10 Reasons To Oppose Stimulus Package

UNTflyer · February 6, 2009

That is the worst chart I have seen in ... well... ever.

Good God. It's almost as confusing as the tax code.

oldguystudent · February 6, 2009

Good God. It's almost as confusing as the tax code.

You know, in looking at it again, I wonder if that's the point.

UNTflyer · February 6, 2009

Another example of how government management is wasteful:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government overpaid for stocks and other assets in attempting to help financial institutions last year, a government watchdog said Thursday, taking further issue with the beleaguered $700 billion rescue program.

Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bailout funds, told the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday that Treasury in 2008 paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion.

And why is government management wasteful? Because there is no profit incentive.

Edited February 6, 2009 by UNTflyer

February 6, 2009

And why is government management wasteful? Because there is no profit incentive.

Others will say, "why are we in this mess? because of the ends justifies the means, profit at all cost, screw the middle men, I want my profit, incentive."

GreenMachine · February 6, 2009

Others will say, "why are we in this mess? because of the ends justifies the means, profit at all cost, screw the middle men, I want my profit, incentive."

exactly, the purpose of business is to pull a profit. Remember business 101, "The main goal of a business is to increase shareholders wealth". Business is good, not evil.

UNTflyer · February 6, 2009

Others will say, "why are we in this mess? because of the ends justifies the means, profit at all cost, screw the middle men, I want my profit, incentive."

We are not in this economic mess because of the pursuit of profit. We are in this mess because of bad decisions made in the pursuit of profit.

Edited February 6, 2009 by UNTflyer

forevereagle · February 6, 2009

We are not in this economic mess because of the pursuit of profit. We are in this mess because of bad decisions made in the pursuit of profit.

Isn't that just splitting hairs? If no one was pursuing profit, there would never be bad decisions in the pursuit of profit.

So, in closing, money is the root of all evil.

UNTflyer · February 6, 2009

Isn't that just splitting hairs? If no one was pursuing profit, there would never be bad decisions in the pursuit of profit.
So, in closing, money is the root of all evil.

No. Government does not pursue profit, and the result is waste, waste, waste.

Profit is good. Greed is good. In best practice, decisions to drive sustained profit make the best and most efficient use of resources. Decisions to grab up and much money as possible in the shortest amount of time usually results in bad decisions and messy results.

meangreendork · February 6, 2009

Isn't that just splitting hairs? If no one was pursuing profit, there would never be bad decisions in the pursuit of profit.
So, in closing, money is the root of all evil.

Yes and no. People going out, making money is all fine and good. That's what makes capitalism what it is, and what makes capitalism good. Profit and competition for the masses and stuff. But when people go to unusual, risky, and predatory lengths to do so, those actions often have an interesting effect. While they do generate faster profit, in the course of doing so, it really throws off the balance of the surrounding economy, and when in the scale of a global marketplace, you're looking at massive re-distributions of wealth in a small amount of time.

It's like standing on one side of a small boat and walking to the next, with you representing the transfer of money. As you move slowly and steadily back and forth, the boat rocks a bit, or sways, but nothing bad happens. But if you sprint or jump from one side to the next, not only will the boat rock more and get less steady, it'll eventually toss you out. Normally, common sense in the marketplace keeps people from "sprinting across the boat", but in this case, it didn't.

oldguystudent · February 6, 2009

No. Government does not pursue profit, and the result is waste, waste, waste.
Profit is good. Greed is good. Decisions to grab up and much money as possible in the shortest amount of time usually results in bad decisions and messy results.

A ha! I've been blaming shareholders and market speculators for this one for years. Nice, steady high single digit growth has been "unacceptable" beginning probably in the mid nineties. It's one of the reasons that I left my job because the annual quota increases ranging from 47-80% were simply not sustainable year after year. But those shareholders demanded that kind of performance dammit, and if your puny 25% annual growth was all you could do, then you're the biggest a-hole in the company. Things got mighty shady around there when the publicly held company sold us off to the private equity firm with borrowed money based on fabricated double digit growth statements. None of this had anything to do with either political party IMO. It's just a culture of get rich quick greed, it's a ponzy scheme, and it's bound to fail eventually, leaving the last one holding the bag with a bill of goods indeed.

