- 2,856
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
Bush has gone down as the worst president in history. Where is the obvious part?
OH, and "shut up"!!!!
OH, and "shut up"!!!!
school me on the stimulus plan...vol.they just reached an agreement
lilstarz07
Banned
- 3,227
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
i think he was being sarcastic ... but to counter his sarcastic remarks i must say, watch and see what happens now ... take your whopping 13 bucks every weekand push that into the economy ... ... ...
- 11,910
- 515
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
like dude said above bush/obama, dems/repubs, what is the difference?
tmukg21
Banned
- 4,017
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
word to the BibleOriginally Posted by ReliantJ
Divide/conquer
- 2,856
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
Originally Posted by ReliantJ
sarcasm ftland the "he" I referred to was LilStar
Didn't seem like sarcasm since other people have actually given responses like this in previous threads.
- 70
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
Dear NikeTalk,
the bill will work. ignore the right wing bigots.
kapeesh?
the bill will work. ignore the right wing bigots.
kapeesh?
- 234
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
the stimulus plan will not work, when was the last time a group of individuals especially with doctorates have arrived at practical solution?
the answer is nevera, yep, nevera
the answer is nevera, yep, nevera
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
Could I have some details in the bill that will help? I haven't been able to read through all 1,071 pages yet.
- 4,096
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
ok .. from what im understanding, we will get an approximate of $13 xtra on our pay check? what the catch? does it say anything about higher taxdeductions?
and will the everyone be eligible to receive this $13 xtra per check? my pops claimed me again this year and from what i can remember i didnt qualify for thestimulus check due to the fact i was dependant last year.
off topic.. i get about $30 reduce per paycheck for my taxes.. what am i suppose to put on my w4? i have no clue how to fill those things.. thanks
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
No doubt. All these Republicans that didn't sign the bill will realize in a couple years why they will be out of a job when mid term elections come aroundin 2010. The American people spoke loud and clear in Nov 2008 that they want Obama to fix the economy and this is his plan.
The Republicans playing politics and do what they can to attack, stall and stop this bill.
- 665
- 23
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
too late to start asking questions after the election. keep hope alive!
- 665
- 23
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
this plan is like pissing on a forest fire. it would take more like $3 tril to have any positive outcome on the economy. this is just piddlingaway more tax money the same they did the previous stimulus.
- 1,570
- 13
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
what is $13 gonna help for anything?
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
The Republicans were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors. The same thing happened to the Democrats in 1994 when they hadClinton rubber stamp their bills before Newt & the House worked with him to balance the budget for 2 straight years.Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE
No doubt. All these Republicans that didn't sign the bill will realize in a couple years why they will be out of a job when mid term elections come around in 2010. The American people spoke loud and clear in Nov 2008 that they want Obama to fix the economy and this is his plan.
The Republicans playing politics and do what they can to attack, stall and stop this bill.
History is not a new topic kids. Nothing that we're doing now is new territory.
- 968
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
taken from heritage.org...
10 Questions About the Economic Stimulus Bill
by Brian M. Riedl
January 15, 2009
The $800 billion economic "stimulus" bill may be more appropriately called the "Obama debt plan." It will, after all, dump $6,700 perhousehold of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.
Whether it will actually stimulate the economy is another matter. So perhaps politicians can first answer a few questions from the back of the classroom:
President-elect Obama claims that spending approximately $800 billion will create 3.675 million new jobs. That comes to $217,000 per job. This doesn'tsound like a very good value, especially with the national average salary around $40,000. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just mail each of these workers a$40,000 check?
Politicians say deficit spending will expand the economy (as if President Bush's $300 billion budget deficits brought economic nirvana). If that were true,then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. It's obviously not. So why would $800 billionmore of the same suddenly end the recession?
We're told that government spending will add new spending power to the economy. But Congress doesn't have a vault of money waiting to be distributed:Every dollar lawmakers "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from Americaninvestors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it's borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from onegroup of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
Some answer the previous question by saying that transferring income from savers to spenders keeps more money circulating through the economy. That made somesense in the 1930s when people hid their savings in mattresses because they didn't trust the banks. But today, people use their savings to pay down debt,invest or put it in banks -- in each case, making the purchasing power available to others wishing to borrow. Thus, savings circulate through the investmentspending side of the economy. How does transferring money out of investment help?
Policymakers are basing the "stimulus" bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy byapproximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier thanAmerica. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion.Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?
Lawmakers tell us every $1 billion in highway "stimulus" can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1billion out of the private economy. Won't the private sector then lose the same number of jobs?
During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending -- and unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. More recently, Japan respondedto a 1990 recession by passing 10 "stimulus" bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world) -- and their economyremained stagnant. Why do lawmakers believe the same failed approach will succeed for the U.S. today?
