10 Reasons To Oppose Stimulus Package

[UNTflyer]

The current economic situation is not of his doing? Please tell me how long it takes for something like this to get started, and how long someone can ignore it before someone has to take responsibility for it. If you don't think Bush is in any way responsible for this mess, then I see little point in electing any President.

The President is not responsible for the economy. He has no power to spend money, he has no power to raise or lower taxes. He does not tell corporations how to manage their firms. The people who take responsibility for this mess are the people who created it - irresponsible citizens (by having their mortgages foreclosed), indifferent investors (who watch their stock portfolios fall), and business managers who failed to manage their books.

To compare the $500 Billion in wasted money plus all the bad diplomacy and hatred that it's bought America, to an overinflated stimulus package is to me

absolutely absurd. If Bush and his chicken hawk war mongers had spent even half of that $500 Billion in infrastructure projects INSTEAD of sending the

Army to do a CIA/FBI mission, not to mention the absurd waste of money that creating homeland security has cost us, our mess wouldn't be nearly as big.

The last budget proposed by Bush was $3.1 trillion. About $100 billion was for the war, leaving "only" $3 trillion to funds infrastructure projects, schools, the federal government, etc. If $3 trillion dollars of government spending isn't going to keep the economy going, how will another $875 billion do it?

See, the problem here is that you seem to think the government drives the economy... it doesn't. All it does is suck money out of the most efficient economic system in history and places it into the most wasteful, bloated government in history. It's laughable, yet sad that you're obsessed with blaming Bush for something over which he had no power. People drive capitalist markets, not governments. And the $500 billion spent on the war is nothing compared to the $18 trillion spent by Congress during his 8 years in office.

Instead of spending $875 billion, how about giving back that money to the taxpayers (the real taxpayers, not the people who already get back more than they put in)? Let THEM spend the money on what they need and want. A permanent tax cut will boost the confidence of investors, and will help jumpstart the credit markets again. Nope... we're going to let the government waste a trillion dollars, most of it not even reaching the economy until 2011.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"

[meangreendork]

One of the reasons that I don't necessarily believe in the 100% free market is because I do believe that a fool and his money are soon parted. I also believe that there are plenty of people willing to take that fool's money. Sadly, by definition, half the population is of below average intelligence, and average just isn't very high. In the end, the 10% of the population with the financial sense to take the money has all of it, and the other 90% are left wondering the earth in rags and living in shanty towns. Then what? I just don't have enough faith in human nature to believe that trickle down economics works. Like communism, it works in [homersimpsonvoice]theory[/homersimpsonvoice].

You and I are now best friends forever. You can't have a fully free-market economy. Given enough time, the greedy are going to make full use of the power money gives them and they'll basically horde it. But you also can't put the economy entirely in the hands of the government. Why? Because you'll have what amounts to the same results. Speaking of communism, the government having its hands in EVERYTHING basically gave all the power and money to the wrong people.

Careful balance. Careful balance.

[UNTflyer]

I see both sides of this. I have friends that bought...no. I have friends that took out stupid mortgages on houses with price tags beyond their means. I tried to talk them out of it, but they wouldn't listen. I feel they should bear responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, I've seen the sales pitches some of these mortgage brokers were throwing out at the financially illiterate with no oversight whatsoever. Get someone on food stamps to sign on the dotted line and win a trip to Puerta Vallarta!

One of the reasons that I don't necessarily believe in the 100% free market is because I do believe that a fool and his money are soon parted. I also believe that there are plenty of people willing to take that fool's money. Sadly, by definition, half the population is of below average intelligence, and average just isn't very high. In the end, the 10% of the population with the financial sense to take the money has all of it, and the other 90% are left wondering the earth in rags and living in shanty towns. Then what? I just don't have enough faith in human nature to believe that trickle down economics works. Like communism, it works in [homersimpsonvoice]theory[/homersimpsonvoice].

Clinton and Bush both have a hand in the complete lack of oversight over the past several years. The Clinton administration allowed for banks to offer brokerage services and vice versa. The Bush administration did nothing to reign it all in and stood atop a national soap box pushing America for a "society of ownership."

Whoever just posted that we all should just agree that all politicians are evil regardless of which side of the aisle they sit was right on in my humble opinion.

A 100% free market cannot exist, because it requires perfect information and perfect competition to work. So some regulation is required. And I'm all for regulation, except when politicians use regulation to push an agenda other than protection of consumers. I will disagree one one point... Bush did say, many times, that Fannie/Freddie was in trouble and Congress needed to do something about it. He was ignored.

