Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/7/09 04:22 PM, airsoftar wrote: Welcome to Nationalization.

what the fuck do you mean by that?

At 2/8/09 10:22 PM, homor wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:22 PM, airsoftar wrote: Welcome to Nationalization.

what the fuck do you mean by that?

Nationalized banking... medicare...

"Government Control"!

At 2/8/09 10:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/8/09 10:22 PM, homor wrote:

Nationalized banking... medicare...

Before you know it, the government will want to install cameras for surveillance of every inch of every major city. the UK is already doing it. While they're at it, how about speed limiters on vehicles along with GPS trackers on everyone?

At 2/7/09 04:22 PM, airsoftar wrote: Welcome to Nationalization.

Oh, fuck, the government might provide for and protect it's citizens! Someone help us!

The gov't isn't supposed to run any business or industry (read the Constitution). Gov't interference got us into this mess in the first place (telling banks who they should give out loans to, regardless of their ability to pay 'em back). Who in their right mind thinks that MORE gov't interference will fix this mess?!

I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction, and for good reason: The House and the Senate have struck a deal, 789 billion is the final amount the stimulus is to contain. And the link.

its official. Obama signed the bill into Law today. Of course, he couldn't simply just SIGN the bill, ohhhhh noooo, he had to sign the bill "at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science before roughly 250 people including alternative energy business leaders."

Personally, this iks the everliving hell out of me. Not because he signed the bill, we all expected that. but he couldn't simply just sit at his desk like any other president and wait for them to bring it before him to sign. no, he had to pack it up, haul it off to DENVER COLORADO, and sign the thing at a museum. Obama's overuse of worthless and wasteful symbolism really disturbs me. Why does he find it necessary to waste the fuel to go all the way to denver to do something he could have just as easily done in washington dc?

At 2/17/09 09:25 PM, Korriken wrote: Why does he find it necessary to waste the fuel to go all the way to denver to do something he could have just as easily done in washington dc?

You do know that every major bill that every President has worked hard to get passed is always signed in a ceremonial manner, right? Obama isn't the first President to do that.

Prime examples include Bill Clinton signing the "Improving America's Schools Ac" in Framingham, Massachusetts (at my High School) and George W. Bush signing the "No Child Left Behind Act" at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio.

At 2/18/09 11:50 AM, Linkmaster987 wrote:

You do know that every major bill that every President has worked hard to get passed is always signed in a ceremonial manner, right? Obama isn't the first President to do that.

I'd just sit there at the President's desk in the White House and say, "Did the bill get here yet?".

Wait. Obama's giving out 819 billion condoms?

Fucking useless bill.

At 2/18/09 06:10 PM, Mr-Coffee wrote: Fucking useless bill.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not trying to say you're completly wrong or I hate you for your way of thinking or some shit, just why do you think that way?

At 2/18/09 06:12 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 2/18/09 06:10 PM, Mr-Coffee wrote: Fucking useless bill.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not trying to say you're completly wrong or I hate you for your way of thinking or some shit, just why do you think that way?

All the bill does is spend, it doesn't "stimulate" anything (contrary to what proponents of the bill believe). The money that is being injected into the economy via the stimulus package will take years to be spent, given the projects it has been allotted for. Also, who pays for this proposal? Washington? No, we do. I should add that the bill isn't "bipartisan" at all, it's completed one sided.

At 2/18/09 06:26 PM, Mr-Coffee wrote:

At 2/18/09 06:12 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 2/18/09 06:10 PM, Mr-Coffee wrote: Fucking useless bill.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not trying to say you're completly wrong or I hate you for your way of thinking or some shit, just why do you think that way?

All the bill does is spend, it doesn't "stimulate" anything (contrary to what proponents of the bill believe). The money that is being injected into the economy via the stimulus package will take years to be spent, given the projects it has been allotted for. Also, who pays for this proposal? Washington? No, we do. I should add that the bill isn't "bipartisan" at all, it's completed one sided.

