he and his staff know what they're doin', this is obviously a lot of money. So, admittedly, I'm a bit worried.

[Patton3]

Somethin' ya'll may want to listen to.
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=htt p%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl74240.sw f&video_id=RDfpd8GV9dI&rel=1&eurl=http%3 A//www.wn.com/s/cheetah-wn-new/reports_1 b78f4ceaebd044c7fcf2c20dd42a651.html&iur l=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/RDfpd8GV9dI/h qdefault.jpg&sk=Rsmp8NkB0CDGh3B7hSEC0R-Q vd2VIe-nC&use_get_video_info=1&load_modu les=1&fs=1&hl=en

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/28/09 07:09 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/28/09 07:03 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 1/28/09 07:01 PM, Patton3 wrote:

What a waste, now we will never get out of debt. What the fuck happened laissez faire, let the economy settle with what it's got. Condoms are more useful than "green" technology anyways. >=[

Don't you think we should wait a couple months or so before we pass judgement on this? I mean, opinions are fine, but before you come to a conclusion, you should see how it plays out first.

Economic wisdom makes it necessary that we don't need to wait for a disaster to be continued because we already know based upon logic and past examples that it just delays the inevitable.

[Tebone7]

I'm not sure i understand, is he pumping 8XX billion dollars into the economy like bush bailed out 700 bil in order to try to save the economy? Wouldn't pushing more money into the fray just make the fire bigger?

[BrianEtrius]

At 1/28/09 07:58 PM, Tebone7 wrote: I'm not sure i understand, is he pumping 8XX billion dollars into the economy like bush bailed out 700 bil in order to try to save the economy? Wouldn't pushing more money into the fray just make the fire bigger?

Well, look at it this way:

To make money you got to spend money. Therefore, by giving money, you'll (supposedly) get the economy back up.

[Tebone7]

At 1/28/09 07:03 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 1/28/09 07:01 PM, Patton3 wrote:

What a waste, now we will never get out of debt. What the fuck happened laissez faire, let the economy settle with what it's got. Condoms are more useful than "green" technology anyways. >=[

The united states hasn't been out of debt for over 250 years.........since before Jefferson and the first united states bank... it's how business is made... the greater the debt the greater the power is what some believed, i don't remember the guy's name off the top of my head... but still...Most democrats, throughout history, have tried to "solve" debt problems with no sign of luck, but only mess things up even more. So.... la-de-da history shall repeat itself :)... Next thing you hear we're going to be spending less money on military, then it will be exactly what happened 2xx years ago when the country started off.

[Conspiracy3]

At 1/28/09 07:58 PM, Tebone7 wrote:

I'm not sure i understand, is he pumping 8XX billion dollars into the economy like bush bailed out 700 bil in order to try to save the economy? Wouldn't pushing more money into the fray just make the fire bigger?

If combined with a withdrawal from Iraq and heavy tax hikes for the rich the deficit shouldn't be a problem.

Plus, when compared to some other nations the US deficit is nothing. Last I checked the Deficit in the US is around 40% and in Italy it is in the 90s.

[Achilles2]

The Senate has to pass it before it gets enacted. That's gonna happen next week

[Al6200]

I don't think that the bailout is that bad of an idea. They way the money is going to be spent isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. Spending more money on college education and infrastructure is prudent, but I wish that there would've been more allocation based on merit as opposed to need, IMO.

With that said, I have trouble understanding why anyone is going to buy the T-bills to fund this thing. Isn't the government afraid that someone is going to lose confidence and stop financing our debt?

[n64kid]

At 1/28/09 07:09 PM, Patton3 wrote:

Don't you think we should wait a couple months or so before we pass judgement on this?

Because the economy will cycle to a new stage in a couple months?

I mean, opinions are fine, but before you come to a conclusion, you should see how it plays out first.

Dude, debts are fine until we reach the point where it can never be repaid.
We collected about 2.5 trillion in 2007, spend almost 20% more than we take in, and the national debt clock has us at a 10.63 trillion dollar debt. The last thing Obama should have done is this package.

[TimeLordX]

What stimulus? This is the biggest pork sandwich ever. Pork never created new jobs...

[badboy0123]

yea kinda of amazing how not one single republican voted for it and it still passed. bi-partisanship at its best.

[Achilles2]

At 1/28/09 11:07 PM, TimeLordX wrote: What stimulus? This is the biggest pork sandwich ever. Pork never created new jobs...

