But...isn't that why the tax cuts are there in the Obama plan/package in the first place? Republicans keep seeming to pretend that they aren't really there. They can't keep saying "we need to cut taxes" and completely ignore the actual tax cuts in the stimulus package!
Well, I could be wrong, but I hear that the "tax cuts" are mostly to people who don't pay much in taxes. The R's are spinning this as redistribution instead of real tax cuts. I'm not totally sure, but I'm inclined to believe the R's. I did not vote for McCain, but I am not a believer in redistribution or big government.
We need less government spending, not more "stimulus." We need lower taxes, and MUCH lower spending.
Less spending = stagnant markets. You don't pull out of a recession by slowing the flow of money. If the government wants to make up for low private spending to keep things going, and they can improve the nation's outdated and failing infrastructure in the process, I say go for it.
You've got it upside down. Tax cuts mean allowing the people who actually earned the money to keep it. You can't twist that around and call it redistribution.
Less spending does equal stagnant markets, but less GOVERNMENT spending actually means market and job growth. This is because the more money government leaves un-taxed (at this level of govt) the more is left for the private sector to spend. Pvt sector creates more jobs per dollar of spending since it is more efficient overall.
If you owe someone $5 but they say don't worry about paying, how is that not the same as them giving you $5? I'm fine with comprehensive tax cuts across the board, but corporate welfare is already out of hand. And the idea that private companies are more efficient and can create more jobs doesn't hold much weight when companies are crumbling every day and we're seeing 100,000 jobs cut in a week.
When the government (actually the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private corp) "borrows" $5, it is really printing it up, and creating it out of nothing. The result is more currency in circulation and this causes inflation. Inflation is a stealth tax, that hits anyone who saves money in a bank account or in a mattress. So it hurts the poor the most.
Private companies are cutting back, and my point is not that they never do, my point is that they are better than the government alternative.
They are stuck in a "Palin-Jo the plumber " mode, with Rush Limbaugh ,Sean Hannity and Pat Robertson as party ideologues.. I feel sorry for the few remaining thinking heads, lost in this sea of delusion and bigotry.
I don't care about capitalism or socialist values !These lofty ideologies don't put food on my table or pay my mortgage. If it doesn't work fine ... If the republicans have any ideas they want to add to it fine but dont just disagree with him because you want the spot light.
Bohner was the guy who gave billions to wall street without any accountability where the money was going along with republicans and some democrats .... now you're worried about spending ... Give me a break!
But capitalism will put more and higher quality food on your table than will socialism, and all policies have different mixes of either of these two ideologies.
Some Republicans (and all Libertarians) think that moving slightly in the direction of free markets will end the recession earlier and help the poor more substantially than moving in the direction of central government control.
This is why some R's disagree, not spotlights.
I didn't vote for McCain, but excessive spending is the problem.
Why do these idiots keep lying about the poor?Of course they pay taxes,state,local,sales,gas,etc,etc,etc.Fuck you repugnicunts,you fucking pathological liars.
a. the wealthy guy always gets a deal and never pays full price.
b. you assume the rich and poor had all the same and equal advantages at birth - few of the wealthy people are self made men and made their living of the sweat of their br
c. most of the poor defend this nation so the rich man can profit off the backs of the defenders and workers
Jesus was a socialist and God love everyone -
stop the greed spread the wealth or cut this country into pieces and give the people an equal share
b) I know PLENTY of self-made millionaires... Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc....
c) true, I was one but profit is necessary if anyone is to benefit. No profit = mass poverty...
Jesus was a socialist? You're joking, right? Jesus wants you to choose to give to others, not have it forced upon you by anyone. (BTW - Rich conservatives give FAR more to the needy than liberals...)
Spreading the wealth just makes everyone poor, been proven time and again...
a. I know, personally, plenty of millionaires (wish I were one but I'm getting there).
b. Know of them, yes; and Warren isn't all that rare, just noticed.
c. a society that relies on profits is a realistic one. Name me a successful society that didn't rely on the profit strength (Communist Russia is one that didn't...)
Jesus did that because it was HIS temple and not the proper time or place. The Bible also extols the good woman that "bought a piece of land" and "turned a profit"
c. Russia wasn't communist, not in the true sense and right now the most successful and richest nation in the world that take care of their citizens from cradle to grave is Dubai - other socialist couturiers; most of Europe and Israel. the happiest people - Norway and Denmark both socialist nations.
you want to use the bible to justify your own personal greed that's your business
Of course Russia wasn't trully communist; Communism can't exist in the real world.
As for using the Bible justifying my greed, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the Bible encourages us to be good stewards and good stewards return a profit on what ws given them.
BTW - were either Buffet or Gates born to millionaires? Nope. There both self made then.
I prefer a society where a guy born into poverty can rise to greater heights, like me!
Of course they voted for Obama; they got theirs and don't care if you ever get yours. The best way to make sure the poor stay poor and don't take any of theirs is to vote Dumbocrat and support socialism. Socialism, as it works in the real world, does more to protect the current elites than to allow anyone else a chance to succeed.
And yes, bailing out the banks is a form of socialism and is failing - just like Obama's stimulus plan will also dig the Depression hole a little deeper.
Take a good look at the standard of living in Norway Denmark and even Israel outside their occupation and most of the Israeli socialist programs are funded with your tax dollars.
Fair housing jobs medical education K-college. These are actual human beings and they treat each other as such
all your advocating is treating your fellow citizen like fodder so you can get ahead
brainwashed and full of greed is what you are.
What you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto Me
This is complete bullshit. What we call "free market capitalism" was DESIGNED by the rich, FOR the rich, to protect their interests and they property, so they can maintain their power. SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS funded by taxes on the wealthy serve to balance a system which is skewed heavily in the favor of the wealthy.
No, you're just ignorant., Go read about the HISTORY of capitalist economics and the monetary system. The whole thing is designed to protect the interests of the powerful. Educate yourself
Actually that is something i have been reading about lately. it's definitely worth reading about regular people's experiences during the depression as well. gives you a different perspective to look through.
I didn't even say that, you did. And you prove how uneducated you are by pretending the same old Cliches about "human nature" actually mean anything. You just repeat the same shit that has been pounded into your brain by corporate media outlets. Go come up with an original thought please.
Bottom line: the republicans all i hear them saying is "I'm against the stimulus package. If they have any new imput the American people need to hear it !
frankly I'm sick of them saying no to every thing the president has proposed and theres this one guy Bohner or Boner! He has made every channel to say that he disagrees with everything Obama says but has no solutions.
I think people are just sick of the "party of NO!"
We disagree with Obama; what would you have us do? Go against our own priniciples; THAT would be dumb, especially since Obama's stimulus package will eventually lead to even higher unemployment and poverty.
My mom was from the great depression. She told me that life was not that bad. In this country though the greedy people will suffer and die. The ones that seek knowledge will prevail. Keep up the good work. Millionaires are not the only greedy people. The days of excess are over. Some people you can not explain this too.
You are full of shit,Bush was more of a fuck the poor president than even Reagan.you repugs talk about re-destribution,when in fact that is what you did only putting the rich above everyone with your reverse robin hood.DUHHH,BTW,sound like your speed dumbass.
Ted - hatred of liberty lovers? Now THAT'S rich. Go look at the "liberty" provided by Pinochet, go look at the effects of Pinochet's policies and then tell me that "free markets" are part of "human nature".
So, you're telling me that Pinochet left behind a legacy of totalitarianism, say like Cuba? I'd dare say that Chile is a better place to live than the "Socialist Paradise" Cuba - which murdered, tortured and repressed far greater people than did Pinochet...
Socialists Che and Fidel murdered thousand to enslave millions and you dare complain about Pinochet? Remove the BEAM from your own eye before complaining about my splinter.
Ted - just like the typical right-winger - talking about Chile's "greatness" TODAY when Pinochet's reign (including his policies) ended a long time ago - I am talking specifically about the time period of Pinochet's reign and the policies implemented during that time. Also, just because I am not right-wing does not mean I am a Castro or Che fan - stick to the subject.
Using your logic I could say Allende is the reason for Chile's success. Anyway, like I said, Pinochet's policies were dropped shortly after he left - there was no "foundation" provided by him.
Considering that his policies were abandoned after the crash in the late 70's early 80's, I don't see any foundation. You also haven't shown where any foundation was provided by him.
