|
|
|
|
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 9:38:53 AM | What do you really think about the stimulus package? Do we just need to ride this wave out? Now they are saying we will be in the 5 years. Is this really a depression? Is this really what is best for our economy? Does anyone really have the answers? | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 9:47:12 AM | The package is mostly for show and useless. What needs to happen are fundimental changes in corporate law and a return of regulatory oversight. The new rules Obama has put forward about CEO salaries and bonuses are a start in the right direction but not nearly enough.
Uncompensated offshoring needs to be eliminated. You offshore your labor then you either pay increased taxes or your product is considered import and TARRIFFED so.
Tax Loopholes need to be closed
Board conflict of interests need to be prosecuted
Corporate personhood and lobbying stopped
lots more. We will be lucky if this is just 5 years | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 10:06:15 AM | If it can put Americans back to work and force the employers to provide a means for the Americans to get good group rates for health insurance ... then it will be good.
If all it takes is 5 years ... then that will be a small miracle. | |
|
| |
| |
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 10:38:54 AM |
They are saying we will be in this recession/depression for at least five years even with the package
Because the reality of this package is, it does little to actually stimulate anything. It is mostly payback to those who got him elected. Even the items that temporarily crete jobs, those jobs will end as soon as the money does, these jobs don't create goods and/or services, they create future lobbyists. And until those things FireKnight mentioned are taken to task and added to the package, it is nothing but a band aid. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 10:46:54 AM |
It is mostly payback to those who got him elected. If that's the case ... then the working poor should be in line for some sort of pay back. From where I sit, it was the working poor that got him elected.
It sure wasn't the greedy rich CEO's ...
these jobs don't create goods and/or services, Sooooo ... fixing up the infrastructure does not create services ... no goods are needed for that task? | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 11:25:08 AM |
Sooooo ... fixing up the infrastructure does not create services ... no goods are needed for that task?
I'm sure the paper industry will be enamored. Most of the positions created will be paper pushing jobs. Hardly a stimulous to the economy, unless Obama plans on doing in increments of hundreds. Great, the ecomony should be stimulated by the time I'm a hundred and fourty seven. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 11:36:54 AM |
Sooooo ... fixing up the infrastructure does not create services ... no goods are needed for that task? I'm sure the paper industry will be enamored. Most of the positions created will be paper pushing jobs. Ohhhh ... and here I thought "Infrastructure" was technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, power grids, telecommunications, and so forth.
Soooo now that I have clarified what I meant when I said "infrastructure" ... I'll repeat the question ....
Fixing up the infrastructure does not create services ... no goods are needed for that task? Fixing the roads, the sewers, the power grids (or creating newer better means of power supplies), improving means of water supply ... none of that creates services or goods? Huh ... I didn't know that.
| |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 12:44:36 PM | After plowing through about 3/4 of the bill, I have if figured that most of the jobs are male oriented (yes, I know women are in construction, but they are a minority), that I will get about $115 tax credit, and a one time $500 check. Neither are enough to encourage me to go shopping for anything more than a few extra cans of Spam. There really isn't much in the bill for ordinary people. And I had better become resigned to selling my home for what I can get, because the state feels it needs to provide services for a certain segment of the population, and they have raised property and school taxes to a point that I won't be able to afford eat, much less provide myself with utilities.
Dang, I was so hopeful when I cast that vote. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 12:50:35 PM | Sorry, applied the newer definition to your usage.
From wikipedia--
In subsequent years, the word has grown in popularity and been applied with increasing generality to suggest the internal framework discernible in any technology system or business organization.
Fixing the roads, sewers, power grids, etc etc, will not create new jobs--do you actually think any power company or city is going to hire new people? They will send their same people out and give them tons of overtime. On our tax money of course. It is more costly and a bigger pain for cities to hire new people to do those jobs, and as I stated above, as soon as the money runs out, it will the the employment lines with more taxpayer dollars up in smoke.
