Hi, Obama's is urging to americans that he will bring back their jobs and to eliminate the economic crisis currently floating. When he is so much sure then why dont republicans are against its stimulus package. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/08/congress.economy/index.html Why don't they support him to eliminate the recession otherwise it would be disaster in americans history to be as worst. Please vote also.
Though I do not support such stimulus but then, does the government have any other choices? Government just cannot be sitting duck to such a horrific problem. Even though it is putting good money after bad, it has to do something to push start the economy, and it is at least trying..whatever it takes. Regards, RightMan
Whether they have good intentions or not, Obama and friends are raping the taxpayer with this debacle. IMO, this garbage will do nothing to help the economy. In fact, I don't see how it can do anything but the opposite.
I've been waiting to hear the voice of pragmatism from Obama. It would be nice to hear him smack down the dems the way he did wall street execs who took bail out money and continued to give outrageous bonuses. But I guess he can't do stuff that will ruin his popularity with his own party only 2-3 weeks into being president.
If you enjoy wasting your own money vote yes for the stimulus package. Have you even read the bill? Here it is: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf
Thanks for the link! Makes me utterly sick to my stomach to read it. This makes me wonder if this would be the perfect time to throw away any responsibility I have and let the government take care of me?
The Stimulus package has $5.2 billion of funding for ACORN. ACORN is Obama old community action group that funded by the taxpayer to pressure banks to make loans to people that can't afford to pay them. The ACORN funding has no stipulation against lobbying with taxpayer funds
Oh I get it. The poor made the banks give them loans at great interest rates. The poor got on their private jets and flew to Washington begging Congress for hundreds of billions fo dollars. The poor were borrowing money to buy mcmansions and shop at malls to maintain their self-indulgent lifestyles. The poor got their lobbyists, their pals at the Federal Reserve, and Bush to scare the national into giving them a bailout. I guess a poor person to you is a Manhattan, Wall Street banker who puts other people in debt and asks the government for financial assistance when they get in trouble.
You're missing the point. The stimulus package is supposed to revive the economy with spending for improved infrastructure. The spending bill is filled with pork and welfare. The US government already has a deficit of $1 trillion for 2009 and Obama's stimulus bill will double the deficit to $2 trillion. I don't understand how in a free market society a poor person is entitled to a 550k loan for a house. This isn't about a safety net but a redistribution of wealth. Obama warned over ‘welfare spendathon’ Welfare reform that put millions back to work – has been put into jeopardy by billions of dollars in state handouts included in Obama’s economic stimulus package. Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama’s stimulus plan was a “welfare spendathon†that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5733499.ece On the subject of Fat Cat Wall Street Bankers, We should have let them all fail like Leehman Brothers and invested the money into good banks that didn't make the crazy loans.
Sadly, this one isn't completely inaccurate. If you watched House of Cards on CNBC the other night you'd see examples of something similar. The loan originators were giving loans to everyone with a pulse. WTF did they care as long as they had buyers to offload to after they closed the loans? And what did the Wall Street banks who bought them care as long as they could repackage them into securities that not even Alan Greenspan could understand(he says it in the documentary) and get people to buy them?
I have seen first-hand government's idea of infrastructure - unnecessary bridges, road "improvements", and inefficient and obsolete mass transit as soon as its built. In my city, the federal government spent $150 million on a really stupid mass transit system (it doesn't go anywhere people want, it's too small, it's slow, it's expensive, it's perpetually in need of repairs, it's a boondoggle from day one -1987). They spent $400 million on a completely unnecessary bridge. They spent $30 million ripping up a perfectly good highway to put a divider in the middle (aggravating everyone in the community). When people need infrastructure, they tell the government, not the other way around. It's aggravating to hear people say the money is going to the poor when it's really going to expand federal bureaucracy, and power over the country. To me, this is an example of expanding debt slavery. Instead of blaming Washington and Wall Street, people persist in deflecting responsibility and blaming the victims. I just don't understand the purpose of that in trying to find a solution. All the money should be taken out of the hands of the bankers and the politicians so the country has a chance to recover. Otherwise, it's just making the same mistakes all over again.