Fewer rich people does not necessarily equal fewer jobs. Seems to me that if you grow the middle class by bringing up the poor, you would create more entrepreneurship opportunities from the new middle class, and those opportunities create more jobs. You help huge conglomerates run by rich people and you get into trouble - you can see that through Citigroup etc, where the CEOs tanked the company (and many jobs) while keeping their fat paychecks instead of taking a paycut and saving the company.
OK, I'm guilty of oversimplifying. But, a bigger rich class is a natural result of a larger middle class too. It's not like we can have all of one without the other...
True economic growth is about opportunity (capitalism), not protecting the status quo (socialism).
Opportunity leads to a growing middle class AND a growing middle class; but, do not mistake overpaid labor union members as a "vibrant middle class" because their middle class but hardly vibrant - they don't add to growth.
I guess you bought into the Repub line of overpaid unions hook, line and sinker. The Repubs inflated the amount union workers make in order to union-bust for their favorite corporations, and the facts show that they did indeed inflate the numbers. Oh yeah, and unions are what allow you to have a 5 day, 40 hour generic work week and prevents people's kids from being put into labor. Also, unions are there across te board, so don't tell me that there aren't any members that add to growth.
Well, tell me. Toyota sells as many cars, slightly more now, than GM and has - until recently - always turned a profit and is still safe and secure while GM is going down the tubes. Why do think that is?
Because labor contracts have driven up the cost of GM (Ford and Chrysler, too) to the point that it costs about $4,000 more to build a GM car than a Toyota.
Now, instead of GM surviving on its own like Toyota, we have bail them out or millions lose jobs.
First of all, you didn't address my point of Republicans inflating the wages of union laborers to fit their needs - nicely sidestepped that one. Secondly, I have a Toyota - you know why? Because of hybrid technology. If the American car manufacturers stopped dragging their feet on that, they might have stood a chance. Also not sure where you got the additional $4,000 from or how exactly it breaks down.
American automakers couldn't retool because their idiotic unions interfere in management too much, with government backing. Not to mention other overregulation by government.
When do Republicans inflate wages of Union members? I've never before heard such a ridiculous charge.
If the unions would go away, GM could compete like Toyota, which has NO union labor (!!!) and still pays extremely well.
Technically, its union medical and retirement benefits that are dragging GM down.
Please provide proof where it was the UNIONS who decided "let's not go with fuel efficiency". It was the manufacturers themselves, mostly the CEOs and upper management (the same guys who flew into the bailout hearings on private jets), who made the decisions, not the unions. The repubs said that union wages were over $175 per hour, when in fact it was much lower. They added in retirement benefits over the entire lifetime of the employees to get that number.
You obviously didn't get what I was saying - they said that the WAGES (i.e. regular salary) were that high, when in fact they were NOT. Retirement benefits are obviously a different issue. I don't add in your 401(k) as part of your current SALARY. Repubs were just doing that to inflate WAGES to drum up support for union-busting so that they could break up Dem support for the next election.
I wouldn't include defined-contribution plan like a 401(k) as salary either but that's not what the UAW has. They have a Defined-Contribution plan that has the manufacturers paying wages to people who are retired.
Again, what you get after retirement is separate from your regular salary. To add payments after retirement to the regular salary to pretend that the regular salary is actually x times larger is plain dishonest.
Um, THAT THE WAY THE CONTRACT WAS DRAWN UP! How else are they supposed to do it? The money for the retirement pay doesn't come from a retirement FUND; the retirement payments come DIRECTLY from current corporate income and is paid fromt he same source in the same manner as a paycheck.
It isn't a "normal" retirement fund; it's more like a military retirement; Defined Benefit rather than Defined Contribution.
(cont'd) By the way, the Repubs inflated the wages at the time of the auto bailout discussion, JUST so that they could union-bust. In fact, there was a memo going around saying that this was their chance to bring down unions, and it would serve the Repubs well because union members generally vote Dem. Regarding medical benefits - next time you get sick, try paying your medical bills out of pocket instead of depending on the medical coverage you receive from your job.
Paid out of pocket for what? A piddly one-time generic medication you used? I'm sure you've depended on your health insurance in addition to paying out of pocket. See the movie Sicko, listen to the stories about the men who have had to choose between keeping their index finger and their middle finger, 9/11 responders who cannot get medical care, parents who had to move back in with their grown kids because they could not afford to pay out of pocket.
How much? Maybe you can afford it, but a HUGE percentage would not be able to. You still haven't responded to my question about whether you have depended on the medical coverage you receive.
That's my point - you have had to depend on your insurance at some point - so before you start whining about unions getting workers medical insurance, perhaps you should have gotten ridden of yours and completely paid out of pocket for everything. Good luck on that.
Numbskull, I'm not complaining about union workers getting benefits of any kind. What I am doing is pointing out how foolishly the unions DEMANDED and got certain concessions from management that doomed their own jobs.
The point isn't that they have benefits; the point is HOW those benefits are structured and the UAWs foolish intransigence in modernizing.
Unions killed the American steel industry with their greed and now they're killing American car manufacturers too.
Again, you haven't shown me how exactly the UNIONS demanded that they put the brakes on hybrid technology, or made other demands that doomed their jobs. Plus, you DID mention that retirement and health benefits were the problem earlier. Name-calling is not going to get you anywhere, btw.
Conservative corporate tax cuts aren't going to cut it. We saw with the financial industry bail-outs how giving money to rich corporations stimulates the economy. It doesn't. They save it to build their own capitol instead of loaning it or spending it, putting it out circulating in the economy. If you want a quick boost, put the money in the hands of people that have no choice but to spend it and everybody wins.
Tax cuts are a handout and handouts only encourage hoarding for those that can afford to save. Poor people aren't poor because they don't save (that's asinine), and they aren't the only people that consume. The answer is stimulating consumption at this point, because there's no reason to invest in a company if nobody can afford their products or services. A boost in consumption will lead to job creation, and there's no need to worry about the long-term when there's no hope for the short term.
That's nonsense. When the rich don't pay out as much, they either invest or cut prices. Investment leads to job growth and cutting prices leads to, well, lower prices and more consumption.
Are you saying that the poor aren't poor because they don't build wealth? Kind of an oxymoronic argument...
A boost of consumption is only a MOMENTARY burst in spending and does not lead to long-term stability. Especially when it's financed by public debt, which eats up investment capital.
In a recession the rich (which I assume is your word for corporations) hold onto what they can and only invest if they can profit from someone else's ruin. Companies only cut prices to stay competitive or to match demand.
People are poor because they don't make money, not because they don't save.
A burst is needed to stop the downward spiral. Talking about stability is useless while we're in a recession. And national debt doesn't affect investment capital beyond inflation.
So, corporations "only invest if they can profit from someone else's ruin"
HOW CHILDISH YOU MUST BE TO THINK THAT! There is a difference between profiting at someone else's expense PURPOSEFULLY and another thing to do it without regard for someone else.
BUT the truth is that you can ONLY make a profit by giving something to someone else at a price they are willing to pay. How do you ruin people by giving them what they want when they can pay for it?
In a recession, yes. Of course there are exceptions, but usually the buying party makes a low offer that the failing company is forced to take in order to stay solvent or to cut their losses. There's no vindictive personal aspect to it, just business.
I'm getting the feeling you don't know much about this and aren't really interested in an exchange of ideas, so that's it for me. We're way off topic anyway.
We're not off topic, we're talking economics. Who is "forcing" the "failing company" to take a bad deal? I know obtrusive government policy often does that, so does bad business choices but all things being equal, the "failing company" doesn't HAVE to take a bad deal.
Its called CONSTRUCTIVE DESTRUCTION (an economic term). Companies that can't or won't use their available resources as properly as others lose their businesses so other, more efficient companies can have those resources.
The spending on infrastructure IS what will put workers and companies back to work, especially in the inner cities that need it most. The extra spending on unemployment benefits is sort of a no-brainer so that folks won't start starving because of the bad job market. The spending on schools will help systems make fewer cutbacks because of local revenue shortages--cutbacks that jeopardize education quality (even further). Conservatives are lying when they call these allocations 'wasteful'.
What is more efficient, the typical corporation or the typical government agency or project?
If, like me, you guess that on average, private spending is more efficient, then you will know that money left in the private sector will create more jobs and lift more people out of poverty than will government spending.
I am a teacher, and I know how especially wasteful the government schools are.
I won't object to unemp. benefits, but this is a tiny fraction of the "stymulus" corporate welfare.