[oldguystudent]

I will disagree one one point... Bush did say, many times, that Fannie/Freddie was in trouble and Congress needed to do something about it. He was ignored.

Fair enough.

[UNTFan23]

A 100% free market cannot exist, because it requires perfect information and perfect competition to work. So some regulation is required. And I'm all for regulation, except when politicians use regulation to push an agenda other than protection of consumers. I will disagree one one point... Bush did say, many times, that Fannie/Freddie was in trouble and Congress needed to do something about it. He was ignored.

I expect the government to come down like a massive sledge hammer on the financial industry like they did on Corporate America with Sarbanes-Oxley. I'm very concerned at how much access consumers will have to financial capital to do things like buy cars and homes and what type of impact that will have on our economy.

I have little faith in our government getting this one right based on how things have been handled in the past.

Edited January 30, 2009 by UNTFan23

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

So Bush should be responsible for the past 6 to 7 years of consumer irresponsibility? Puh-lease!

I wish the CEO of my employer would take the fall if I do something stupid at work.

I am still going hold on to the notion that W didn't hold a gun to those home buyers' heads and force them to buy that house they couldn't afford on a variable rate 30 year note.

---The problem is the financial community..... They made loans that should not have been made and expect the USA to bail them out after they went bad. Meanwhile the directors are getting bonuses and are feeling no real pain. (personal greed)

---The only responsibility the Bush government had was to keep regulations in place to keep this from happening. They didn't... They kept yelling less government regulation... and they got it ... and this is what WE get... the tax payers get to bail them out.......because of less government regulations and less government oversight.

---If we are going to have less government regulations then don't expect any government help either if things go bad. ... just let them fail which means no big bonuses for people who were too incompetent to stay solvent.

--They just should not be able to have it both ways... no regulation but get government help. We should only help if we had good controls in place.

True capitalism means minimal government and no help when you fail... ie. too bad.

Edited January 30, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

Presidents do not drive the economy, consumers do. And when Bush told Americans to continue on with their lives, take vacations, buy cars and houses, it worked. The 2001/2002 recession was quite mild, and Americans spent money and the economy rebounded. I know how you Bush-Haters love to pile it on, but this economic problem is not his doing.

There are many factors that have caused this crisis. A major factor was Greenspan's policy of low interest rates and under-regulation of subprime lenders, backed by Fannie and Freddie policies to provide housing to low-income families who had no means to repay the loans, that created an enormous housing bubble that burst. High oil and gas prices last year aggravated the problem, and prices for just about everything began to rise. Mortgage-backed securities full of bad mortgage loans then froze the credit market.

As for your 2nd hyperbolic statement, it's been rehashed ad nauseum. Whatever the arguments for or against the war, which Obama has yet to end, the $500 billion spent on spent so far on the war is still only half of what our current President wants to spend.

$275 billion for "tax cuts" - most of that will go to people who do not pay income taxes. I thought we already had welfare.

$87 billion for Medicaid - not really a stimulus, just propping up a failed social program. Wait ten years when you see how much it will take to prop up Social Security.

$79 billion for direct state aid - most of that to turn the red ink to black. Again, no real stimulus, just shifting the money around.

$43 billion for unemployment benefits - money spent on unproductive people

$39 billion for health insurance for the newly unemployed - again, money spent on unproductive people

$20 billion for food stamps - money spent on unproductive people

Of the $825 billion package, only $144 billion is actually earmarked for infrastructure projects. That's $681 BILLION that will be wasted and will result in very little stimulus to the economy. But when the economy bounces back in the next 12-18 months (as capitalist systems always do when left to their own devices), Obama will be patted on the back for his brilliant economic policies.

So many incorrect right-wing talking points, so little time.

Just come out and admit you're a Republican shill. You'll feel a lot better with that weight off your chest.

[SilverEagle]

So many incorrect right-wing talking points, so little time.

Just come out and admit you're a Republican shill. You'll feel a lot better with that weight off your chest.

Well, I have to say that if you are going to be a shill, be a shill for a group that can (potentially) pay you well.

[GreenMachine]

So many incorrect right-wing talking points, so little time.

Just come out and admit you're a Republican shill. You'll feel a lot better with that weight off your chest.

believe me, if the talking points are wrong, the left will be sure to point it out. However, as we speak this package is losing more and more public support. Its just not a stimulus package, its a spending package. Please inform all us ignorant republicans how these items will stimulate our economy.

Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:

$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.

$2 billion to help subsidize child care.

$400 million for research into global warming.

$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.

$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.

$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.

$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.

$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.

$2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.

$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.

$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.

$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.

$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.

$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.

$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.

$10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.

$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Well, I have to say that if you are going to be a shill, be a shill for a group that can (potentially) pay you well.

.

Really... Isn't Warren Buffit a Democrat..??

Thought so.

GOP people tend to be people what think they are rich and actually believe that they have gotten all of these tax cuts...and usually haven't.

---also the so-called ??RICH?? on Wall Street are going broke and now want (horrors) GOVERNMENT HELP..!!! .... while complaining about other welfare such as food stamps for the poor.

Edited January 30, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[yyz28]

So many incorrect right-wing talking points, so little time.

Just come out and admit you're a Republican shill. You'll feel a lot better with that weight off your chest.

The response of someone without one.

[UNTflyer]

So many incorrect right-wing talking points, so little time.

Just come out and admit you're a Republican shill. You'll feel a lot better with that weight off your chest.

I'm a Libertarian, sir. I'm a fiscal conservative, a strict constitutionalist, and a social liberal.

Now that that's out of the way, care to defend any of these massive appropriations as being good for stimulating the economy? Or do you just want to bash those you disagree with?

[SilverEagle]

believe me, if the talking points are wrong, the left will be sure to point it out. However, as we speak this package is losing more and more public support. Its just not a stimulus package, its a spending package. Please inform all us ignorant republicans how these items will stimulate our economy.

Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:

$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.

$2 billion to help subsidize child care.

$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.

Child care and feeding poor children (who are amongst the most poor) is money well spend. We MUST support the future foundation of our society. Otherwise we better all find a nice gated (with the latest security measures) to live in.

No, Amtrak has never turned a profit, but then, passenger service was never profitable when the private sector ran it. However, they do a fantastic job considering that they don't own their own tracks and must run their schedule around the various freight schedules that they share a track with. Actually they must always yeild to the frieght traffic. BTW, the airline industry is subsidized as well.

[Green Mean]

I like pizza.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I like pizza.

Hey me too! Something we have in common...I like pepperoni and mushroom thin crust. Think I'll have one tonight

[forevereagle]

GreenMachine,

Any money spent helps the economy. It is basic macro economics. To get the economy moving again, money needs to be changing hands. You may not agree with how the money is being spent, but the fact that it is being spent helps. The more money changing hands, the stronger the economy. Many of these expenditures go towards helping create, or simply maintain, jobs. As I stated earlier, neither side is correct and we are all arguing about something that we can do nothing about. Try complaining to your Senator about what is going on. He or she will listen to you and then turn around and make their own decision. That is the way of the world.

For what it is worth, I am going to give everyone a nugget of wisdom. Telling someone else that they are wrong because theu disagree with you negates your own opinion.

Edited January 30, 2009 by forevereagle

[GreenMachine]

Child care and feeding poor children (who are amongst the most poor) is money well spend. We MUST support the future foundation of our society. Otherwise we better all find a nice gated (with the latest security measures) to live in.

couldn't agree more, just don't believe that it should be included in a STIMULUS package.

[UNTflyer]

GreenMachine,

Any money spent helps the economy. It is basic macro economics. To get the economy moving again, money needs to be changing hands. You may not agree with how the money is being spent, but the fact that it is being spent helps.

Well, first... private spending is much more efficient. That's the argument here... should government spend it (wasteful) or should the people spend it (efficient)?

Take $825 billion of taxpayer money. The best and most efficient way to stimulate the economy with it is through direct and permanent tax cuts. It has worked every single time. The worst thing to do is spend it on government programs, like Hoover and FDR did. The only lab we have to test economic theory is the history books... and it shows that tax cuts trump government spending every time.

[oldguystudent]

Well, first... private spending is much more efficient. That's the argument here... should government spend it (wasteful) or should the people spend it (efficient)?

Take $825 billion of taxpayer money. The best and most efficient way to stimulate the economy with it is through direct and permanent tax cuts. It has worked every single time. The worst thing to do is spend it on government programs, like Hoover and FDR did. The only lab we have to test economic theory is the history books... and it shows that tax cuts trump government spending every time.

