House GOP to vote NO on stimulus package

[FXASHUN]

you are PROOF of the dumbing down
LOL

What do you mean? With no manufacturing, our country of 300 million is screwed. We built this country dependent on each other. How many towns are built on the backs of "The Mill". When GM closes a plant in the middle of BFE IOWA, there's not jack else there to drive that town's economy and eventually it will die. There's not enough service in the world when a town loses the manufacturing base of 1500 to 2000 jobs with the infrastructure that it takes to support it.

 

[DiveCon]

you are PROOF of the dumbing down
LOL

What do you mean? With no manufacturing, our country of 300 million is screwed. We built this country dependent on each other. How many towns are built on the backs of "The Mill". When GM closes a plant in the middle of BFE IOWA, there's not jack else there to drive that town's economy and eventually it will die. There's not enough service in the world when a town loses the manufacturing base of 1500 to 2000 jobs with the infrastructure that it takes to support it.

i wasnt talking to you
i was talking to the ******* moron i quoted

 

[Avatar4321]

It will get people working and get money circulating again.

You have no clue what's actually in the legislation do you?

How exactly do you think the economy is going to have a solid foundation when its based on money we dont have?

 

[Mad Scientist]

In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?
Despite the Republican criticisms, Administration officials made it clear today that they were still tilting heavily in favor of a stimulus program.
Is that how any of you remember 1990-92? LOL.

are you ******* serious???????????????
opposing that boondoggle is part of what got the GOP majorities in BOTH bodies of congress
you are a complete and total ******* moron with your revisionist history

Did you read the entire article sealybobo? In 1993 the stimulus package was just 10-30 billion, far less than the 800 Billion "Porkulus" Bill that the Dems are trying to pass now.
I think DiveCon is right, the Republicans are gonna' gain by opposing the "Porkulus" bill. Government spending is the problem and the public knows it.

(And that's the perfect term for it too: Porkulus)

 

[Bern80]

In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?

Despite the Republican criticisms, Administration officials made it clear today that they were still tilting heavily in favor of a stimulus program.

Is that how any of you remember 1990-92? LOL.

Could you get anymore ridiculous? I guess you need the same reminder

(eh-Hem) FORMER President GEORGE W. BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE.

The rest of congress has a job to do. The Republicans finally showed that maybe just maybe they have a spine and voted against this pork filled pile of crap that doesn't have a chance in hell of solving anything.

They didn't vote against in some deference GWB much as your twisted brain would like to think. It was voted against because it is a bad piece of legislation that probably won't work and has a real potential of making things worse.

You wanna make a semi cogent argument? here's a starting point. Let's see you defend the actual bill. Tell us all, oh wise one, how the substance of the bill will help our economy.

 

[Zoomie1980]

In attacking the stimulus program, the Republicans seemed to be asserting that the economy President George Bush handed over to his successor (CLINTON) was in good shape, three previous years of anemic growth notwithstanding. CAN YOU BELIEVE THEM?

Despite the Republican criticisms, Administration officials made it clear today that they were still tilting heavily in favor of a stimulus program.

Is that how any of you remember 1990-92? LOL.

Could you get anymore ridiculous? I guess you need the same reminder

(eh-Hem) FORMER President GEORGE W. BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE.

The rest of congress has a job to do. The Republicans finally showed that maybe just maybe they have a spine and voted against this pork filled pile of crap that doesn't have a chance in hell of solving anything.

They didn't vote against in some deference GWB much as your twisted brain would like to think. It was voted against because it is a bad piece of legislation that probably won't work and has a real potential of making things worse.

You wanna make a semi cogent argument? here's a starting point. Let's see you defend the actual bill. Tell us all, oh wise one, how the substance of the bill will help our economy.

Be nice to know where that $815 billion is going to come from since China is not lending anymore. I doubt anyone else is interested in a debt security paying barely over 0%....even if they had it to loan, which they don't.

 

[Killuminati]

I love obama but this bill will not help, we can't solve spending with more spending. The only way we can save our country is to end the federal reserve, and put the money back in the hands of the american people. As long as our money is made out of thin air and based on debt, we will never get out of debt. This plan will fail, and for all of those who don't know google the amero. America should have our money backed by silver and gold.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I agree,if the ship was so worthy why do the Dems keep whining for the GOP to jump on and help take credit . The ship must be the Titanic in reality.