The economy sank because people over-borrowed for houses they couldn't afford, and financial institutions over-borrowed for investments they badlymisjudged. Washington's solution is to borrow $800 billion that it cannot afford. How will adding $800 billion to the national debt (which will also raiseinterest rates) solve a recession created by imprudent borrowing? And who will bail out the American taxpayer when the bill comes due?
Temporary tax rebates were implemented in 1975, 2001 and 2008, and most economists agree they failed to help the economy. Long-term marginal tax ratereductions implemented in 1982 and 2003 both substantially increased economic growth. So why are lawmakers planning another round of temporary tax rebates,followed by an increase in tax rates?
Mayors have pledged to spend stimulus funds on items such as a mob museum in Nevada, a polar bear exhibit in Rhode Island, and curbing prostitution in Dayton,Ohio. As National Review asked, how come one Bridge to Nowhere is a national embarrassment and 1,000 Bridges to Nowhere are a "stimulus?" Given the11,000 annual earmarks, why should taxpayers trust politicians to spend this money better than they would spend it themselves?
10 Questions About the Economic Stimulus Bill
by Brian M. Riedl
January 15, 2009
The $800 billion economic "stimulus" bill may be more appropriately called the "Obama debt plan." It will, after all, dump $6,700 perhousehold of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.
Whether it will actually stimulate the economy is another matter. So perhaps politicians can first answer a few questions from the back of the classroom:
President-elect Obama claims that spending approximately $800 billion will create 3.675 million new jobs. That comes to $217,000 per job. This doesn'tsound like a very good value, especially with the national average salary around $40,000. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just mail each of these workers a$40,000 check?
Politicians say deficit spending will expand the economy (as if President Bush's $300 billion budget deficits brought economic nirvana). If that were true,then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. It's obviously not. So why would $800 billionmore of the same suddenly end the recession?
We're told that government spending will add new spending power to the economy. But Congress doesn't have a vault of money waiting to be distributed:Every dollar lawmakers "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from Americaninvestors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it's borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from onegroup of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
Some answer the previous question by saying that transferring income from savers to spenders keeps more money circulating through the economy. That made somesense in the 1930s when people hid their savings in mattresses because they didn't trust the banks. But today, people use their savings to pay down debt,invest or put it in banks -- in each case, making the purchasing power available to others wishing to borrow. Thus, savings circulate through the investmentspending side of the economy. How does transferring money out of investment help?
Policymakers are basing the "stimulus" bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy byapproximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier thanAmerica. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion.Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?
Lawmakers tell us every $1 billion in highway "stimulus" can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1billion out of the private economy. Won't the private sector then lose the same number of jobs?
During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending -- and unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. More recently, Japan respondedto a 1990 recession by passing 10 "stimulus" bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world) -- and their economyremained stagnant. Why do lawmakers believe the same failed approach will succeed for the U.S. today?
The economy sank because people over-borrowed for houses they couldn't afford, and financial institutions over-borrowed for investments they badlymisjudged. Washington's solution is to borrow $800 billion that it cannot afford. How will adding $800 billion to the national debt (which will also raiseinterest rates) solve a recession created by imprudent borrowing? And who will bail out the American taxpayer when the bill comes due?
Temporary tax rebates were implemented in 1975, 2001 and 2008, and most economists agree they failed to help the economy. Long-term marginal tax ratereductions implemented in 1982 and 2003 both substantially increased economic growth. So why are lawmakers planning another round of temporary tax rebates,followed by an increase in tax rates?
Mayors have pledged to spend stimulus funds on items such as a mob museum in Nevada, a polar bear exhibit in Rhode Island, and curbing prostitution in Dayton,Ohio. As National Review asked, how come one Bridge to Nowhere is a national embarrassment and 1,000 Bridges to Nowhere are a "stimulus?" Given the11,000 annual earmarks, why should taxpayers trust politicians to spend this money better than they would spend it themselves?
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Republicans were voted out in 2006 because they refused to listen to the public about the Iraq war. Why do you think Bush fired Rumsfeld the dayafter midterm elections in 2006? Not to mention the various scandals the Republicans were involved in including Abramoff, Foley and Cunnigham. Don'tconfuse the 90's to where we are at now.Originally Posted by crcballer55
The Republicans were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors. The same thing happened to the Democrats in 1994 when they had Clinton rubber stamp their bills before Newt & the House worked with him to balance the budget for 2 straight years.Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE
No doubt. All these Republicans that didn't sign the bill will realize in a couple years why they will be out of a job when mid term elections come around in 2010. The American people spoke loud and clear in Nov 2008 that they want Obama to fix the economy and this is his plan.