Effects of the over-extended debt have already hit with banks collapsing or merging and mortgages foreclosing. We wouldn't be building on debt, but recovering from its effects. A boost would generate revenue, encourage investment, and save jobs. While it won't do much to help the financial, housing, or auto industries, it will at least limit the spread of impact those have on the rest of the economy. Gotta contain the problem areas and keep money moving before working on the long-term fix.
Government spending will be ineffective to do this, even in the short term.
But Obama and politicians on both sides have to LOOK like he is doing something, because the ignorant masses, who REALLY flunk Econ 101, think he and the rest of government can.
The best government can do is to catch the thieves and liers and otherwise get out of the way.
Freeks, you're partially correct. Private sector spending can be more efficient if the market is not skewed.
It's the underlying Keynsian concept, that spending will have a multiplier effect, that is inherently incorrect. Spending will not return this economy to positive growth.
The current crisis is in the credit markets and only the credit markets. The rest is hyperbole.
Seems like a nay-sayer attitude. You really think that over 800 billion in spending and tax cuts won't have any effect? I agree that part of this is just to seem like they're not just puttering around in Washington, and they need to work on prevention and catching the jerks that set us up for the fall, but action is necessary. Supply-side and Laissez-fair have no chance of short-term improvement, so we might as well put our money on something that does.
If we weren't in a recession you might be right. If government doesn't stop the down slide and leaves spending to the currently crippled private sector, how long do you think it would take to stop this, much less return to growth and job creation? Government spending and investment in infrastructure takes care of job problems now, and growth problems later. It's a double edged sword where currently the private sector can only provide a shovel.
My response would be that the market would correct itself. Poorly run corps would fail and the assets would be liquidated to competent companies that would benefit, thus creating real jobs.
We need to focus on where we are going because the problems are systemic. 70% of our economy was based on debt backed consumption. This intervention will mean more debt and inflation. When it falls apart, remember the people that said this would happen.
The timeframe is my main focus. How long will it take for market to correct itself without intervention? Even the competent companies that are buying up the failing ones are struggling. We can keep bleeding jobs and losses on investments, or we can take steps to save what we can and speed up getting out of this mess. Once we're back to profitability we can worry about systemic problems and long-term recovery.
The recession will be shorter without the additional inflation and future taxation that deficit spending causes.
The difference is that the shove that the private sector uses actually works. The double edged sword (threat of force) that the government uses is not only unethical when used against peaceful people, it does not work as well as the shovel in the long run.
I'm not sure where the sword and shovel analogies went. Threat of force? Peaceful people? I meant the sword as the spending having multiple benefits of rallying stocks, improving earnings, saving jobs, and improving infrastructure, while the private sector uses a shovel to dig us deeper with more lay-offs, decreased production, and scared investors.
My point is that taxation is always accompanied by the threat of force. If you don't pay, they force you to pay or go to jail, even if the taxes you paid were used for unjust or unconstitutional ends, such as bailouts to corporations or "stimulus" spending. Your sword metaphor works better than you intended.
The shovel is more often used for productive and peaceful ends, and represents honorable business well.
Private shovels can dig a sound foundation for future growth.
Liar.End of story Repugnicunt.Anyone who says Dumbya wasn't a conservative is not only stupid,but totally braindamaged.Go play with the kiddies on my space idiot,you are way out of your fucking league here.
I show my ignorance?Your the dumb fuck trying to re-write history.Bush was the most conservtive president in my lifetime.He makes Reagan look liberal.You repugnicunts just can't stop lying.I guess its in your DNA.BTW,biggest defecit spenders in history Reagan+Dumbya.
And who spent us into oblivion?Delay and the repugnicunts.Quit trying to revise history.The Congress under the Repugnicunts gave Dumbya everything he wanted.Your the one with either a vision problem or lack of education dumbass.
Quit lying,they are conservatives.They spend huge amounts of money in the wrong areas,and never pay for it.They cut taxes for the super rich and put their spending on the tab for our future generations.The last fiscal conservative to sit in the white house was LBJ.1968 was the last year the books balanced.BTW,he was a democrat and the congress was democrat.You are the party of the greedy pure and simple.
Who's lying now? The Republican Congress (back when Conservatives were in charge) balanced the budget in the 1990s for several years, despite Clinton's requests that the budget not balance until 2002 or 2003.
They balanced nothing,LIAR.Clinton and the dems did without a single Repugnicunt vote,by rolling back the tax cuts for the rich.You must be one of those ignorant fundies,who make a living out of lying and distorting truth.You might be the biggest LIAR,I've ran into on you tube in the 3 years I've been here.
So tell me, Brainiac, who did the Democrats pass that "without a single (republican) vote" if the Republicans were the majority in both houses of Congress during the late 90's and you need a majority to get a bill passed?
Oh, BTW, I checked with the US Treasury, we DID balance the budget from 1998 through 2001, which was more recent than LBJ...
You, sir or ma'am, are self-admitted liar but also a fool.
Quit arguing with me, you're embarrasing yourself.
Dumbass,read a fucking history book, the dems were in control of the house and senate for Clinton's first 2 years.Keep showing us your ignorance some more asshole.
DIPSTICK, the budget balanced in FY 1999 - 2001, when Republicans were in charge.
There were no budgets passed from 1992-1994, when Democrats were in charge, that would EVER balance.
After the Republicans gained control of congress after the '94 elections, Congress pushed for a balanced budget, not Clinton. He responded in 1996 with a budget that would've balaned in 2003; Republicans cut that budget and got it to balance in 1998.
But, you've admitted to lying earlier, 1968??? HA!!
Clintons tax increase reduced the deficit not the Repugs.Quit fucking lying.The deficit ballooned under dumbya and the Repugnicunts by giving un-needed tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.I'm not talking about budgets of 92 or any other fucking year.I'm talking about what reduced the deficit and the dems did it without 1 repugnicunt vote in the fucking house.
Explain how reduced tax receipts (what happened with Clinton's tax rate increases) balanced the budgets.
Explain why, if Clinton balanced the budget, none of his proposed budgets would've balanced DURING HIS TERM.
You're off your rocker and need some education; go to school or read a book. The budgets during the years the demonrats were in charge ROSE, they GREW.
Check your history, budgets began to shrink and balance AFTER republicans controlled Congress, not before.
A balanced budget asshole means no deficit.The deficit was going down under Clinton,but far from balanced.Now go whack off to Rush and leave us smart people alone dumbass.
OftenWrong ted, remember the other day when you said that President Obama's 59% approval rating in the gallup poll was the beginning of a crash? From Gallup on 2/17/09:
"After dipping to 59% immediately before the president addressed a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, Barack Obamas approval rating has rebounded and now stands at 67%, just two points below his high."
Just as KataVideo predicted.
buh bye ted. conservatardism is headed off into the distant past.
rupubs more same money to small buisiness ? same voted change! small buis once economy is better then will help, now not selling products/ service do to economy cant hire new need to sell things first & obama giving them cuts already more cuts dumb i do agree more tward bridge building & new jobs like that. repubs dumb on economics we want change. dems dont put up with there bull if they wanted good bill instead of go behind backs work with dems, repub sabatoge i will never vote repub again
I love it when Republicans say that if the poor get stimulus money, they will just pay their bills with it. Isn't paying our bills the right thing to do? And if we didn't pay our bills what would happen to the companies that provide our services? These asshole just don't want to give money to the poor. Plain and simple.
expect a handout. Generally I'm against them but we have to look what kind of return we'll get on that investment and that required gov't spending, healthcare and a good education. Pay for people's training and education and you've got a taxpayer for the future and will recoup that investment. That is one thing most pure conservatives don't understand.
...either but I have a car I cannot really afford and most of my income and my wife's go towards necessitites. So the idea of spend, spend, spend comes naturally to the poor. Shopping takes the edge of the misery some feel. I never felt terrible when I was poor and didn't spend my money as foolishly but most of the people I know in the same circumstances did. I worked crap jobs until now and now, at 34 I'm finally going to college to hopefully do even better for my wife and children. I dont
I wish someone would finally ask a republican: Are you saying that people who don't make enough money to pay income taxes don't deserve a tax cut? That way those broke conservative idiots always running around screaming that republicans want to cut taxes will realize that they don't want to cut your taxes, you don't make enough money!
Bnecessity poor people don't save...they can't because 90%+ is spent on food and shelter/utilities. Most cannot afford a decent running car. Many are uneducated and have poor health habits such as smoking which eats up what little discrtionary income they have. I know this is a broad generalization and I do not meant to paint ALL poor people w/the same brush but largely these things are true. I am not exactly poor but I'm not living high off the hog either. I don't have bad health habits...