ETA -- I guess I should add the spurning of dividend companies in favor of capital growth over the past 15 years or so. In recent times it simply hasn't been enough to make a profit and reap the dividends.

Edited February 6, 2009 by oldguystudent

forevereagle · February 6, 2009

No. Government does not pursue profit, and the result is waste, waste, waste.

I didn't say anything about government. I said that if no one was pursuing profit, not mentioning government as pursing profit. Besides, I partially disagree with that sentiment. Individuals in government are pursuing profit. That is what leads to a lot of waste. Individual profit over the greater need of all.

Profit is good. Greed is good. In best practice, decisions to drive sustained profit make the best and most efficient use of resources. Decisions to grab up and much money as possible in the shortest amount of time usually results in bad decisions and messy results.

Decisions to drive sustained profit just result in different bad decisions. Collusion and bait and switch are good examples of this. They are still alive today, and they are great at driving sustained profitibility. Just ask Target, Macy's, etc. about how long they were able to sustain profit by colluding.

Trying to make a lot of money in a short amount of time is the premise of American business. Sure, everyone is looking for sustainibility, but no one is above a quick buck. Companies milk opportunity for short term gain all the time. Fads come and go, but the people looking to profit from them are always around. A lack of ethics is what has created this problem, not the pursuit of profit.

Yes and no. People going out, making money is all fine and good. That's what makes capitalism what it is, and what makes capitalism good. Profit and competition for the masses and stuff. But when people go to unusual, risky, and predatory lengths to do so, those actions often have an interesting effect. While they do generate faster profit, in the course of doing so, it really throws off the balance of the surrounding economy, and when in the scale of a global marketplace, you're looking at massive re-distributions of wealth in a small amount of time.
It's like standing on one side of a small boat and walking to the next, with you representing the transfer of money. As you move slowly and steadily back and forth, the boat rocks a bit, or sways, but nothing bad happens. But if you sprint or jump from one side to the next, not only will the boat rock more and get less steady, it'll eventually toss you out. Normally, common sense in the marketplace keeps people from "sprinting across the boat", but in this case, it didn't.

The money being the root of all evil was a little joke. Obviously smart-assery and sarcasm do not translate well to the written word.

Edited February 6, 2009 by forevereagle

meangreendork · February 6, 2009

The money being the root of all evil was a little joke. Obviously smart-assery and sarcasm do not translate well to the written word.

No worries. Besides, your line was a good segue to my point, which was more related to UNTFlyer's post that was prior to mine.

Coffee and TV · February 6, 2009

No. Government does not pursue profit, and the result is waste, waste, waste.

You do know that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, right? They would provide services that would be deemed unprofitable for private enterprise. The Postal Service and the Military are two of the earliest examples.

Greed is good.

Well aren't you a regular Gordon Gecko.

Decisions to grab up and much money as possible in the shortest amount of time usually results in bad decisions and messy results.

That's generally the definition of what greed is.

You sir, are a great source of unintentional humor.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Coffee and TV

KRAM1 · February 6, 2009

It took less than one month in office for the whole "Obama" administration to be put on the defense. The man is an empty suit, and it is becomming more clear to everyone each day. Where is his "leadership" in all this? The man has "no clue" how to lead, and this is just the start of four years of social engineering and spend, spend, spend policies. Remember how well all those "spend our way out of the depression" government programs under FDR worked? Well, you have that same "stinking thinking" comeing out of the White House today.

Wow, even a fractured and "defeated" Republican Party has been able in a record short time to put this administration on the defensive. I would have never thought this would have happened so fast. Reid has said he had 60 votes to at least move the package to closure some 48 hours ago. If he, indeed, did have the 60 votes...which he obviously does not...why is the debate still "on" in DC? Amazing turn of events, simply amazing.