What an inane remark. If they just pushed it through in the house like they can, you would ***** about that. If they try to work together you ***** about that. Obama, as president, goes to meet with them and talk. They basically say **** you.

The ship is the USS US and the republicans are more worried about getting back in charge than if the ship sinks. They already ran it aground in the last 8 years, but that doesn't concern them.

This will come back on the repubs as their constituents find out what they will lose with the righties vote.

I will be glad when Obama and the Dems finally realize that the current rightie leaders in DC don't know what the word "collaborate" means and then say sorry we tried to work together and it didnt' work. Now we are going to act like you did when you were in charge.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Wrong, if you spend on the right things, you can solve the problems and build our economy back to what it was.

 

[Bern80]

Wrong, if you spend on the right things, you can solve the problems and build our economy back to what it was.

And based on the amount of pork in this bill it's hard to argue that it will do even that.

 

[Munin]

It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...

You can not just stand, watch and give money to the taxpayers because it is the government that needs to act when the private sector fails. Even if taxpayers get a break from the government, then there is no guarantee that they will spend more and people without a job don't benefit much from a tax break because they need a job first: and jobs are not created by the private sector right now, so it is the governments job to employ the private sector by infrastructural works, ...

There is no better option then what the government does now, the GOP will have a problem if the economy recovers because they were in charge when it went wrong and the Dems cleaned their shit up after it. If someone will ask in the future what the GOP did to fix the economy, then the GOP won't have much to answer. If the economy will be fixed then the dems will take full credit for that and the GOP will get the blame for the economy that was in the shit at the end of the Bush years.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Funny.. seems like the non-partisan side was the one voting AGAINST.. there were DEMs joining AND some of the DEMs even supported the Republican alternative

This makes no sense at all. Because there are Dems who don't follow the party line, does not make the repubs non partisan.

They voted to a person in the typical Borg Mind against it.

Obama, could have told the house to screw themselves like the repubs did to the dems when they owned both house and senate. He met with them to discuss the bill.

That is what is called bi ******* partisan.

I see a change coming shortly. If the repubs refuse to work together, the dems need to tell them to piss off. The majority of Americans voted for Obama. It is the will of the people.

Remember when Bush squeaked by and said he had political capital to spend. The current righties in DC don't want or care about any bipartisan work.

 

[sealybobo]

I heard the Senate GOP will take more out of the bill and then sign it, and then send it back to the House where then they will sign it too. It just had too many democratic pet projects.

But Obama needs to be more like FDR. FDR would have taken things out of the bill, but only if they promised to vote for it. Obama got punked.

Also, FDR would have paid back every politician that didn't sign it. Maybe in the future Obama won't even ask them what they think.

 

[FXASHUN]

This problem started when we got the big head in the Clinton era. It wasn't Clinton's fault thogh. he just rode the wave of the dot.com. As he was checking out, so was the free money that intellectual capital gives. When the dot.com boom faded and the huge taxes it generated, if the spending wasn't incrementally lowered along with it, we are seeing the results now. We aren't gonna spend out of this, we are gonna have to cut our spending...and unfortunately that also gonna mean a general cut in the U.S. standard of living.

 

[sealybobo]

This problem started when we got the big head in the Clinton era. It wasn't Clinton's fault thogh. he just rode the wave of the dot.com. As he was checking out, so was the free money that intellectual capital gives. When the dot.com boom faded and the huge taxes it generated, if the spending wasn't incrementally lowered along with it, we are seeing the results now. We aren't gonna spend out of this, we are gonna have to cut our spending...and unfortunately that also gonna mean a general cut in the U.S. standard of living.

All true. But I can't help also believe that selling all of our corporations to foreigners wasn't a contributing factor in this mess.

The baby boomers are all retiring and they are selling out America. And no one in America can afford to buy, so foreigners are buying everything. And so the profits are going overseas.

And I don't think the corporations and/or rich bankers wanted to pay up what those baby boomers accumilated, so they crashed the economy at the perfect time. Renig on Pensions, Enron people, etc.

And if you don't manufacture anything, then you don't need engineers. So America is being dumbed down. Now we all work for service industries. And how valuable are any of us really?

It is time for revolution.

So if they had $500K in 401k, now it is only $300k. And they want to privatize social security?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...

