Obama's government stimulus plan: Where the right needs to make its first stand

[Bern80]

Obama's new spending bill to stimulate the economy met it's first road block already when the CBO noted in a report that most of the called for spending when not even get into the economy until the recession is actually over.

First it is highly debatable whether gov't spending has EVER turned an economy around. Second, if the economic situation as dire as everyone and Obama seem to believe, you would think he would want to a more immediate boost to the economy. Unfortunately the most immediate method of boosting the economy is a bad word (well two words) on the left; tax cuts.

It is rumored that Obama also has plans to set up a central bank to buy up the bad loans of any bank. So let's see, the plan to fix this problem is to do the exact same thing that got us in the problem in the first (gov't garunteeing loans).

This stimulus plan is where the Republicans and right in general need to make their first stand if they want to maintain any credibility whatsoever. It is also where Obama needs to show some of his professed bipartisanship and taking on ALL ideas.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The right didnt' take a stand when we gave 350 billion to the bankers, why now?

And the last thing we need is another Ronny in the Trickle Down Whitehouse

 

[Bern80]

The right didnt' take a stand when we gave 350 billion to the bankers, why now?

And they should have instead going aloing with teh dems who think the governmtn can spend its way out of a recession.

And the last thing we need is another Ronny in the Trickle Down Whitehouse

You're the second person who doesn't seem to get that signature

 

[Red Dawn]

This stimulus plan is where the Republicans and right in general need to make their first stand if they want to maintain any credibility whatsoever

I agree.

The rightwing should vote against spending for bridges, roads, infrastructure, and green energy projects.

If they're smart, they'll demand we spend more money on Iraq.

 

[elvis]

The right didnt' take a stand when we gave 350 billion to the bankers, why now?

And the last thing we need is another Ronny in the Trickle Down Whitehouse

they didn't take a stand because not giving the banks 350 billion would have meant economic collapse.

 

[Bern80]

I agree.

The rightwing should vote against spending for bridges, roads, infrastructure, and green energy projects.

If they're smart, they'll demand we spend more money on Iraq.

So do you not believe the the CBOs findings with regards to Obama's plan?

It would be nice to hear an actual reasoned response of the left wing nut jobs on this board instead of the tired cliche presumptions that seem to be all and your ilk know how to spout.

What the CBO found in a nutshell is the text book definition of a government spending project. It would be wasteful, it would take more time than anticipated and would most likely not have the desired effect. A big part of why we're in this mess is bad debt and government taking it on via Fannie and Freddie, so Obama,s solution is to add another 1-2 trillion of bad debt to the problem. Again unless I'm missing something that is exactly part of what got us here and this great mind with all these great ideas is going to try the exact same thing?

 

[jillian]

So do you not believe the the CBOs findings with regards to Obama's plan?

It would be nice to hear an actual reasoned response of the left wing nut jobs on this board instead of the tired cliche presumptions that seem to be all and your ilk know how to spout.

What the CBO found in a nutshell is the text book definition of a government spending project. It would be wasteful, it would take more time than anticipated and would most likely not have the desired effect. A big part of why we're in this mess is bad debt and government taking it on via Fannie and Freddie, so Obama,s solution is to add another 1-2 trillion of bad debt to the problem. Again unless I'm missing something that is exactly part of what got us here and this great mind with all these great ideas is going to try the exact same thing?

yah... I think the right should try to stand in the way of someone who was elected to handle the economy because you guys haven't been competent to do so for the past eight years. That ought to sit real well with the 80% of people who approve of Obama right now.

Yep... I think you all should be obstructionist jerks.

Can you say "two term president" and a loss of 10 more seats in Congress in 2010?

Sure... I knew ya could.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have had tax cuts for eight years now, and we are all so much better off, right? Bill Clinton raised the taxes on the very wealthy by two percent, and we had an economic disaster, right? I mean a real economic disaster, the longest economic boom in this nations history.

Bern, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. But go on yapping, the rest of us will get on with the jobs that need done.