To create jobs you have to do more of the things Fireknight mentioned above. In this day and age creating new products and markets for those products is hit and miss at best. Why not eliminate overseas competition for those items we already create? Make items here in this country for comsumption by those in this country (and creating products that people overseas might just want too). Stop importing goods into this country that we can make ourselves. Then possibly we might be able to pave the roads, update power grids, and other stuff without using "economic stimulus" dollars to do so. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 1:13:20 PM |
Uncompensated offshoring needs to be eliminated. You offshore your labor then you either pay increased taxes or your product is considered import and TARRIFFED so.
Can't do it. This is illegal under the treaties that have been signed and ratified in order to make the WTO, which is, interestingly enough, the only International Organization that can make any binding decision against countries.
Tax Loopholes need to be closed
Good luck. One can attempt to make something as air tight as possible, but it is almost always possible to find a way around things, and people will find those ways. It is part of human nature, and why a lot of corporations pay top dollar for lawyers and accountants, to find these loopholes. I would suggest that this is almost impossible, if not impractical.
Board conflict of interests need to be prosecuted
A conflict of interests is almost an ethical gray area. On top of that, it is almost impossible to make a decision that does not contain some sort of conflict of interests on some level. Also, considering the sociological principal that has shown consistently that 10% of the people do 90% of the work, you would quickly run out of people or have some extremely lazy people making important decisions.
Corporate personhood and lobbying stopped
Corporate personhood makes sense, yes. However, lobbying is something that one can not stop, be it corporate or otherwise. Ever since it was decided that money = speech, and that all people have a freedom of speech, it has been created an ability for those who have the most money to have the most access. All corporate personhood would stop is GM from coming in a lobbying a legislature. It would not stop G. Richard Wagoner Jr. from lobbying.
While your ideas are good ideas, I would suggest that they are all but impractical, and in some cases, border on unconstitutional. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 1:42:51 PM |
Can't do it. This is illegal under the treaties that have been signed and ratified in order to make the WTO, which is, interestingly enough, the only International Organization that can make any binding decision against countries.
Absolutely can do it, it has nothing to do with the WTO don't even get me started. Before you start arguing with me at least have your ducks in a row. First and foremost Congress not the WTO or the UN or anything else determines our import and export rules. In the words of Yule Brenner "so let it be written so let it be done". Ladies and Gentleman the US Constitution "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" Are we clear here? It can be done it should be done and it needs to be done.
Good luck. One can attempt to make something as air tight as possible, but it is almost always possible to find a way around things, and people will find those ways. It is part of human nature, and why a lot of corporations pay top dollar for lawyers and accountants, to find these loopholes. I would suggest that this is almost impossible, if not impractical. Thats because we keep putting lawyers into congress not because we can't make the laws tight. More over this goes into the issue of corporate personhood and its representation and lobbies in government which is honestly illegal on its face but we'll cover that later.
A conflict of interests is almost an ethical gray area. On top of that, it is almost impossible to make a decision that does not contain some sort of conflict of interests on some level. Also, considering the sociological principal that has shown consistently that 10% of the people do 90% of the work, you would quickly run out of people or have some extremely lazy people making important decisions. Does anyone else want to point out to him the idiocy of this statement? Other then the fact that its happening right now?
Corporate personhood makes sense, yes. However, lobbying is something that one can not stop, be it corporate or otherwise. Ever since it was decided that money = speech, and that all people have a freedom of speech, it has been created an ability for those who have the most money to have the most access. All corporate personhood would stop is GM from coming in a lobbying a legislature. It would not stop G. Richard Wagoner Jr. from lobbying.
Corporate's are not supposed to be people. They are not intended under the Constitution to have rights ergo they aren't allowed to lobby. The whole damn problem of money=speech and all people have freedom isn't even in exsistance if we finally correct a very stupid oversight that's been going on since the 1860's. Corporates are NOT people, one very STUPID Federal judge ruled in a case and in the opinion supporting that ruling said that Corporates must have been intended as people since they are not mentioned in the Constitution and it must have been an oversight/or they didn't know that there would be corporations The actual fact of the matter is the Founders DID know about Corporations and were fighting against them as much as the Crown of England as it was the Dutch East India company that got the tea tax raised in the first place. Further they specifically left commerce which includes corporations as regulated by every branch and level of government. So we have been dealing with a situation that NEVER should have happened except in Hamilton's wet dreams in the first place. You are right that it would not stop G Richard Wagoner Jr from lobbying but HE would have to show up himself as himself and all his doing be duly recorded. Very different from modern lobbying.