They would have failed because they were and are insolvent in the first place. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars are you willing to waste in propping up failed businesses? Forcing the taxpayers to bail out companies that cannot stand on their own will not help this economy. We gave $700 billion to banks that are still failing, when that capital could have been used by the taxpayers on businesses that would be able to stand on their own. Bailing out failed businesses is just spreading the misery around.

 

[Munin]

It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...

They would have failed because they were and are insolvent in the first place. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars are you willing to waste in propping up failed businesses? Forcing the taxpayers to bail out companies that cannot stand on their own will not help this economy. We gave $700 billion to banks that are still failing, when that capital could have been used by the taxpayers on businesses that would be able to stand on their own. Bailing out failed businesses is just spreading the misery around.

It would have cost you multiple times more if the government didn't bail them out. The government is actually spending less money now compared to the money that it would loose (unemployed people and bankrupt companies don't pay taxes) by the desastrous situation that would be created when multiple big banks, big companies go bankrupt. It is better for a government to lose less jobs and spend more money, then if it would loose a huge amount of jobs and spend nothing because then all americans would pay a price that is multiple times bigger: unemployment, inflation = prices of everything (products, ...) will rise, money that vanishes because of banks that can't pay back debts -> money literally disappears, ...

 

[FXASHUN]

This problem started when we got the big head in the Clinton era. It wasn't Clinton's fault thogh. he just rode the wave of the dot.com. As he was checking out, so was the free money that intellectual capital gives. When the dot.com boom faded and the huge taxes it generated, if the spending wasn't incrementally lowered along with it, we are seeing the results now. We aren't gonna spend out of this, we are gonna have to cut our spending...and unfortunately that also gonna mean a general cut in the U.S. standard of living.

All true. But I can't help also believe that selling all of our corporations to foreigners wasn't a contributing factor in this mess.

The baby boomers are all retiring and they are selling out America. And no one in America can afford to buy, so foreigners are buying everything. And so the profits are going overseas.

And I don't think the corporations and/or rich bankers wanted to pay up what those baby boomers accumilated, so they crashed the economy at the perfect time. Renig on Pensions, Enron people, etc.

And if you don't manufacture anything, then you don't need engineers. So America is being dumbed down. Now we all work for service industries. And how valuable are any of us really?

It is time for revolution.

So if they had $500K in 401k, now it is only $300k. And they want to privatize social security?

I agree. But with no manufacturing and no intellectual productivity, soo n there'll be a lot of people with no money to buy services. There has to be another source for capital because we can't all just keep passing the same service dollar back and forth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is not a good option to let this go out of hand, if it was up to laissez faire then we would now not only have lost Lehman Brothers but also a load of other banks, the 3 biggest carmakers in the US, ...

They would have failed because they were and are insolvent in the first place. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars are you willing to waste in propping up failed businesses? Forcing the taxpayers to bail out companies that cannot stand on their own will not help this economy. We gave $700 billion to banks that are still failing, when that capital could have been used by the taxpayers on businesses that would be able to stand on their own. Bailing out failed businesses is just spreading the misery around.

It would have cost you multiple times more if the government didn't bail them out. The government is actually spending less money now compared to the money that it would loose (unemployed people and bankrupt companies don't pay taxes) by the desastrous situation that would be created when multiple big banks, big companies go bankrupt. It is better for a government to lose less jobs and spend more money, then if it would loose a huge amount of jobs and spend nothing because then all americans would pay a price that is multiple times bigger: unemployment, inflation = prices of everything (products, ...) will rise, money that vanishes because of banks that can't pay back debts -> money literally disappears, ...

The correction has to happen at some point. There is absolutely no way around that. I'd prefer not to make it worse then it has to be, but the government seems intent on doing just that by bailing out failed businesses and robbing the taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Also, inflation is the increase in the supply of money, rising prices are simply a consequence.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What an inane remark. If they just pushed it through in the house like they can, you would ***** about that. If they try to work together you ***** about that. Obama, as president, goes to meet with them and talk. They basically say **** you.

I disagree. The Repubs don't believe the bill will work and they told Obama this. I believe they also presented some alternatives that would cost far less but Obama didn't want to listen. The fact that he met with the Repubs is fine, shows he was keeping his 'bipartisan' word I suppose. But it seems to me that Obama doesn't understand that in order to be 'bipartisan' it requires compromise. Compromise from both parties. I do not believe that he is willing to do this. I find it perplexing that Obama, who so loves history that he continually quotes from it, does not see that this stimulus package is just going to result in history repeating itself by failing.