Direct and permanent tax cuts for whom? We know that the bulk of the tax burden lies on the shoulders of the wealthy right? So you relieve them of their tax burden and what are they going to do with the money? Trickle it down through the rest of society? I think not.

Really, I don't think the government should be spending or cutting taxes. We're in enough debt as it is.

[keith]

Obama's feigned "disgust" over the bonuses is laughable. He's just pandering to the left and media and it seems like a lot of clueless people buy the drivel that comes out of his mouth.

Remember when Congress said they were going to "cut" or "restrict" executive bonuses as part of that first emergency bail-out? Well that didn't mean the bonuses were actually getting cut, what it meant is the government was going to tax a larger percentage of the bonus. They wanted the bonuses paid out so they would get more money. Plain and simple....the government wanted its take.

A lot of firms actually did exactly what the government did NOT want them to do. They took bonuses to zero. Now, the state of New York is missing about $15 Billion in revenue that they would have taken on the taxes of those bonuses. So, in this "stimulus" package you have billions and billions of transfers from the Federal government to states like New York and cities like New York City to make up for these revenue shortfalls.

The best thing our Federal government can do is do nothing. They all need to go back to their home states for about 6 months and just shut up.

Keith

[UNTflyer]

Direct and permanent tax cuts for whom? We know that the bulk of the tax burden lies on the shoulders of the wealthy right? So you relieve them of their tax burden and what are they going to do with the money? Trickle it down through the rest of society? I think not.

Really, I don't think the government should be spending or cutting taxes. We're in enough debt as it is.

Tax cuts in the form of a reduction in the income tax rate for every single income bracket.

No new credits, no new deductions... a simple reduction in the tax rate.

Does that mean the rich get a tax cut... yes. It also means the entire middle class gets a cut as well. I also want to see the cap on the Hope Tax Credit and Education Tax Credit raised. Been going to school for five years and cannot deduct a single red cent of my education expenses.

Edited January 30, 2009 by UNTflyer

[oldguystudent]

Been going to school for five years and cannot deduct a single red cent of my education expenses.

Speaking of which, I just got the UNT statement in the mail. I never knew anything about deducting tuition expenses. Can I do that with a degree already in hand or am I screwed like you?

ETA -- Just looked that up, and it looks quite promising since I didn't work for real money for the last six months of the year.

Edited January 30, 2009 by oldguystudent

[yyz28]

Direct and permanent tax cuts for whom? We know that the bulk of the tax burden lies on the shoulders of the wealthy right? So you relieve them of their tax burden and what are they going to do with the money? Trickle it down through the rest of society? I think not.

Really, I don't think the government should be spending or cutting taxes. We're in enough debt as it is.

Trickle down DOES work. Rich don't sit on their money. They invest it. Investment creates new jobs and new business opportunities for new people to become Rich. Taxing capital gains and over-burdening business with high tax rates only hurts the people employed by and do business with by companies and individuals who get targeted.

I agree with half of your second sentence. The government SHOULD NOT be spending on 85% of what it spends on. ...get the government spending for the purposes outlined for them to spend in the Constitution and watch the debt disappear in a biiiiiiiiiiiig friggin' hurry...

[UNTflyer]

Even the infrastructure parts of this scheme won't work. Nobody is going to run out and create an asphalt company or a general contractor to build roads and bridges, especially with the credit market the way it is. The contracts will go to existing firms and other work will be put off. Few jobs, if any, will be created.

Here are two much better ideas than this trillion dollar spending bill.

1. Permanent tax cuts across all of the income brackets, or

B. Guaranteed loans to businesses who are trying to expand but can't due to the credit market freeze

[keith]

Even the infrastructure parts of this scheme won't work. Nobody is going to run out and create an asphalt company or a general contractor to build roads and bridges, especially with the credit market the way it is. The contracts will go to existing firms and other work will be put off. Few jobs, if any, will be created.

Here are two much better ideas than this trillion dollar spending bill.

1. Permanent tax cuts across all of the income brackets, or

B. Guaranteed loans to businesses who are trying to expand but can't due to the credit market freeze

Deep and permanent tax cuts are the way out. Not only for individuals (the only entity on the planet that really pays taxes), but for all businesses too. If the US had the guts to cut corporate/business tax rates to, say, 5% there would be flow of capital into the U.S. that has never been seen before.

For all the bleeding hearts that only want to raise taxes, you are free to pay more taxes if you want to. Nothing prevents you from sending the Feds your money....you know being "patriotic" and all.

Keith