Once we pay that money to Washington via taxes, it's theirs. If it still was ours we could take it back at any time, and to spend even a dime of it, the people would have to vote. Sure we can get pissed, but it's not really "ours".
As for paying it in over several years, wouldn't dumping in all at once lead to wasteful and misguided consumer spending? Which is a big chunk of what got us in this mess?

At 2/18/09 06:31 PM, Patton3 wrote:
Once we pay that money to Washington via taxes, it's theirs. If it still was ours we could take it back at any time, and to spend even a dime of it, the people would have to vote. Sure we can get pissed, but it's not really "ours".

While you make a solid point, you should know that taxpayers haven't yet paid for this bill. That will takes years.

As for paying it in over several years, wouldn't dumping in all at once lead to wasteful and misguided consumer spending? Which is a big chunk of what got us in this mess?

I agree that there should be a "curve" to the stimulus bill, so that relief can be felt across a number of years and throughout the economic crisis. This curve however, was not setup responsibly or carefully. Relief will come far too slowly, and that will only serve to exacerbate our current situation, negating any potential benefits that the rest of the bill could provide.

At 2/18/09 06:26 PM, Mr-Coffee wrote: All the bill does is spend, it doesn't "stimulate" anything (contrary to what proponents of the bill believe). The money that is being injected into the economy via the stimulus package will take years to be spent, given the projects it has been allotted for.

I believe that it will stimulate the economy. The reason why the spending in the bill happens over the next 3 years is because Obama plans for a short-term stimulus, meaning job creation, and a long-term stimulus, meaning tax relief in various forms, green energy, preserving jobs, and helping out the retired, homeowners, and the poor in the form of welfare, help for homeowners, medicaid/medicare, and Social Security.

Also added into the bill is help for states and for schools, and a pool for college loans and grants. The help for states will allow them to use the money to pay their employees and hire more, thus creating jobs. The help for schools won't stimulate the economy, but it will give schools the desperate help they need in order to improve. The college loans and grants won't stimulate the economy, but they will help the millions of desperate college-ready students (including myself) get the help they need.

The infrastructure projects in the bill will stimulate the economy by creating jobs. The help for homeowners would ensure that banks will be paid their debts and homeowners won't lose their money and homes.

This housing crisis is at the center of and is the reason for this economic crisis. Ensuring that the banks are paid and that homeowners won't go broke trying to pay out their mortgages ensures the preservation of jobs and ultimately ensures more revenue for the businesses and for the government. The help for homeowners in this bill, along with Obama's $75B plan for homeowners he revealed today, will most likely solve the housing crisis and will be the beginning of the end of this recession.

The White House claims that the tax payer will be saved billions in taxes when the renovations to Federal Govt. buildings in the bill is implemented. This I don't agree with, but I never said the bill was perfect.

Why would I ever need to read a newspaper when I can get all my information on recent news from Newgrounds?

Seriously, I think that was a good move.

At 2/18/09 11:50 AM, Linkmaster987 wrote:

You do know that every major bill that every President has worked hard to get passed is always signed in a ceremonial manner, right? Obama isn't the first President to do that.

Prime examples include Bill Clinton signing the "Improving America's Schools Ac" in Framingham, Massachusetts (at my High School) and George W. Bush signing the "No Child Left Behind Act" at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio.

and all are foolish wastes of fuel and time. Of course, useless symbolism is what keeps our politics going i suppose. If people would get past emotionalism things would drastically change when people stop using their emotions and start using their brains to make decisions. of course, people like this are the reason America is in the mess its in. Seriously, if i ever start doing things like this, i want someone to euthanize me from behind with a 12 gauge with buckshot to the back of my head just to put me out of my own misery.

on another note, if Obama tries for another stimulus package, I'm thinkin about starting up some hardcore protesting. To hell with letting these sumbitches drive our debt so high that we'll be stuck in eternal debt with the rest of the world. Last thing we need is to allow other countries to have so much debt on us that they could wreck the country by calling in that debt. The debtor owns the indebted and we can't allow such a thing. it's bad enough that china could wreck our economy at their whim, why would we allow more countries the same power?