Good point, rationalskeptic. Giving money to poor people ensures one thing -- IT WILL BE SPENT. That's the whole point of the stimulus package, right? To get money into the economy? I think Republicans are just opposed to this ideologically and aren't thinking it through.
OKAY. Everytime I see this shit-for-brains loser make news with that fucking AZ next to his name it makes me sick.
THIS MAN WAS ELECTED BY ARIZONA'S TRANSPLANT POPULATION-PEOPLE RAISED IN THE MIDWEST WHO MOVED TO AZ TO GET OUT OF THE COLD.
PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY RAISED IN AZ ARE VERY DIFFERENT IDEOLOGICALLY THAN THESE PEOPLE, UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE THE MINORITY, AZ IS/WAS ONE OF AMERICA'S FASTEST GROWING STATES.
THIS GUY REPRESENTS OHIO, MICHIGAN, INDIANA....BUT NOT ARIZONA.
I wish I could say he don't represent Ohio where I live. I think that is changing but we have a high evangelical population and evangelicals tend to be conservative/rebublican which of course means they HATE the poor and giving money to them is vile in their opionion. It's somewhat ironic considering their holy book says that their supposed savior told his followers, "Whatever you do unto the least of these you do also unto me." If J-Zeus were alive today republicans would spit in his face.
most politicians are corrupted and im sure alot of them think their excused because of their political seat and think their better then hard working civilians
Stupid remark, and probably a stupid guy, but he is a consistent libertarianish voice in the House. Republicans removed him from the Judiciary Committee in part (or full) because he opposed them on certain issues. He's a small government guy who actually delivers on that, as he's usually among a few people (like Ron Paul) who vote against major bills on a regular basis.
I keep hearing this talking point from the right. They're all in a hissy because, apparently, people who pay no taxes are getting a refund. First of all, people who don't pay taxes cannot get a "refund," ok? I think they might be getting confused with senior citizens living on Social Security (who, btw, deserve a tax break just like everyone else!).
No, you're misinformed. "Refundable tax credit" is the term they're talking about, which goes to everyone, even people who don't owe any taxes in the current year. So these people owe $0 but still get money under this proposal. That's what Republicans don't like -- it's too similar to welfare.
Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are too similar to welfare too. Republicans aren't against giving people money, they just don't want it going to the "wrong" people.
Just like the Republican congressman Campbell from California who, in his attempt to be obstructionist says:
"painting a federal building only creates 1 job"
persons like R- Campbell should not represent people, any working man will tell you that just painting a Federal Building, hires a bunch of workers, it hires people that provide materials, rentals of scafolding, etc.
Obviously congressman Campbell from California is an ignorant in matters of working people.
Wow I thought stimulating the economy was when people spent money. It's kinda hard to see how poor people won't spend money. The problem the economy has now is people are afraid to invest and others don't have any money to invest. Put the money in the hands of those who will spend it. Hello?!?! Business owners small and large can't lose...
"Refundable tax credits to those who pay no tax at all." I'm gonna be tryin' to wrap my non-finance-&-accounting brain around that one for the next week or two.
Oh no no...looks like u drank too much clinton koolaid crazyfuck blair227...u need some good education as ted suggested
vrs007 3 years ago
d if the recession was caused by too much spending and debt why will 900 billion dollars of more spending and more debt improve things?
Who just flunked econ 101?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
How is that flunking econ 101? We tried stimulus checks in 1974 2001 2008 and they didn't do jack squat...
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
This is the stupidest video on earth.
MeLikeGoFast 3 years ago
LOL, if you don't pay any taxes how does a "tax-credit" do you any good?
Also, the idea that the poor don't pay taxes is ridiculous--they may be exempt from income tax, but that's it.
djacobox372 3 years ago
Flake is right.
The stimulus will not help the economy.
Allowing people who make money to keep more of it would.
freesk8 3 years ago
But...isn't that why the tax cuts are there in the Obama plan/package in the first place? Republicans keep seeming to pretend that they aren't really there. They can't keep saying "we need to cut taxes" and completely ignore the actual tax cuts in the stimulus package!
94fordtaurus 3 years ago
Well, I could be wrong, but I hear that the "tax cuts" are mostly to people who don't pay much in taxes. The R's are spinning this as redistribution instead of real tax cuts. I'm not totally sure, but I'm inclined to believe the R's. I did not vote for McCain, but I am not a believer in redistribution or big government.
We need less government spending, not more "stimulus." We need lower taxes, and MUCH lower spending.
freesk8 3 years ago
All tax cuts are redistribution.
Less spending = stagnant markets. You don't pull out of a recession by slowing the flow of money. If the government wants to make up for low private spending to keep things going, and they can improve the nation's outdated and failing infrastructure in the process, I say go for it.
mikebee02 3 years ago
You've got it upside down. Tax cuts mean allowing the people who actually earned the money to keep it. You can't twist that around and call it redistribution.
Less spending does equal stagnant markets, but less GOVERNMENT spending actually means market and job growth. This is because the more money government leaves un-taxed (at this level of govt) the more is left for the private sector to spend. Pvt sector creates more jobs per dollar of spending since it is more efficient overall.
freesk8 3 years ago
If you owe someone $5 but they say don't worry about paying, how is that not the same as them giving you $5? I'm fine with comprehensive tax cuts across the board, but corporate welfare is already out of hand. And the idea that private companies are more efficient and can create more jobs doesn't hold much weight when companies are crumbling every day and we're seeing 100,000 jobs cut in a week.
mikebee02 3 years ago
When the government (actually the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private corp) "borrows" $5, it is really printing it up, and creating it out of nothing. The result is more currency in circulation and this causes inflation. Inflation is a stealth tax, that hits anyone who saves money in a bank account or in a mattress. So it hurts the poor the most.
Private companies are cutting back, and my point is not that they never do, my point is that they are better than the government alternative.
freesk8 3 years ago
Poor republicans.
They are stuck in a "Palin-Jo the plumber " mode, with Rush Limbaugh ,Sean Hannity and Pat Robertson as party ideologues.. I feel sorry for the few remaining thinking heads, lost in this sea of delusion and bigotry.
Francebrasil 3 years ago 2
I don't care about capitalism or socialist values !These lofty ideologies don't put food on my table or pay my mortgage. If it doesn't work fine ... If the republicans have any ideas they want to add to it fine but dont just disagree with him because you want the spot light.
Bohner was the guy who gave billions to wall street without any accountability where the money was going along with republicans and some democrats .... now you're worried about spending ... Give me a break!
bluedov69 3 years ago 3
But capitalism will put more and higher quality food on your table than will socialism, and all policies have different mixes of either of these two ideologies.
Some Republicans (and all Libertarians) think that moving slightly in the direction of free markets will end the recession earlier and help the poor more substantially than moving in the direction of central government control.
This is why some R's disagree, not spotlights.
I didn't vote for McCain, but excessive spending is the problem.
freesk8 3 years ago
Why do these idiots keep lying about the poor?Of course they pay taxes,state,local,sales,gas,etc,etc,etc.Fuck you repugnicunts,you fucking pathological liars.
blair227 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And, they pay far less a percentage of their income on all taxes than those who are richer. DUHHHH!
Republicans/Conservatives don't hate the poor; we're just smart enough to know that you can't lift anyone up by tearing others down.
Fewer rich people = fewer jobs.
Fewer jobs = more poverty.
More poverty = more poor.
We don't hate the poor, we just want more people to not be poor.
BTW - Bush was no conservative, he's too much like Obama, economically.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
the poor pay the same tax on a shirt that everyone else pays - in fact most wealthy people get deals on everything they buy.
We also know that the wealthy pay less tax percentage wise than school teachers firemen and police
the wealthy have robbed this country blind
be truthful and a patriot before you serve your master the wealthy socialist elite
marniespeaks 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And, do you think the average poor person:
a) buys as many shirts as a rich man (more shirts to pay sales tax on)
b) buys as nice/expensive shirt as a rich man (more sales tax per shirt)
c) employees more people than a richer man?