The Republicans playing politics and do what they can to attack, stall and stop this bill.
History is not a new topic kids. Nothing that we're doing now is new territory.
What we're doing now is not new territory? The hell?
When was the last time we had a trillion dollar deficit and fighting two wars. When was the last time unemployment is this high? When was the last time majorcorporations are closing down and laying off workers in the thousands? When was the last time banks stop lending? When was the last time people were losingtheir homes, their retirements/savings in this manner? Are you seriously going to compare the 90's to 2009?
I am sorry but what we're facing today in America is unprecedented.
- 4,096
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
i know right? 13 extra dollars a week wont even get me full tank..
thizzbaby
Banned
- 480
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
this is really scary for me
devildog1776
Banned
- 4,952
- 139
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
this bill is only delaying the enevitable....
- 1,243
- 12
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- 8,139
- 5,318
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Exactly--
Like I said in my first post, the only way to heal ourselves of this open sore and stop the bleeding is to allow things to "naturally" correctthemselves. In fact, this is the most EFFECTIVE way. It would undoubtedly take time and would undoubtedly prolong the pain--but you know what, it's themost pragmatic solution for today, tomorrow, and the greater future.
This bailout will only alleviate the "pain" momentarily. If I may offer an analogy--the effectiveness of the bailout is about as practical asalleviating the pail associated with a gunshot wound to head, with a pill of extra strength Tylenol; better yet, it would be akin to using a standard Q-tip tostop the bleeding in a hemorrhaging hemophiliac...
Of course, the irony of this whole situation is that, we got ourselves into this mess because of our need for "instant gratification"; well you knowwhat they say, "old habits die hard"; why should our elected officials wait, patiently, for a natural correction of things when the American publicgives them the go-ahead to basically engineer and execute, what is at best, facile attempts at counteracting the problem...
But do you know what the worst part of this whole situation is...
And this is what really drives me nuts--too many people in this country (including some of NKTLK's more "opinionated" members in matters ofpolitics) are politically biased and prejudiced to realize that this was a problem created by both Democrats and Republicans, the two dominant politicalparties in this country. These associations, which are stupid to begin with, are at the very core of our problem. That's where this whole thing started...
People criticize Obama for his bailout plan but if memory serves right, wasn't it Bush who started this whole bailout "process" back inOctober/November of '08. Obama is just stupidly carrying on that legacy. But I suppose Bush's bailout was "good" because it went to thefinancial markets and it's inherent Corporate Big Wigs, whereas Obama's bailout is "bad" because it's more "liberal"...RIGHT...
Resolve yourself of these associations, become more concerned about your fellow man--and less about MONEY--and we will truly become the "city upon thehill". I'm not even an American and I realize this-- so surely, "one of you" has to, at the very least, see what I'm saying...
...
- 648
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
from what i read, the $13 extra dollars a check (based on getting payed every two weeks mind you) is for this up coming year.
basically i feel like since saving or paying off debt does not stimulate the economy, by giving people a little bit at a time they (government) hopes
that it will be spent easier then a lump sum....just my opinion on that.
devildog1776
Banned
- 4,952
- 139
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
Hypothecially speaking... What if the dollar defaults??? What happens??? Will we see the mighty amero come to the rescue? Cause all of the talks of a devaluingdollar has been talked about for several years and people of all walks of life denied that we would even be in this perdicament...
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
You, sir, are not a very good reader. Please reread what I wrote again... I was comparing the spending and reelection. I was not comparing anyof the other economic factors or political scandals.Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE
Republicans were voted out in 2006 because they refused to listen to the public about the Iraq war. Why do you think Bush fired Rumsfeld the day after midterm elections in 2006? Not to mention the various scandals the Republicans were involved in including Abramoff, Foley and Cunnigham. Don't confuse the 90's to where we are at now.Originally Posted by crcballer55
The Republicans were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors. The same thing happened to the Democrats in 1994 when they had Clinton rubber stamp their bills before Newt & the House worked with him to balance the budget for 2 straight years.Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE
No doubt. All these Republicans that didn't sign the bill will realize in a couple years why they will be out of a job when mid term elections come around in 2010. The American people spoke loud and clear in Nov 2008 that they want Obama to fix the economy and this is his plan.
The Republicans playing politics and do what they can to attack, stall and stop this bill.
History is not a new topic kids. Nothing that we're doing now is new territory.
What we're doing now is not new territory? The hell?
When was the last time we had a trillion dollar deficit and fighting two wars. When was the last time unemployment is this high? When was the last time major corporations are closing down and laying off workers in the thousands? When was the last time banks stop lending? When was the last time people were losing their homes, their retirements/savings in this manner? Are you seriously going to compare the 90's to 2009?
I am sorry but what we're facing today in America is unprecedented.