Well, I'm gonna go brush up on my Chinese and Arabic. It'll probably come in handy in about 10 years.

At 2/18/09 10:00 PM, Korriken wrote: on another note, if Obama tries for another stimulus package, I'm thinkin about starting up some hardcore protesting. To hell with letting these sumbitches drive our debt so high that we'll be stuck in eternal debt with the rest of the world.

Not to be presumptuous, but did the same thoughts occur to you when Bush was driving the debt sky high? If not, I find it incredibly hypocritical that you suddenly care so much.

At 2/19/09 12:44 AM, Musician wrote:

Not to be presumptuous, but did the same thoughts occur to you when Bush was driving the debt sky high? If not, I find it incredibly hypocritical that you suddenly care so much.

The cost of war was inevitable once we went into it, faulty intel or not, however. I was against the bank bailouts, knowing they wouldn't or shouldn't save banks with that money. turns out I was right. The larger banks bought smaller banks the CEO of Bancorp is now claiming that TARP was designed for just that purpose, as stated by the gubment of Dubya. considering the natural corruption of the government. I wouldn't doubt it. Considering things that have happened in the past, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the Bush administration told the banks to buy smaller banks with the money, with the democrats knowing of it, then turns around and uses the opportunity to reel in the banks once they're in power.

Its completely plausible.

At 2/18/09 10:00 PM, Korriken wrote: To hell with letting these sumbitches drive our debt so high that we'll be stuck in eternal debt with the rest of the world.

An economic stimulus would give the government more revenue. If Obama balances the budget after this whole economic stimulus period, then there'll be a budget surplus. The money resulting from both can be used to pay off billions and possibly even trillions of dollars of debt.

It's 100% possible, as Clinton did the same thing: he balanced the budget, created a surplus, and payed back over $1 trillion in debt.

Last thing we need is to allow other countries to have so much debt on us that they could wreck the country by calling in that debt.

I agree, but you're acting as if this bill will not do anything at all. Someone else on this page of the thread pointed out how this stimulus would help the economy. Assuming that Obama balances the budget, then he can pay off debt owed to foreign nations and the next couple of Presidents can continue a legacy of balanced budgets and pay off the debts owed to foreign nations and to the public.

Finally, this debt can be repayed easily if the government does something about Social Security.

At 2/19/09 09:28 AM, Achilles2 wrote:

An economic stimulus would give the government more revenue. If Obama balances the budget after this whole economic stimulus period, then there'll be a budget surplus. The money resulting from both can be used to pay off billions and possibly even trillions of dollars of debt.

I agree, but you're acting as if this bill will not do anything at all. Someone else on this page of the thread pointed out how this stimulus would help the economy. Assuming that Obama balances the budget, then he can pay off debt owed to foreign nations and the next couple of Presidents can continue a legacy of balanced budgets and pay off the debts owed to foreign nations and to the public.

I can't say I have high hopes for stimulus packages, considering their piss poor record of not being much help. Also, Obama claims there's no pet projects or earmarks. If this is true, what do you call this? How is that stimulus? There's a hell of a lot more than that in non stimulating spending. Japan used stimulus after stimulus for 10 years to no effect. New deal? it helped a little, but it didn't fix much.

Obama's relentless push to "go green" in our current economic state outright frightens me. If a cap and trade system gets implemented, our economy is going to take a major blow from business slowing down harshly over the cost to implement techniques and devices to cut pollution. With our economy like it is, it would kill our economy.

on a side note, I don't trust Obama to balance the budget, ever. He's got a lot of big ideas, like nationalizing health care, which will make balancing the budget without some major tax hikes very unlikely. and remember, the rich are able to move out of America, much like the rich are fleeing from California at the moment and are preparing to flee from New York to escape the ever rising taxes.