I serve God and the government He put in control. However, I certainly do not wish socialists to be in charge, that's why I didn't vote for Obama.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
a. the wealthy guy always gets a deal and never pays full price.
b. you assume the rich and poor had all the same and equal advantages at birth - few of the wealthy people are self made men and made their living of the sweat of their br
c. most of the poor defend this nation so the rich man can profit off the backs of the defenders and workers
Jesus was a socialist and God love everyone -
stop the greed spread the wealth or cut this country into pieces and give the people an equal share
marniespeaks 3 years ago 2
a) Really, proof?
b) I know PLENTY of self-made millionaires... Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc....
c) true, I was one but profit is necessary if anyone is to benefit. No profit = mass poverty...
Jesus was a socialist? You're joking, right? Jesus wants you to choose to give to others, not have it forced upon you by anyone. (BTW - Rich conservatives give FAR more to the needy than liberals...)
Spreading the wealth just makes everyone poor, been proven time and again...
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
a. you don't know any wealthy people personally do you?
b. two guys? you know them? really?
and Gates childhood was upper class - he was never poor.
Buffet is another matter and more than rare
c. a society that relies on profits through consumption is destine to die
Jesus - you mean like when he wipe the merchants at the temple? Maybe we should do the same.
conservative vs liberal Buffet and Gates both voted for Obama
you mean like bailing out the Banks and their million dollar CEOs?
marniespeaks 3 years ago 2
a. I know, personally, plenty of millionaires (wish I were one but I'm getting there).
b. Know of them, yes; and Warren isn't all that rare, just noticed.
c. a society that relies on profits is a realistic one. Name me a successful society that didn't rely on the profit strength (Communist Russia is one that didn't...)
Jesus did that because it was HIS temple and not the proper time or place. The Bible also extols the good woman that "bought a piece of land" and "turned a profit"
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
a. Buffet and Gates are Billionaires.
b. he is rare less than .001%
c. Russia wasn't communist, not in the true sense and right now the most successful and richest nation in the world that take care of their citizens from cradle to grave is Dubai - other socialist couturiers; most of Europe and Israel. the happiest people - Norway and Denmark both socialist nations.
you want to use the bible to justify your own personal greed that's your business
camels and needles
marniespeaks 3 years ago
Dubai? Dubai is not a country.
Of course Russia wasn't trully communist; Communism can't exist in the real world.
As for using the Bible justifying my greed, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the Bible encourages us to be good stewards and good stewards return a profit on what ws given them.
BTW - were either Buffet or Gates born to millionaires? Nope. There both self made then.
I prefer a society where a guy born into poverty can rise to greater heights, like me!
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
I meant to say UAE.
Russia was NOT truly Communist Country. You need to read the history and the philosophy.
And you're using the bible to justify your own greed
Gates and Buffet are Billionaires and Gate's father made a very good living as an attorney.
Compare that to 99.9% of the single black parents in the US.
Here's news for you, most people in poverty don't rise up How many backs will you step on to get to the top?
You keep picking and choosing your bible verse
marniespeaks 3 years ago
Of course they voted for Obama; they got theirs and don't care if you ever get yours. The best way to make sure the poor stay poor and don't take any of theirs is to vote Dumbocrat and support socialism. Socialism, as it works in the real world, does more to protect the current elites than to allow anyone else a chance to succeed.
And yes, bailing out the banks is a form of socialism and is failing - just like Obama's stimulus plan will also dig the Depression hole a little deeper.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Take a good look at the standard of living in Norway Denmark and even Israel outside their occupation and most of the Israeli socialist programs are funded with your tax dollars.
Fair housing jobs medical education K-college. These are actual human beings and they treat each other as such
all your advocating is treating your fellow citizen like fodder so you can get ahead
brainwashed and full of greed is what you are.
What you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto Me
marniespeaks 3 years ago
This is complete bullshit. What we call "free market capitalism" was DESIGNED by the rich, FOR the rich, to protect their interests and they property, so they can maintain their power. SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS funded by taxes on the wealthy serve to balance a system which is skewed heavily in the favor of the wealthy.
myxomata 3 years ago 2
You're delusional and foolish.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
No, you're just ignorant., Go read about the HISTORY of capitalist economics and the monetary system. The whole thing is designed to protect the interests of the powerful. Educate yourself
myxomata 3 years ago
Try to read about the great depression. These assholes will be broke. They will kill themselves and we will be happy.
Mychaels 3 years ago
Actually that is something i have been reading about lately. it's definitely worth reading about regular people's experiences during the depression as well. gives you a different perspective to look through.
myxomata 3 years ago
I am educated.
Educate enough to reject your pie in the sky, "Let's make the world a better place by rewriting human nature" socialism.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
I didn't even say that, you did. And you prove how uneducated you are by pretending the same old Cliches about "human nature" actually mean anything. You just repeat the same shit that has been pounded into your brain by corporate media outlets. Go come up with an original thought please.
myxomata 3 years ago
People who claim they have an original thought suffer from delusional dreams of grandeur.
Human nature is human nature and doesn't change, EVER.
Foolish, childish dreams of Socialism and Facsism fly in the face of reality.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
You don't know shit about human nature.
myxomata 3 years ago
Bottom line: the republicans all i hear them saying is "I'm against the stimulus package. If they have any new imput the American people need to hear it !
frankly I'm sick of them saying no to every thing the president has proposed and theres this one guy Bohner or Boner! He has made every channel to say that he disagrees with everything Obama says but has no solutions.
I think people are just sick of the "party of NO!"
bluedov69 3 years ago
We disagree with Obama; what would you have us do? Go against our own priniciples; THAT would be dumb, especially since Obama's stimulus package will eventually lead to even higher unemployment and poverty.
Why should I help an idiot do something dumb?
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
My mom was from the great depression. She told me that life was not that bad. In this country though the greedy people will suffer and die. The ones that seek knowledge will prevail. Keep up the good work. Millionaires are not the only greedy people. The days of excess are over. Some people you can not explain this too.
Mychaels 3 years ago
You are full of shit,Bush was more of a fuck the poor president than even Reagan.you repugs talk about re-destribution,when in fact that is what you did only putting the rich above everyone with your reverse robin hood.DUHHH,BTW,sound like your speed dumbass.
blair227 3 years ago
Wow, such hatred of liberty lovers, but thats what I would expect from socialist Demonrats.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Ted - hatred of liberty lovers? Now THAT'S rich. Go look at the "liberty" provided by Pinochet, go look at the effects of Pinochet's policies and then tell me that "free markets" are part of "human nature".
technicschic 3 years ago
So, you're telling me that Pinochet left behind a legacy of totalitarianism, say like Cuba? I'd dare say that Chile is a better place to live than the "Socialist Paradise" Cuba - which murdered, tortured and repressed far greater people than did Pinochet...
Socialists Che and Fidel murdered thousand to enslave millions and you dare complain about Pinochet? Remove the BEAM from your own eye before complaining about my splinter.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Ted - just like the typical right-winger - talking about Chile's "greatness" TODAY when Pinochet's reign (including his policies) ended a long time ago - I am talking specifically about the time period of Pinochet's reign and the policies implemented during that time. Also, just because I am not right-wing does not mean I am a Castro or Che fan - stick to the subject.
technicschic 3 years ago
You don't think Chile's current success isn't based on the foundation Pinochet provided them?
We are all products of our ancestors' history.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Using your logic I could say Allende is the reason for Chile's success. Anyway, like I said, Pinochet's policies were dropped shortly after he left - there was no "foundation" provided by him.
technicschic 3 years ago
REally? You sure about that?
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Considering that his policies were abandoned after the crash in the late 70's early 80's, I don't see any foundation. You also haven't shown where any foundation was provided by him.
technicschic 3 years ago
Really, baseless claims...?
Chile really abandoned the free-markets Pinochet started?
BTW - Keep in mind that Chile also has the privatized-security plan that Bush wanted to replace our Socialist Insecurity plan after.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
technicschic 3 years ago
It's you repugnicunts who hate liberty dumbass.
blair227 3 years ago
Damn straight I hate un-patriotic greedy bastards like yourself.
blair227 3 years ago
I am neither unpatriotic nor greedy nor a bastard.
You should get an education so that you don't make such a fool of yourself.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Fewer rich people does not necessarily equal fewer jobs. Seems to me that if you grow the middle class by bringing up the poor, you would create more entrepreneurship opportunities from the new middle class, and those opportunities create more jobs. You help huge conglomerates run by rich people and you get into trouble - you can see that through Citigroup etc, where the CEOs tanked the company (and many jobs) while keeping their fat paychecks instead of taking a paycut and saving the company.
technicschic 3 years ago
OK, I'm guilty of oversimplifying. But, a bigger rich class is a natural result of a larger middle class too. It's not like we can have all of one without the other...