Are you even remotely familiar with the bill, or did you take Boehner's word as the Word of the Lord?

While there are things in that package that we can do without, everything in it is aimed at creating new jobs under various methods. Some create millions, others create hundreds, others create tens, but they all create jobs.

The tax cuts contained in the bill encourage people to have more incentive to work, encourage companies and businesses to have more incentive to hire, and encourage people to shop and give businesses profit.

How is any of this pork spending? How does any of this not stimulate the economy?

Instead of arguing about tomato/toma-toe, this thing needs to get passed ASAP because this deflationary spiral isn't going to wait for Congressmen and Senators to settle their differences.

[Chickidydow]

At 1/28/09 11:18 PM, badboy0123 wrote: yea kinda of amazing how not one single republican voted for it and it still passed. bi-partisanship at its best.

Well it's just the first 100 days when all congress and the president can think about is getting gay with eachother. I don't like the government pumping money in the economy, I say let the bubble burst while it's small to avoid more pain when its inevitable popping finally does occur, but I can't do a thing about it.

[CogSpin]

What we have here is a complete dictatorship. When not a single Republican votes for it -- and it still passes -- that is horrendous.

[Achilles2]

At 1/28/09 11:28 PM, Mr-Money wrote: What we have here is a complete dictatorship. When not a single Republican votes for it -- and it still passes -- that is horrendous.

The majority of American people voted for the Democrats. How is that a dictatorship at all?

What we have here is people thinking based on party lines instead of on what works.

[TimeLordX]

At 1/28/09 11:24 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:07 PM, TimeLordX wrote: What stimulus? This is the biggest pork sandwich ever. Pork never created new jobs...

Are you even remotely familiar with the bill, or did you take Boehner's word as the Word of the Lord?

Actually, I have read portions of the bill. Have you? Or do beleive everything you hear on TV?

While there are things in that package that we can do without, everything in it is aimed at creating new jobs under various methods.

How is any of this pork spending? How does any of this not stimulate the economy?

This looks like pork to me:

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/28/09 11:28 PM, Mr-Money wrote: What we have here is a complete dictatorship. When not a single Republican votes for it -- and it still passes -- that is horrendous.

It's a Democratically elected one then. This is, once again, why I really think you have to look at the W.'s presidency as a failure: The bad will he, and his Republican cronies (not all Republicans, just the super loyal ones) engendered has caused this situation where they're voice is now basically irrelevant until at least the next election. But it's not a done deal yet, there's still the Senate to pass, where there is still more legislation being worked on. So with the possibility that this may not be the final deal, I think it might be too early to say this is a policy that will fail (or at the least, it should probably be more properly couched as "if they don't make some changes...) for those that argue it.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Doesn't to me (except maybe the Nutrition Programs. Fuck that, parents should be handling that) but the rest of it looks like programs we actually need in an economy where people are losing jobs left and right.

[TimeLordX]

Yeah, but none of that actually STIMULATES the economy (except fot the tax cuts, and then minimally). None of that encourages people to get out there and work. It just makes them more dependent on the goverment.

[Korriken]

At 1/28/09 11:31 PM, Achilles2 wrote: What we have here is people thinking based on party lines instead of on what works.

which is a MAJOR problem when one side can say, "you know what? fuck your ideas, we're gonna do what we want, and there's nothing you can do to stop us!" Which is exactly what the democrats are saying.

If anyone had a thought that Obama would actually be "bipartisan" then you gotta realize what "bipartisan" means when 1 side controls all the branches of government at the same time.
Bipartisan
Pronunciation: \(%u02CC)b%u012B-%u02C8pär-t%u0259-z%u02 59n, -s%u0259n, -%u02CCzan, chiefly British %u02CCb%u012B-%u02CCpär-t%u0259-%u02C8za n\
Function: adjective
Date: 1895
Definition: Pretending to cooperate with a second party, and then performing a gross display of dominance by doing what you please, much to the ire of the other party while they are incapable of stopping you.

Neither party is innocent. Both sides competing with each other to see which can drain America faster.

[Der-Lowe]

At 1/28/09 09:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: I don't think that the bailout is that bad of an idea. They way the money is going to be spent isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. Spending more money on college education and infrastructure is prudent, but I wish that there would've been more allocation based on merit as opposed to need, IMO.

For example?