While your ideas are good ideas, I would suggest that they are all but impractical, and in some cases, border on unconstitutional. Mostly because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or the Constitution | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 3:42:01 PM |
Mostly because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or the Constitution
Had to start with this statement first. I would argue that I have an idea that I know what I am talking about. And I would also argue that my degree in political science from an accredited university gives me more credibility in knowing what I am talking about then a Network Engineer trying to discredit me about what I know what I'm talking about.
Absolutely can do it, it has nothing to do with the WTO don't even get me started. Before you start arguing with me at least have your ducks in a row. First and foremost Congress not the WTO or the UN or anything else determines our import and export rules. In the words of Yule Brenner "so let it be written so let it be done". Ladies and Gentleman the US Constitution "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" Are we clear here? It can be done it should be done and it needs to be done.
To further put my "ducks in a row," I am not arguing that Congress doesn't have the ability to do so according to the Constitution. What I am arguing is that according to the WTO, which is a binding treaty that was signed and ratified by the US Congress, the United States can not impose unfair and unequal tarrifs, taxes, or duties on the products or labor of other countries. Because the President and the Congress has signed and ratified this particular treaty, they have agreed to bide by the rulings of the WTO no matter what the Constitution says. Just because you say your car isn't totalled when it goes over a cliff doesn't mean it isn't.
Thats because we keep putting lawyers into congress not because we can't make the laws tight. More over this goes into the issue of corporate personhood and its representation and lobbies in government which is honestly illegal on its face but we'll cover that later.
So putting people with law degrees into a position where they right laws means that we can't make laws air tight? I think that lawyers are going to have a better time trying to make things air tight in our laws then Joe Schmo who lives in your local trailer court or Patty Prostitute who works in the corner and the local dance club would.
Does anyone else want to point out to him the idiocy of this statement? Other then the fact that its happening right now?
Well, I wouldn't call it an idiotic statement. Having served on several boards and governmental bodies, as well as having served as a parliamentarian and a parliamentarian consultant for many organizations, I am often asked questions in regards to conflicts of interests, and while to the lei person they may be black and white, they very much are not.
Corporate's are not supposed to be people. They are not intended under the Constitution to have rights ergo they aren't allowed to lobby. The whole damn problem of money=speech and all people have freedom isn't even in exsistance if we finally correct a very stupid oversight that's been going on since the 1860's. Corporates are NOT people, one very STUPID Federal judge ruled in a case and in the opinion supporting that ruling said that Corporates must have been intended as people since they are not mentioned in the Constitution and it must have been an oversight/or they didn't know that there would be corporations The actual fact of the matter is the Founders DID know about Corporations and were fighting against them as much as the Crown of England as it was the Dutch East India company that got the tea tax raised in the first place. Further they specifically left commerce which includes corporations as regulated by every branch and level of government. So we have been dealing with a situation that NEVER should have happened except in Hamilton's wet dreams in the first place.
I conceded this point already, I don't know why you are expounding on it. I do agree that Corporations having personhood is a problem, but I do not believe it is the root of the problem.
You are right that it would not stop G Richard Wagoner Jr from lobbying but HE would have to show up himself as himself and all his doing be duly recorded. Very different from modern lobbying.
So as long as a common person goes and lobbies in person and doesn't hire anyone else to do it for them, then it is ok? I don't know about the rest of the people on here, but I don't have time to go to Washington DC every time I have a problem, now do I have the money. And you can't get the same effect of lobbying as you would from emailing as having a face to face meeting.