Quoner · February 6, 2009

It took less than one month in office for the whole "Obama" administration to be put on the defense. The man is an empty suit, and it is becomming more clear to everyone each day. Where is his "leadership" in all this? The man has "no clue" how to lead, and this is just the start of four years of social engineering and spend, spend, spend policies. Remember how well all those "spend our way out of the depression" government programs under FDR worked? Well, you have that same "stinking thinking" comeing out of the White House today.
Wow, even a fractured and "defeated" Republican Party has been able in a record short time to put this administration on the defensive. I would have never thought this would have happened so fast. Reid has said he had 60 votes to at least move the package to closure some 48 hours ago. If he, indeed, did have the 60 votes...which he obviously does not...why is the debate still "on" in DC? Amazing turn of events, simply amazing.

So, you probably think I voted for Obama and don't want to hear what I have to say...but...

If Obama is starting off his career as a failure, doesn't he need our support more than ever? Bush left the White House program in shambles and, despite some early accomplishments, had a pretty miserable end run. Won't it take time to recover from that mess? Can we really expect success immediately? The transitions haven't even been completed yet - some o those staffers are still Bush's guys and probably don't even have Barack's back!

I just think you have to give Obama a fair shot and support him. We are all members of the United States of America here and that is what counts. Presidents come and go - but we are America! I just think you gotta give the guy four years before you judge him.

GreenMachine · February 6, 2009

after reading so many different opinions and views, it would be very interesting to know each person's occupation and salary range. I know this is very personal and is a subject to never be discussed but I bet people's opinion on the economy, social issues, etc closely correlates to their current earning power.

yyz28 · February 6, 2009

I just think you have to give Obama a fair shot and support him. We are all members of the United States of America here and that is what counts. Presidents come and go - but we are America! I just think you gotta give the guy four years before you judge him.

I absolutely DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT him if he is promoting policies and pushing legislation that I believe is DANGEROUS for this country. Part of why Bush "left the White House in shambles" is because he was spending money like a drunken Democrat. It is my single biggest bitch about the guy. We had the two biggest increases in social and government spending in our history under him in the forms of the Medicare program and the TARP funds. ...the answer to this problem is NOT more Government spending.

Had Obama and this congress come forward with a solid package of tax cuts with shovel ready projects that might actually put some folks to work, then I'd probably be supporting him and this bill. ...but only 10% of this package might stimulate the economy... so let's spend the 90 Billion that might have a positive impact that's already in the bill and save the next two generations the other $810 Billion.

I don't measure his success or failure by the health of the economy 3 weeks in - that's not fair. ...but I do measure it by the decisions he's made and the policies he's trying to promote.

Allowing states to override federal emissions standards while Detroit is on its back - Bad Decision

Nominating 3 tax cheats to the Cabinet - Bad Decision

Writing an Op-Ed and whining on National TV about how we need this Pork-Package despite the fact it won't stimulate ANYTHING other than the Federal Government - Bad Decision

Stating you're going to close Gitmo and bash how the country has handled the war on Terror to a degree which allows the Iranian president to state that we've lost the "PR War on Terror" - Bad Decision

...his speech in Virginia last night - Bad Decision

Ignoring the Government policies towards banking and mortgages that got us in this mess in the first place - Bad Decision

This guy swore up and down he was going to bring a new tone and be Bi-Partisan. The only Bi-Partisan part of this Stimulus thing is the opposition towards it. He was in office for LESS THAN A WEEK before he whips out this reward to the powers that be that got him elected. It's really disappointing - I expected more based on his campaign promises.

Japan tried the stimulus thing without tax cuts 5 times during their 10 year recession and it didn't work. We don't need to become more like Socialist Europe. We need to go back to what has worked in the past. GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS.

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM! GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!