True economic growth is about opportunity (capitalism), not protecting the status quo (socialism).
Opportunity leads to a growing middle class AND a growing middle class; but, do not mistake overpaid labor union members as a "vibrant middle class" because their middle class but hardly vibrant - they don't add to growth.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
I guess you bought into the Repub line of overpaid unions hook, line and sinker. The Repubs inflated the amount union workers make in order to union-bust for their favorite corporations, and the facts show that they did indeed inflate the numbers. Oh yeah, and unions are what allow you to have a 5 day, 40 hour generic work week and prevents people's kids from being put into labor. Also, unions are there across te board, so don't tell me that there aren't any members that add to growth.
technicschic 3 years ago
Well, tell me. Toyota sells as many cars, slightly more now, than GM and has - until recently - always turned a profit and is still safe and secure while GM is going down the tubes. Why do think that is?
Because labor contracts have driven up the cost of GM (Ford and Chrysler, too) to the point that it costs about $4,000 more to build a GM car than a Toyota.
Now, instead of GM surviving on its own like Toyota, we have bail them out or millions lose jobs.
Whose to blame? UNIONS!
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
First of all, you didn't address my point of Republicans inflating the wages of union laborers to fit their needs - nicely sidestepped that one. Secondly, I have a Toyota - you know why? Because of hybrid technology. If the American car manufacturers stopped dragging their feet on that, they might have stood a chance. Also not sure where you got the additional $4,000 from or how exactly it breaks down.
technicschic 3 years ago
American automakers couldn't retool because their idiotic unions interfere in management too much, with government backing. Not to mention other overregulation by government.
When do Republicans inflate wages of Union members? I've never before heard such a ridiculous charge.
If the unions would go away, GM could compete like Toyota, which has NO union labor (!!!) and still pays extremely well.
Technically, its union medical and retirement benefits that are dragging GM down.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Please provide proof where it was the UNIONS who decided "let's not go with fuel efficiency". It was the manufacturers themselves, mostly the CEOs and upper management (the same guys who flew into the bailout hearings on private jets), who made the decisions, not the unions. The repubs said that union wages were over $175 per hour, when in fact it was much lower. They added in retirement benefits over the entire lifetime of the employees to get that number.
technicschic 3 years ago
Well, it makes sense to include retirement benefits; THEY DO HAVE TO PAY THAT TOO!!!
Just where do you expect them to get the money pay those retirement benefits to come from?????
HIGHER PRICES!!! You have to cover your costs.
There's no a cost-effective way to build Hybrids with massive labor, it has to be automated with fewer jobs, which the unions wanted protected.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
You obviously didn't get what I was saying - they said that the WAGES (i.e. regular salary) were that high, when in fact they were NOT. Retirement benefits are obviously a different issue. I don't add in your 401(k) as part of your current SALARY. Repubs were just doing that to inflate WAGES to drum up support for union-busting so that they could break up Dem support for the next election.
technicschic 3 years ago
I wouldn't include defined-contribution plan like a 401(k) as salary either but that's not what the UAW has. They have a Defined-Contribution plan that has the manufacturers paying wages to people who are retired.
Keep up.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Again, what you get after retirement is separate from your regular salary. To add payments after retirement to the regular salary to pretend that the regular salary is actually x times larger is plain dishonest.
technicschic 3 years ago
Um, THAT THE WAY THE CONTRACT WAS DRAWN UP! How else are they supposed to do it? The money for the retirement pay doesn't come from a retirement FUND; the retirement payments come DIRECTLY from current corporate income and is paid fromt he same source in the same manner as a paycheck.
It isn't a "normal" retirement fund; it's more like a military retirement; Defined Benefit rather than Defined Contribution.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
(cont'd) By the way, the Repubs inflated the wages at the time of the auto bailout discussion, JUST so that they could union-bust. In fact, there was a memo going around saying that this was their chance to bring down unions, and it would serve the Repubs well because union members generally vote Dem. Regarding medical benefits - next time you get sick, try paying your medical bills out of pocket instead of depending on the medical coverage you receive from your job.
technicschic 3 years ago
I have paid out of pocket; your point?
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Paid out of pocket for what? A piddly one-time generic medication you used? I'm sure you've depended on your health insurance in addition to paying out of pocket. See the movie Sicko, listen to the stories about the men who have had to choose between keeping their index finger and their middle finger, 9/11 responders who cannot get medical care, parents who had to move back in with their grown kids because they could not afford to pay out of pocket.
technicschic 3 years ago
Paid out of pocket for surgery.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
How much? Maybe you can afford it, but a HUGE percentage would not be able to. You still haven't responded to my question about whether you have depended on the medical coverage you receive.
technicschic 3 years ago
Of course I have used my medical insurance when I had it. I thought that was too obvious an answer, sorry.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
That's my point - you have had to depend on your insurance at some point - so before you start whining about unions getting workers medical insurance, perhaps you should have gotten ridden of yours and completely paid out of pocket for everything. Good luck on that.
technicschic 3 years ago
Numbskull, I'm not complaining about union workers getting benefits of any kind. What I am doing is pointing out how foolishly the unions DEMANDED and got certain concessions from management that doomed their own jobs.
The point isn't that they have benefits; the point is HOW those benefits are structured and the UAWs foolish intransigence in modernizing.
Unions killed the American steel industry with their greed and now they're killing American car manufacturers too.
IDIOTS
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Again, you haven't shown me how exactly the UNIONS demanded that they put the brakes on hybrid technology, or made other demands that doomed their jobs. Plus, you DID mention that retirement and health benefits were the problem earlier. Name-calling is not going to get you anywhere, btw.
technicschic 3 years ago
I wasn't calling you, specifically, an idiot. I was referring to the industry and job-killing unions.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
More poverty = more poor? You don't say!
Conservative corporate tax cuts aren't going to cut it. We saw with the financial industry bail-outs how giving money to rich corporations stimulates the economy. It doesn't. They save it to build their own capitol instead of loaning it or spending it, putting it out circulating in the economy. If you want a quick boost, put the money in the hands of people that have no choice but to spend it and everybody wins.
mikebee02 3 years ago
Big difference between tax cuts, which stimulate growth, and a handout - which was a stupid idea because it encourages hoarding.
The question is; do we need to stimulate consumption (rebates to poor who don't save - which is why they're poor) or investment (corporate tax cuts)?
Stimulating investment has better long-term growth potential and job creation than a momentary stimulation in consumption.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Tax cuts are a handout and handouts only encourage hoarding for those that can afford to save. Poor people aren't poor because they don't save (that's asinine), and they aren't the only people that consume. The answer is stimulating consumption at this point, because there's no reason to invest in a company if nobody can afford their products or services. A boost in consumption will lead to job creation, and there's no need to worry about the long-term when there's no hope for the short term.
mikebee02 3 years ago
That's nonsense. When the rich don't pay out as much, they either invest or cut prices. Investment leads to job growth and cutting prices leads to, well, lower prices and more consumption.
Are you saying that the poor aren't poor because they don't build wealth? Kind of an oxymoronic argument...
A boost of consumption is only a MOMENTARY burst in spending and does not lead to long-term stability. Especially when it's financed by public debt, which eats up investment capital.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
In a recession the rich (which I assume is your word for corporations) hold onto what they can and only invest if they can profit from someone else's ruin. Companies only cut prices to stay competitive or to match demand.
People are poor because they don't make money, not because they don't save.
A burst is needed to stop the downward spiral. Talking about stability is useless while we're in a recession. And national debt doesn't affect investment capital beyond inflation.
mikebee02 3 years ago
So, corporations "only invest if they can profit from someone else's ruin"
HOW CHILDISH YOU MUST BE TO THINK THAT! There is a difference between profiting at someone else's expense PURPOSEFULLY and another thing to do it without regard for someone else.
BUT the truth is that you can ONLY make a profit by giving something to someone else at a price they are willing to pay. How do you ruin people by giving them what they want when they can pay for it?
GROW UP!
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
In a recession, yes. Of course there are exceptions, but usually the buying party makes a low offer that the failing company is forced to take in order to stay solvent or to cut their losses. There's no vindictive personal aspect to it, just business.