Furthermore, it would seem to me that you are also arguing against a lot of different organizations that are looking out for the public good. It would seem to me what these limitations would do would make organizations like AARP, USSA, NRA, and the ACLU among others obsolete and useless, even though they play an incredibly important role in today's political system by providing information that not everyone has. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/5/2009 6:45:09 PM | When I read the house version, there was very little stimulus for long term job creation and a lot of special interest. They need to streamline it and get the special interest stuff out of it. I will say, since I've read it and some of the stuff the senate is proposing....I've been wondering how long it would take to get Mr. Perks from Michigan to Washington, they can give him a coat with a new slogan
[Mr. Perks is a large pig that was parked outside the Capital Building (where all our legislators could see in) in Lansing MI] | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 12:20:10 AM | The prloblem here as i see it is this, Obama trusted Pelosi with leadership and she cannot lead the way it needs to be done. Congress has asked the American people to make sacrafices but they are not willing to sacrafice themselves. These pet projects or pork spending items that came out of the house should not have been included and Pelosi should have reigned in her's and other democrats wish list until this thing passed and fought republicans once they have proven to Americans that they could be trusted. But now all she has shown us and Obama that she and other democrats cannot be trusted.
In short she has fullfilled all the republicans predictions and some, Obama needs to be stern but respectfull when dealing with Pelosi and other democrats, and continue to seek republican support but only after he has reigned in dems in the house. Then go to republicans with a bill that passes the smell test. Let them kill the bill if they choose too, let them be accountable to the American people. The old rope a dope. One already knew what republicans were going to do and the democrats walked right into it. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 6:07:32 AM | Faith I fear this will work as well as FDR's public works program did. Meaning it will make work, but no jobs. Well except for the thousands of new government employees. Once the work is completed there won't be a job just like in the 30's. But, unlike the depression of the 30's there aren't the businesses to hire all the public make work employees. We don't have the industry here these days. We don't make anything anymore. Through a combination of cheaper labor overseas, higher taxes here, environmental restrictions, and permit delays for various reasons manufacturing has left the country for the most part. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 9:09:19 AM | Fire, Ezz, and R4... don't fight! You guys are in a great debate on the things that need to be done to really provide long term stability to our economy.
Fire is right. That list of actions is what must happen and you other guys are correct there are stumbling blocks to each. The issue isn't why not to achieve those tasks on the checklist, but how to remove the hurdles in the way. If we can't achieve what Fire lists, then we don't have a hope for anything stable and long term while doomed to the same boom/bust economy where we should just shelf any unwise stimulus and just ride it out until the next boom. Hoping of course there will be a next boom... there are no guarantees of that. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 11:11:25 AM | i personally think this package is a bad idea. and the "experts" aren't going to be very helpful. for one, economists look to historical trends and particular theories as a basis and to support their views. but no one's ever seen a situation like this, so really, no one can be an expert.
and all the opinions from individuals are going to be in step with their personal beliefs about free enterprise and the level of government and taxation that folks find tolerable.
something does need to be provided in terms of temporary safety nets for the unemployed and the underemployed and it needs to be done quickly. and i think refinancing EVERYONE who currently holds a mortgage on a fixed 2.5%, 30 year mortgage will pump money into the economy quickly, help with foreclosures and weed out those that should have never gotten mortgages in the first place. i'd like to see corporate and business taxes slashed. taxes on income should be replaced by taxes on consumption. oh, and get rid of all the lobbyist, lawyers and unions.
but this bill, it's just a liberal wet dream that our kids, our grandchildren and their kids will be paying for. and if people keep demonizing capitalism and free enterprise and nationalizing banks, the only jobs to be found will be with the government, who is already the largest employer in the u.s. if we raise our children right, the values and ethics we instill in them will stick when they become the ceo's, cfo's and leaders of tomorrow. i think that's better than the government regulating the life out of our free enterprise system.
thanks for listening....member fdic | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 11:26:12 AM | What do I think? A few Republicans are creating a media circus out of a few minor items. Someone put it correctly last week on one of the cable shows, the Democrats should've dropped all the tax cuts from the bill and then asked the Republicans if they wanted to negotiate.
Most of the items in the bill are fairly obvious. They're either 1) a safety net for the few million who already have or are about to lose their jobs, 2) items that will get jobs/money back into the economy quickly (the "shovel ready" programs), or 3) tax cuts. Of course, none of 1 & 2 are pretty, it's a bunch of social spending, and planned projects that were previously put on the back burner. It's very easy for Republicans to criticize money to prevent STDs (already dropped from the bill) until you realize that more and more women are already going into prostitution due to the economy and STD rates are rising evenly with the unemployment rate. Or heaven forbid we provide low income people with contraceptives during an economic downturn (also dropped) ... instead, we'll give them a tax cut to have more children (just brilliant!). The Republicans, as usual, turned anything sex or science related into a point of attack, and turned irrelevant and more costly tax cuts into a "solution".