Quoner · February 7, 2009

I absolutely DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT him if he is promoting policies and pushing legislation that I believe is DANGEROUS for this country. Part of why Bush "left the White House in shambles" is because he was spending money like a drunken Democrat. It is my single biggest bitch about the guy. We had the two biggest increases in social and government spending in our history under him in the forms of the Medicare program and the TARP funds. ...the answer to this problem is NOT more Government spending.
Had Obama and this congress come forward with a solid package of tax cuts with shovel ready projects that might actually put some folks to work, then I'd probably be supporting him and this bill. ...but only 10% of this package might stimulate the economy... so let's spend the 90 Billion that might have a positive impact that's already in the bill and save the next two generations the other $810 Billion.
I don't measure his success or failure by the health of the economy 3 weeks in - that's not fair. ...but I do measure it by the decisions he's made and the policies he's trying to promote.
Allowing states to override federal emissions standards while Detroit is on its back - Bad Decision
Nominating 3 tax cheats to the Cabinet - Bad Decision
Writing an Op-Ed and whining on National TV about how we need this Pork-Package despite the fact it won't stimulate ANYTHING other than the Federal Government - Bad Decision
Stating you're going to close Gitmo and bash how the country has handled the war on Terror to a degree which allows the Iranian president to state that we've lost the "PR War on Terror" - Bad Decision
...his speech in Virginia last night - Bad Decision
Ignoring the Government policies towards banking and mortgages that got us in this mess in the first place - Bad Decision
This guy swore up and down he was going to bring a new tone and be Bi-Partisan. The only Bi-Partisan part of this Stimulus thing is the opposition towards it. He was in office for LESS THAN A WEEK before he whips out this reward to the powers that be that got him elected. It's really disappointing - I expected more based on his campaign promises.
Japan tried the stimulus thing without tax cuts 5 times during their 10 year recession and it didn't work. We don't need to become more like Socialist Europe. We need to go back to what has worked in the past. GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM! GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!

But he's the president and he's ours to support!!!!

Obama's forgotten more about politics than you know! What political experience do you have to question him? When it comes to politics, I'm going to trust the guys in the Oval Office every time!

Edited February 7, 2009 by Quoner

UNTflyer · February 7, 2009

You do know that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, right? They would provide services that would be deemed unprofitable for private enterprise. The Postal Service and the Military are two of the earliest examples.

LOL! No, stop! Seriously. The postal service and military were considered critical functions of government, they were not created because they were deemed unprofitable. And in no way did the founders see government as a system to provide unprofitable services.

I think you may need to go back and read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers. Here are a few suggestions:

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

The Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton

And while not a founding father, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" is essentially the basis for the modern capitalist system.

Well aren't you a regular Gordon Gecko.

Gekko, actually. And while I am not a thief, I do believe in the American capitalist system as Gekko did.

UNTflyer · February 7, 2009

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...over-long-haul/

eulesseagle · February 7, 2009

Congress, both sides, started forcing banks to make loans to unqualified people about 10-15 years ago. Undocumented illegals were able to purchase homes with no documentation other than......su trajabo es su creditco. All other individuals who could not qualify for home loans were able to get them because the force that Congress placed on the banks to loan the money....in the name of "political correctness." That presented a BIG problem and we are paying for it.

Now Congress is "forcing" the American taxpayer to "bail out" their politically correct mistake and blaming their error of judgement on bank executives and their greed??? I was born at night but not last night!!

Europe......hummmmmm. They do enjoy an economic freedom "only" because the USA supplies them with our own economic stimulus such as military protection. Let them protect themselves......I really do not think that the "old enemies" of the European past are going to start any more nationalistic movements for "living space." Oppps....Clinton did give the nationalistic Serbs, Bosnians and Muslims their own part of the Balkins......hey, that is where our new Sec. of State came under "sniper fire" back in the 90's......what a brave woman.

Infrastructure.....???? Dudes, Congress spends that gas tax as pork.....not on roads how it was orignally designated.