I'm getting the feeling you don't know much about this and aren't really interested in an exchange of ideas, so that's it for me. We're way off topic anyway.
mikebee02 3 years ago
We're not off topic, we're talking economics. Who is "forcing" the "failing company" to take a bad deal? I know obtrusive government policy often does that, so does bad business choices but all things being equal, the "failing company" doesn't HAVE to take a bad deal.
Its called CONSTRUCTIVE DESTRUCTION (an economic term). Companies that can't or won't use their available resources as properly as others lose their businesses so other, more efficient companies can have those resources.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
But saving is what the economy needs.
The core of the problem is excessive debt, which was encouraged by bad government policy.
A boost in short-term consumption just gets us further in to debt.
Re-inflating the bubble is not what we need.
We need to have this correction, so that we can set the stage for real, sustainable economic growth in a few years.
Anything else would be an illusion.
freesk8 3 years ago
The spending on infrastructure IS what will put workers and companies back to work, especially in the inner cities that need it most. The extra spending on unemployment benefits is sort of a no-brainer so that folks won't start starving because of the bad job market. The spending on schools will help systems make fewer cutbacks because of local revenue shortages--cutbacks that jeopardize education quality (even further). Conservatives are lying when they call these allocations 'wasteful'.
94fordtaurus 3 years ago 2
What is more efficient, the typical corporation or the typical government agency or project?
If, like me, you guess that on average, private spending is more efficient, then you will know that money left in the private sector will create more jobs and lift more people out of poverty than will government spending.
I am a teacher, and I know how especially wasteful the government schools are.
I won't object to unemp. benefits, but this is a tiny fraction of the "stymulus" corporate welfare.
freesk8 3 years ago
Effects of the over-extended debt have already hit with banks collapsing or merging and mortgages foreclosing. We wouldn't be building on debt, but recovering from its effects. A boost would generate revenue, encourage investment, and save jobs. While it won't do much to help the financial, housing, or auto industries, it will at least limit the spread of impact those have on the rest of the economy. Gotta contain the problem areas and keep money moving before working on the long-term fix.
mikebee02 3 years ago
Government spending will be ineffective to do this, even in the short term.
But Obama and politicians on both sides have to LOOK like he is doing something, because the ignorant masses, who REALLY flunk Econ 101, think he and the rest of government can.
The best government can do is to catch the thieves and liers and otherwise get out of the way.
freesk8 3 years ago
Freeks, you're partially correct. Private sector spending can be more efficient if the market is not skewed.
It's the underlying Keynsian concept, that spending will have a multiplier effect, that is inherently incorrect. Spending will not return this economy to positive growth.
The current crisis is in the credit markets and only the credit markets. The rest is hyperbole.
Patrick44 3 years ago
Seems like a nay-sayer attitude. You really think that over 800 billion in spending and tax cuts won't have any effect? I agree that part of this is just to seem like they're not just puttering around in Washington, and they need to work on prevention and catching the jerks that set us up for the fall, but action is necessary. Supply-side and Laissez-fair have no chance of short-term improvement, so we might as well put our money on something that does.
mikebee02 3 years ago
My point is that the spending would have more effect if the private sector does it.
Since government spending must be taxed (it all comes from the private sector) you have a choice:
1) Have your marginal spending done by the private sector
or
2) Have government do it instead.
If government does it, it will be done less efficiently, and hence fewer jobs will be created.
Govt spending and "stimulus" will destroy net jobs.
And most of us are in business for the long term, not the short term.
freesk8 3 years ago
If we weren't in a recession you might be right. If government doesn't stop the down slide and leaves spending to the currently crippled private sector, how long do you think it would take to stop this, much less return to growth and job creation? Government spending and investment in infrastructure takes care of job problems now, and growth problems later. It's a double edged sword where currently the private sector can only provide a shovel.
mikebee02 3 years ago
My response would be that the market would correct itself. Poorly run corps would fail and the assets would be liquidated to competent companies that would benefit, thus creating real jobs.
We need to focus on where we are going because the problems are systemic. 70% of our economy was based on debt backed consumption. This intervention will mean more debt and inflation. When it falls apart, remember the people that said this would happen.
wuastwais 3 years ago
Right-on!
Well put.
freesk8 3 years ago
The timeframe is my main focus. How long will it take for market to correct itself without intervention? Even the competent companies that are buying up the failing ones are struggling. We can keep bleeding jobs and losses on investments, or we can take steps to save what we can and speed up getting out of this mess. Once we're back to profitability we can worry about systemic problems and long-term recovery.
mikebee02 3 years ago
The government can only make things worse.
The recession will be shorter without the additional inflation and future taxation that deficit spending causes.
The difference is that the shove that the private sector uses actually works. The double edged sword (threat of force) that the government uses is not only unethical when used against peaceful people, it does not work as well as the shovel in the long run.
freesk8 3 years ago
I'm not sure where the sword and shovel analogies went. Threat of force? Peaceful people? I meant the sword as the spending having multiple benefits of rallying stocks, improving earnings, saving jobs, and improving infrastructure, while the private sector uses a shovel to dig us deeper with more lay-offs, decreased production, and scared investors.
mikebee02 3 years ago
My point is that taxation is always accompanied by the threat of force. If you don't pay, they force you to pay or go to jail, even if the taxes you paid were used for unjust or unconstitutional ends, such as bailouts to corporations or "stimulus" spending. Your sword metaphor works better than you intended.
The shovel is more often used for productive and peaceful ends, and represents honorable business well.
Private shovels can dig a sound foundation for future growth.
Govt uses the sword.
freesk8 3 years ago
Liar.End of story Repugnicunt.Anyone who says Dumbya wasn't a conservative is not only stupid,but totally braindamaged.Go play with the kiddies on my space idiot,you are way out of your fucking league here.
blair227 3 years ago
You show your ignorance; go get an education.
Conservatists desire a smaller, less expensive government; can you show me where and when Bush pushed for smaller government.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
I show my ignorance?Your the dumb fuck trying to re-write history.Bush was the most conservtive president in my lifetime.He makes Reagan look liberal.You repugnicunts just can't stop lying.I guess its in your DNA.BTW,biggest defecit spenders in history Reagan+Dumbya.
blair227 3 years ago
First of all, which branch of government has the MOST POWER in spending issues? CONGRESS
But, you have avoided my point. Conservatives want a smaller, less-expensive government.
When did Bush ever lead in that direction, in a CONSERVATIVE direction?
He didn't; he's more like Obama than you want to admit.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
And who spent us into oblivion?Delay and the repugnicunts.Quit trying to revise history.The Congress under the Repugnicunts gave Dumbya everything he wanted.Your the one with either a vision problem or lack of education dumbass.
blair227 3 years ago
Right, and I fault DeLay more than Bush.
Neither were the conservatives they claimed to be.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Quit lying,they are conservatives.They spend huge amounts of money in the wrong areas,and never pay for it.They cut taxes for the super rich and put their spending on the tab for our future generations.The last fiscal conservative to sit in the white house was LBJ.1968 was the last year the books balanced.BTW,he was a democrat and the congress was democrat.You are the party of the greedy pure and simple.
blair227 3 years ago
Who's lying now? The Republican Congress (back when Conservatives were in charge) balanced the budget in the 1990s for several years, despite Clinton's requests that the budget not balance until 2002 or 2003.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
They balanced nothing,LIAR.Clinton and the dems did without a single Repugnicunt vote,by rolling back the tax cuts for the rich.You must be one of those ignorant fundies,who make a living out of lying and distorting truth.You might be the biggest LIAR,I've ran into on you tube in the 3 years I've been here.
blair227 3 years ago
So tell me, Brainiac, who did the Democrats pass that "without a single (republican) vote" if the Republicans were the majority in both houses of Congress during the late 90's and you need a majority to get a bill passed?
Oh, BTW, I checked with the US Treasury, we DID balance the budget from 1998 through 2001, which was more recent than LBJ...
You, sir or ma'am, are self-admitted liar but also a fool.
Quit arguing with me, you're embarrasing yourself.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Dumbass,read a fucking history book, the dems were in control of the house and senate for Clinton's first 2 years.Keep showing us your ignorance some more asshole.
blair227 3 years ago
DIPSTICK, the budget balanced in FY 1999 - 2001, when Republicans were in charge.
There were no budgets passed from 1992-1994, when Democrats were in charge, that would EVER balance.
After the Republicans gained control of congress after the '94 elections, Congress pushed for a balanced budget, not Clinton. He responded in 1996 with a budget that would've balaned in 2003; Republicans cut that budget and got it to balance in 1998.
But, you've admitted to lying earlier, 1968??? HA!!