The nice thing about infrastructure, health and energy related projects is that they have some potential to pay for themselves in the long run.
If anything, the dumbest parts of the bill are the tax cuts for individuals and first time home buyers, but good luck getting rid of those. Money to people who have jobs, but are worried about losing them, is not going to go back into the economy in any useful way. Handing out money to encourage more people who might not otherwise have money to buy homes to buy one is just going to add to the problem. Both sound great to voters though.
Then you get the talking heads saying we should be doing some mega-project with the money like a new energy grid (Joe Scarborough was blabbering about this all week). Great idea, but such projects are not "shovel ready". They would take a year or more to plan (I think there already is a small amount of money in the bill to start this planning). We'd already be well into a serious depression before any noticeable money on such a project would be spent. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 11:44:41 AM | A few Republicans are creating a media circus out of a few minor items
since when are billions of dollars "a few minor items". do YOU have billions sitting around? where do you think those BILLIONS come from! and those "few republicans" ( which included most of the democratic bluedogs) are finally speaking up for the fiscally conservative base that they represent (those 48% that did not vote for the current president). and sorry to tell you this, but this is how our system works. considering the size and scope of this bill do you really find debate and discussion so offensive? where do you think "transparency" comes from? and what if this doesn't work! will we get our money back? at least we're starting to get BILLIONS back on the bank bailouts.
liberals are taught in college not to ever debate republicans, just insult them on a personal level, and berate their beliefs and values. the liberal elite know that when it comes down to really looking at the issues and one's own beliefs, chances are most people are more conservative then they are comfortable admitting because it isn't "politically correct".
and again, they don't give a crap about what this will cost the taxpayers because so many democrats don't PAY their damn taxes and those that do pay fortunes to accountants to make sure they pay as little as possible. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 11:58:38 AM |
Make items here in this country for comsumption by those in this country (and creating products that people overseas might just want too). Stop importing goods into this country that we can make ourselves.
Can't do that. Read awhile ago that there is an agreement between China and US that US will import Chinese made products in exchange for loans to US.
Anyways, corporations would never allow that.
Bliss | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 12:19:22 PM | There's a lot of similarity between the "stimulus package" of contemporary times, and the package that was used in the early 80's called "trickle down". Both infuse the economy with funds and spending programs. Trickle down did a lot of good, and while admitting that the program was expensive in early years, by the end of that president's terms in office, the economy was doing well and the government was poised for revenue generation putting it back in the black again, even with debt retirement. Back then, it was considered "investment". I believe that if the current "stimulus package" can be refined just a bit to highlight its "investment" characteristics, then it should go far. More power to him if Mr. Obama can walk in Mr. Reagan's footsteps. | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 1:02:19 PM | http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
When democrats are in charge, more people get jobs. When repugnantins are in charge the rich get ricer by destroying jobs.
Reagan called for smaller government and tripled it's size.
When bush asked for a stimulus package for the rich, it was all about tinkle down economics When Obama is promoting a package that will hire people repugnantins cry about it hurting the rich.
Democrats want to help people get jobs, Repugnantins want to improve their stock portfolio's | |
|
| How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 2/6/2009 1:12:09 PM | ^I really don't think either one was directly all "about" stock portfolios. However, that does bring up a good point. If Mr. Reagan's made for stronger organizations that would sustain themselves (ie: what a good stock investment is supposed to be all about) and Obama's isn't, then the current plan will never develop a environment of sustainability for those jobs to ever be able then to wean themselves off of government dependence, like Mr. Reagan's program did. This then only invites the same amount to be spent over and over again without natural economy supply and demand taking over to control the reigns for useful products and services. The only way then to wean the workers in this case would then be to "un-create" the jobs again at a later date. In other words, it wouldn't be mitigating the unemployment really, but rather would only just defer it. It's the difference between giving a fish and teaching and allowing for one to fish on their own. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|