The USA is way over half way toward a "socialist society anyway. Just look around:

1. Transportation system......air and rail.....subsidized by the govt.

2. Schools...........................yep, ask a principal if they can do anything without asking the govt first.

3. MHMR and Nursing Homes.......they get their bucks from "Uncle Sammy" too.....ask anyone in those industries what happens when they get the state government in for an audit or review......it is like working for the government with all the state and fed forms you have to fill out to get federal/state money to run these joints.

4. Social Security.....what SS??? that money does not go to SS it is just another tax for special projects all over the world.

5. Welfare......not that I am against legitimate welfare but when illegals start getting, as much as $2500/month on USTres paper my wallet has become one of the government's ATM machines.....just like all of your wallets. An interesting concept that the new administration has adopted.....that is giving free medical insurance to individual who make up to $80K. Hummm......first the govt hooks the poor and gets them hooked on the govt. dole now they want to do the same thing with the middle class. Once the middle class starts taking this so called free money then you can spell it like this AMERIKa.

I could go on with other examples but look at ALL the money that Congress sends ALL over the world.

time for another beer....adios amigos.

oldguystudent · February 7, 2009

2. Schools...........................yep, ask a principal if they can do anything without asking the govt first.

To a certain extent I agree. On the other hand, how many free market capitalist UNT alumni would have achieved a college degree without government subsidies to their public university tuition?

eulesseagle · February 7, 2009

states being to revolt on the stimulus:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=88218

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=725

Edited February 7, 2009 by eulesseagle

UNTflyer · February 7, 2009

To a certain extent I agree. On the other hand, how many free market capitalist UNT alumni would have achieved a college degree without government subsidies to their public university tuition?

Primary education is one of those few things I think government cannot possibly spend too much money. However, I believe in vouchers for K-12 schooling because once again we go back to the profit motivation. Private schools spend less per student and do a hell of a better job at educating. I also believe that no matter how much funding we throw at it, students still need to pay for college.

oldguystudent · February 7, 2009

Primary education is one of those few things I think government cannot possibly spend too much money. However, I believe in vouchers for K-12 schooling because once again we go back to the profit motivation. Private schools spend less per student and do a hell of a better job at educating. I also believe that no matter how much funding we throw at it, students still need to pay for college.

I'll preface this with the fact that as a textbook rep during NCLB, I am absolutely convinced that millions upon millions upon millions of dollars thrown at public education buy me a nice house in Frisco, but produce absolutely no results in education.

I've thought a lot about the voucher issue, and my concern with it isn't one of religion. It's one of seeing chain schools pop up all over the country with names like "Westfield Elementary, brought to you by Chili's". The Berlitz's and the Sylvans of the world would expand into general education, and pump out a cookie cutter curriculum that isn't wasteful like public school, but would be about as useful as a degree from the University of Phoenix. Also, since the vouchers would be federal funding, the government would still have its hand in what gets taught and what gets printed in the textbooks. I'm not convinced that the end product would be an improvement over the existing boondoggle that is public schooling. As I see the profit motive, it's my job as a capitalist to provide as little product possible for as much money as possible. I just don't think that the average school, accessible with vouchers alone, would be on par with the Hockaday School.

The plus side of public education is that at least it has minimum standards. In the wealthier neighborhoods, the parents see to it that those minimum standards are exceeded. In the poorer neighborhoods, they live with what they get. You go private, and I'm not sure the poorer neighborhoods would even get the current minimum. You stay public, and we continue to increasingly dumb down the population by catering to the absolute lowest common denominator.

I honestly don't know what the solution to education is. I've seen first hand the complete and utter waste that is public education...especially in large urban districts. Those places are little fiefdoms run by also ran politicians.

So what do we do? Eliminate local property and federal income taxes for education and just let the people pay as they go? Nah, that puts welfare truants all over the streets. I am at a complete loss for any kind of answer on this issue.