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago 2
Clintons tax increase reduced the deficit not the Repugs.Quit fucking lying.The deficit ballooned under dumbya and the Repugnicunts by giving un-needed tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.I'm not talking about budgets of 92 or any other fucking year.I'm talking about what reduced the deficit and the dems did it without 1 repugnicunt vote in the fucking house.
blair227 3 years ago
Your crazy!
Explain how reduced tax receipts (what happened with Clinton's tax rate increases) balanced the budgets.
Explain why, if Clinton balanced the budget, none of his proposed budgets would've balanced DURING HIS TERM.
You're off your rocker and need some education; go to school or read a book. The budgets during the years the demonrats were in charge ROSE, they GREW.
Check your history, budgets began to shrink and balance AFTER republicans controlled Congress, not before.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
Or, if you're so smart, give me the Bill # of the balanced budget bill that passed Congress without a Republican vote.
Show me that and I'll admit that I'm wrong.
(HINT: I'll never admit that I'm wrong because NO SUCH BILL EXISTS!)
Quit smoking the 'shrooms; I'm too well-educated for your foolishness to win against.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
A balanced budget asshole means no deficit.The deficit was going down under Clinton,but far from balanced.Now go whack off to Rush and leave us smart people alone dumbass.
blair227 3 years ago
The budget did BALANCE in 1999 - 2001; not just a declining deficit.
Check some facts, moron. Or do you just just make this up as you go?
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
OftenWrong ted, remember the other day when you said that President Obama's 59% approval rating in the gallup poll was the beginning of a crash? From Gallup on 2/17/09:
"After dipping to 59% immediately before the president addressed a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, Barack Obamas approval rating has rebounded and now stands at 67%, just two points below his high."
Just as KataVideo predicted.
buh bye ted. conservatardism is headed off into the distant past.
KataVideo 3 years ago
and the immediate future.
TedinLasVegas 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
rupubs more same money to small buisiness ? same voted change! small buis once economy is better then will help, now not selling products/ service do to economy cant hire new need to sell things first & obama giving them cuts already more cuts dumb i do agree more tward bridge building & new jobs like that. repubs dumb on economics we want change. dems dont put up with there bull if they wanted good bill instead of go behind backs work with dems, repub sabatoge i will never vote repub again
stme2008 3 years ago
I love it when Republicans say that if the poor get stimulus money, they will just pay their bills with it. Isn't paying our bills the right thing to do? And if we didn't pay our bills what would happen to the companies that provide our services? These asshole just don't want to give money to the poor. Plain and simple.
oppesdaman 3 years ago 10
they should give it to me
panelolli 3 years ago
expect a handout. Generally I'm against them but we have to look what kind of return we'll get on that investment and that required gov't spending, healthcare and a good education. Pay for people's training and education and you've got a taxpayer for the future and will recoup that investment. That is one thing most pure conservatives don't understand.
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago 3
...either but I have a car I cannot really afford and most of my income and my wife's go towards necessitites. So the idea of spend, spend, spend comes naturally to the poor. Shopping takes the edge of the misery some feel. I never felt terrible when I was poor and didn't spend my money as foolishly but most of the people I know in the same circumstances did. I worked crap jobs until now and now, at 34 I'm finally going to college to hopefully do even better for my wife and children. I dont
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
I wish someone would finally ask a republican: Are you saying that people who don't make enough money to pay income taxes don't deserve a tax cut? That way those broke conservative idiots always running around screaming that republicans want to cut taxes will realize that they don't want to cut your taxes, you don't make enough money!
terrence0258 3 years ago
Bnecessity poor people don't save...they can't because 90%+ is spent on food and shelter/utilities. Most cannot afford a decent running car. Many are uneducated and have poor health habits such as smoking which eats up what little discrtionary income they have. I know this is a broad generalization and I do not meant to paint ALL poor people w/the same brush but largely these things are true. I am not exactly poor but I'm not living high off the hog either. I don't have bad health habits...
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago 2
Good point, rationalskeptic. Giving money to poor people ensures one thing -- IT WILL BE SPENT. That's the whole point of the stimulus package, right? To get money into the economy? I think Republicans are just opposed to this ideologically and aren't thinking it through.
revelwoodie 3 years ago 7
OKAY. Everytime I see this shit-for-brains loser make news with that fucking AZ next to his name it makes me sick.
THIS MAN WAS ELECTED BY ARIZONA'S TRANSPLANT POPULATION-PEOPLE RAISED IN THE MIDWEST WHO MOVED TO AZ TO GET OUT OF THE COLD.
PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY RAISED IN AZ ARE VERY DIFFERENT IDEOLOGICALLY THAN THESE PEOPLE, UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE THE MINORITY, AZ IS/WAS ONE OF AMERICA'S FASTEST GROWING STATES.
THIS GUY REPRESENTS OHIO, MICHIGAN, INDIANA....BUT NOT ARIZONA.
zndprophet 3 years ago
I wish I could say he don't represent Ohio where I live. I think that is changing but we have a high evangelical population and evangelicals tend to be conservative/rebublican which of course means they HATE the poor and giving money to them is vile in their opionion. It's somewhat ironic considering their holy book says that their supposed savior told his followers, "Whatever you do unto the least of these you do also unto me." If J-Zeus were alive today republicans would spit in his face.
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
most politicians are corrupted and im sure alot of them think their excused because of their political seat and think their better then hard working civilians
borntobelegend 3 years ago
Stupid remark, and probably a stupid guy, but he is a consistent libertarianish voice in the House. Republicans removed him from the Judiciary Committee in part (or full) because he opposed them on certain issues. He's a small government guy who actually delivers on that, as he's usually among a few people (like Ron Paul) who vote against major bills on a regular basis.
BMovieWackiness 3 years ago
Flake indeed.
thehistorysage 3 years ago 2
I keep hearing this talking point from the right. They're all in a hissy because, apparently, people who pay no taxes are getting a refund. First of all, people who don't pay taxes cannot get a "refund," ok? I think they might be getting confused with senior citizens living on Social Security (who, btw, deserve a tax break just like everyone else!).
dylanw26 3 years ago 4
No, you're misinformed. "Refundable tax credit" is the term they're talking about, which goes to everyone, even people who don't owe any taxes in the current year. So these people owe $0 but still get money under this proposal. That's what Republicans don't like -- it's too similar to welfare.
bkarwin 3 years ago
...Yes...but they still pay taxes... like payroll tax, social security, Federal as well as State...why should they be excluded...
hajqbvii 3 years ago 2
Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are too similar to welfare too. Republicans aren't against giving people money, they just don't want it going to the "wrong" people.
mikebee02 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Republicans time is over.
Just like the Republican congressman Campbell from California who, in his attempt to be obstructionist says:
"painting a federal building only creates 1 job"
persons like R- Campbell should not represent people, any working man will tell you that just painting a Federal Building, hires a bunch of workers, it hires people that provide materials, rentals of scafolding, etc.
Obviously congressman Campbell from California is an ignorant in matters of working people.
smilingseal 3 years ago 7
...Aptly named...FLAKE...Refundable income tax...who pays no taxes???
Know wonder the economy is in the toilet,...Republicans like ...FLAKE...has been in charge, these last 8 years!
hajqbvii 3 years ago 6
And yeah, it took Bush only 2 years to waste the surplus Bill Clinton gave us!
Th1mastermike 3 years ago 6
Wow I thought stimulating the economy was when people spent money. It's kinda hard to see how poor people won't spend money. The problem the economy has now is people are afraid to invest and others don't have any money to invest. Put the money in the hands of those who will spend it. Hello?!?! Business owners small and large can't lose...
taylor8407 3 years ago
Our Arizona polits are always on the job - making sure we are never left lacking for reasons to feel embarrassed for electing them.
Nutrino2179 3 years ago 2
lol...then you know how embarassed we are in Illinois about our politicians...lol
hajqbvii 3 years ago
"Refundable tax credits to those who pay no tax at all." I'm gonna be tryin' to wrap my non-finance-&-accounting brain around that one for the next week or two.
voyeurdug 3 years ago
Only money given to rich people is stimulative.
Richardgwm 3 years ago
Sarcastic?
mikebee02 3 years ago
huh?
achampag 3 years ago
lol, brain aids.
mickeh93 3 years ago
I R GUY WHO G0N T33CH U LES0N
Forppa 3 years ago 2
bahahaha Chief.
mgoldberg333 3 years ago