 

[xsited1]

Not only is the United Status under one-party rule for at least another 2 years, the Republicans are becoming more and more like the Democrats. It's going to be a rough ride for at least 2 more years.

 

[xsited1]

We have had tax cuts for eight years now, and we are all so much better off, right? Bill Clinton raised the taxes on the very wealthy by two percent, and we had an economic disaster, right? I mean a real economic disaster, the longest economic boom in this nations history.

Bern, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. But go on yapping, the rest of us will get on with the jobs that need done.

Tax cuts with out-of-control government spending = bad combination.

 

[AllieBaba]

I agree.

The rightwing should vote against spending for bridges, roads, infrastructure, and green energy projects.

If they're smart, they'll demand we spend more money on Iraq.

Bridges, roads and infrastructures make really good targets for terrorists.

 

[Red Dawn]

yah... I think the right should try to stand in the way of someone who was elected to handle the economy because you guys haven't been competent to do so for the past eight years. That ought to sit real well with the 80% of people who approve of Obama right now.

Yep... I think you all should be obstructionist jerks.

Can you say "two term president" and a loss of 10 more seats in Congress in 2010?

Sure... I knew ya could.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tax cuts with out-of-control government spending = bad combination.

Agreed. I wrote my congressman and senators on this issue, did you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Bridges, roads and infrastructures make really good targets for terrorists.

Are you hoping for more Timothy McVieghs? No, bridges, roads, and infrastructure makes no better target than does anything else. But they do contribute greatly to the economic good of the nation.

 

[Chris]

I agree.

The rightwing should vote against spending for bridges, roads, infrastructure, and green energy projects.

If they're smart, they'll demand we spend more money on Iraq.

 

[Chris]

Tax cuts with out-of-control government spending = bad combination.

Tax cuts with out-of-control government spending = Reagan and Bush.

 

[xsited1]

Agreed. I wrote my congressman and senators on this issue, did you?

I used to, but I stopped several years ago. I find there is little difference between the two major parties. So instead, I usually vote for 3rd party candidates unless someone really stands out. I'm still waiting for the rest of America to wake up. Obviously, they haven't since the same idiots keep getting elected.

 

[xsited1]

Tax cuts with out-of-control government spending = Reagan and Bush.

Certainly that's true for GWB. He's just another LBJ-style big-government politician. Reagan asked for military spending, but Congress put huge conditions on it which bloated the budget. Clinton was like this too until a conservative-controlled Congress stopped him in his tracks. (That's the way he was as Governor of Arkansas.)

 

[jillian]

Certainly that's true for GWB. He's just another LBJ-style big-government politician. Reagan asked for military spending, but Congress put huge conditions on it which bloated the budget. Clinton was like this too until a conservative-controlled Congress stopped him in his tracks. (That's the way he was as Governor of Arkansas.)

Actually, that's not correct. I appreciate the revisionism, though.

Bill Clinton was the single Democratic politician of the 1990s most identified with the New Democrats; his promise of welfare reform in the 1992 presidential campaign, and its subsequent enactment, epitomized the New Democrat position, as were his 1992 promise of a middle-class tax cut and his 1993 expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor.[4] New Democrat and Third Way successes under Clinton, and the writings of Anthony Giddens, are often regarded to have inspired Tony Blair in the United Kingdom and his moderate policies, which became the New Labour party.[9]

New Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[xsited1]

Actually, that's not correct. I appreciate the revisionism, though.



New Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're kidding, right? Clinton was always a big-government politician, but he was a politician first and foremost. In other words, he did whatever he had to do to get elected. I'm aware of his participation with the 'New Democrats', but he only did it to beat George H. W. Bush (which he couldn't have done without Ross Perot). 'Hillary-care' is just one small example of his love for big-government programs. If he hadn't been tempered with a conservative-controlled Congress, the government would have kept growing. That's why Obama with a Democratically-controlled Congress is a very scary proposition. I'm going to keep my money in safe accounts for at least the next 2 years.