With that said, I have trouble understanding why anyone is going to buy the T-bills to fund this thing. Isn't the government afraid that someone is going to lose confidence and stop financing our debt?

You have the dollar-making machine, you are the richest country in the world, you have never defaulted your debt. Money is fleeing from emerging countries into the developed world: The US, Japan, and Germany mostly.

At 1/28/09 08:10 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/28/09 07:58 PM, Tebone7 wrote:

I'm not sure i understand, is he pumping 8XX billion dollars into the economy like bush bailed out 700 bil in order to try to save the economy? Wouldn't pushing more money into the fray just make the fire bigger?

If combined with a withdrawal from Iraq and heavy tax hikes for the rich the deficit shouldn't be a problem.

I see those measures coming. The tax cuts for the rich were greatly opposed in the first place, and it makes sense to tax more those with higher income. I'm not saying LET'S BE SWEDEN, but marginal tax rates are waaaaaaaaay to low on the highest income bracket.

Plus, when compared to some other nations the US deficit is nothing. Last I checked the Deficit in the US is around 40% and in Italy it is in the 90s.

Yeah, and where is Italy now? It's bankrupt, and has had negative growth for years. The US fiscal deficit is huge, and it's gonna get worse before it gets better. It needs to get worse, since NO SANE COUNTRY would balance its budget when it's on the verge of a depression. And by "NO SANE COUNTRY", I mean Argentina. And nowadays, Brazil . Jeez, Lula is really fucking up.

At 1/28/09 11:31 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:28 PM, Mr-Money wrote: What we have here is a complete dictatorship. When not a single Republican votes for it -- and it still passes -- that is horrendous.

The majority of American people voted for the Democrats. How is that a dictatorship at all?

The dictatorship of the majority. Under this circumstances, the only institution that stands in defense of the Republic is the Supreme Court. Luckily for you, you have a cool Supreme Court.

At 1/28/09 09:14 PM, Achilles2 wrote: The Senate has to pass it before it gets enacted. That's gonna happen next week

There's no special majority for this kind of law, right? Because if there isn't, it should pass with ease, given the majority the Democrats have in the Senate as well.

At 1/28/09 11:57 PM, TimeLordX wrote: Yeah, but none of that actually STIMULATES the economy (except fot the tax cuts, and then minimally)

They will use that money to buy goods and services, which will increase the production of good and services, which will lead to more income for those that in those businesses, and they will spend more money in goods and services, etc, etc.
And tax-cuts are a pretty bad stimulus, since part of the money that is given back to the individuals ends up being saved. This is made worse the higher the income of the person that receives the tax cut is, since people with higher income tend to save more.
This has been a crash course on the keynesian multiplier.
Thank you. *bows*

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/29/09 12:51 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

The dictatorship of the majority. Under this circumstances, the only institution that stands in defense of the Republic is the Supreme Court. Luckily for you, you have a cool Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, as much as a hate the tryanny of the major, this is one of the benefits of a reprsentitive government.
The only problem is that people get to vote for thier senators.

There's no special majority for this kind of law, right? Because if there isn't, it should pass with ease, given the majority the Democrats have in the Senate as well.

It's majority for any bill unless the president veto's the bill. Then you need 2/3 majority.
The only real hope to stopping it, is that while the Democrats do hold a large majority in the Senate, it isn't as bas as the House of Representatives. So the only real hope would be that you could get enough moderate Democrats on the Republican side, which will probally not happen.

[homor]

we can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to improve.

we need to find a better wat to handle this situation then this crap.

Nancy Pelosi (that bitch) tried sneaking greenhouse gas and condom/abortion shit in there, which has NOTHING to do with the economic crisis and has since been booted out.

not a single Conservative in the house voted for this, and i hope none in the senate do ethier, its a BAD IDEA.

[Achilles2]

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Really? To me, all of those look like relief to the lower middle class, relief to those entrapped in the housing crisis, aid to the retired, and reassurance of medical benefits to workers. In the end, these will cause the lower middle class and the retired to have more money to spend and pay their bills, which will stimulate the economy. People will also be able to pay off their mortgage, which will stimulate the economy. Also, workers rights will be reinforced, which is necessary for a healthier working environment.

How is any of that pork?

[Achilles2]

At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Really? To me...

I should also add that some of the things there are aid to the impoverished to help them get out of poverty. This goes without saying as stimulating the economy.