|
Post by Bubba Ray DJ on Feb 24, 2009 19:38:12 GMT -5
We took 8 years of it. ...and no, Bush is not the reason. Your democratic lead house and senate is. I can post the video again if need be. They were in power for less than two years. Other than that, it was a REPUBLICAN congress for Bush's reign. Why do you think everyone started flipping out on the Rep's and voted them out this year in an overwhelming majority. Think about that statement. We had 6 years of solid economic stability or growth and the two years that followed were absolutely dreadful. You do the math. Everyone started flipping out and voting out republicans because of false claims by democratic senators and representatives that they could be instrumental in bringing our soldiers home from war. Which was a lie. They couldn't do crap about it and still can't. The biggest issue that caused the republicans to lose control of the house and senate was the war overseas. Not the economy. Don't confuse fact with half truth.
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on Feb 24, 2009 19:53:49 GMT -5
Conservatives astound me, they bitch and bitch about HIGH TAXES and yet, they're essentially getting your taxes decreased. Nobody seemed to have a problem with Bush's stimulus plan, but OH NO, THAT ING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT!! HIS PLAN IS A JOKE!!! Political bias is going to kill this nation, they could probably secretly flip the two parties policies around and the majority of the people would still vote same party they were previously voting for. I honestly don't know how much more of this hypocrisy and idiocy I can take, it's going to destroy this country because we can't check our stupid party affiliation at the door and turn off those deliberately dividing pundits who shape our opinions for us. Forget about Obama's "change", we need to unite under a brand new party, a party that recognizes both the middle class and the upper class as equals. Forget about the trickle down effect which has never proven to be a great long term success and likewise for the trickle up effect. If we want to keep our capitalism afloat, we need both to function as a unit because one doesn't work without the other. Economically I think a "moderate" party would work, because the majority of the people don't give s **** about economic structure as long as it's working(as evident in elections). Socially on the other hand, it probably wouldn't succeed because to some gay marriage and abortions are more important than the county's success. While I agree fundamentally with what you're stating, I don't see the point of merging the middle class and upper class. Recognition has nothing to do with the economic crisis. The understanding that certain higher ups are going to take advantage of those in situations where they need either a loan or any other form of monetary help and then solely utilizing that in a manner where obviously the poor are not going to be able to make payments on time or whatever else could happen is the problem at hand. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were good ideas in principle, but depending on who you put in charge and what the priorities are, there are always going to be those who use it irresponsibly.
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Feb 24, 2009 22:25:20 GMT -5
They were in power for less than two years. Other than that, it was a REPUBLICAN congress for Bush's reign. Why do you think everyone started flipping out on the Rep's and voted them out this year in an overwhelming majority. Think about that statement. We had 6 years of solid economic stability or growth and the two years that followed were absolutely dreadful. You do the math. Everyone started flipping out and voting out republicans because of false claims by democratic senators and representatives that they could be instrumental in bringing our soldiers home from war. Which was a lie. They couldn't do **** about it and still can't. The biggest issue that caused the republicans to lose control of the house and senate was the war overseas. Not the economy. Don't confuse fact with half truth. Umm... six years of solid growth based off of horrible ideas, such as sub-prime mortgages, that were driven into action by conservative greed. Plus, the signs of a slowing economy were there before the Democrats took power. Lay-offs increasing, defaulted loans in the housing sector. So yeah, maybe you should realize there are two parties in this country, and both of them are directly responsible for the mess we are in. At least one party is doing more than randomly throwing six hundred dollars at select individuals and praying to God it works.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba Ray DJ on Feb 24, 2009 22:34:35 GMT -5
Think about that statement. We had 6 years of solid economic stability or growth and the two years that followed were absolutely dreadful. You do the math. Everyone started flipping out and voting out republicans because of false claims by democratic senators and representatives that they could be instrumental in bringing our soldiers home from war. Which was a lie. They couldn't do **** about it and still can't. The biggest issue that caused the republicans to lose control of the house and senate was the war overseas. Not the economy. Don't confuse fact with half truth. Umm... six years of solid growth based off of horrible ideas, such as sub-prime mortgages, that were driven into action by conservative greed. Plus, the signs of a slowing economy were there before the Democrats took power. Lay-offs increasing, defaulted loans in the housing sector. So yeah, maybe you should realize there are two parties in this country, and both of them are directly responsible for the mess we are in. At least one party is doing more than randomly throwing six hundred dollars at select individuals and praying to God it works. The stimulus check was never the end all be all to the economic issue. I'm fairly certain everyone knew that.
|
|
|
Post by cb2010 on Feb 24, 2009 22:52:49 GMT -5
Which will do absolutely nothing. Great plan.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 24, 2009 22:57:39 GMT -5
free money oh yes
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Feb 24, 2009 23:03:50 GMT -5
Umm... six years of solid growth based off of horrible ideas, such as sub-prime mortgages, that were driven into action by conservative greed. Plus, the signs of a slowing economy were there before the Democrats took power. Lay-offs increasing, defaulted loans in the housing sector. So yeah, maybe you should realize there are two parties in this country, and both of them are directly responsible for the mess we are in. At least one party is doing more than randomly throwing six hundred dollars at select individuals and praying to God it works. The stimulus check was never the end all be all to the economic issue. I'm fairly certain everyone knew that. The Rep's never said it was the ultimate fixer, however with the lack of a step two, I am inclined to think they were using it as a hail mary.
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on Feb 24, 2009 23:08:55 GMT -5
Umm... six years of solid growth based off of horrible ideas, such as sub-prime mortgages, that were driven into action by conservative greed. Plus, the signs of a slowing economy were there before the Democrats took power. Lay-offs increasing, defaulted loans in the housing sector. So yeah, maybe you should realize there are two parties in this country, and both of them are directly responsible for the mess we are in. At least one party is doing more than randomly throwing six hundred dollars at select individuals and praying to God it works. The stimulus check was never the end all be all to the economic issue. I'm fairly certain everyone knew that. Some people get it confused. It was meant to be just a small sample of what could possibly help our economy if people would understand to keep money flowing within our own boundaries. But I do believe some of the general public miss-interpreted it as a means to an end instead of just an example.
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Feb 24, 2009 23:17:20 GMT -5
The stimulus check was never the end all be all to the economic issue. I'm fairly certain everyone knew that. Some people get it confused. It was meant to be just a small sample of what could possibly help our economy if people would understand to keep money flowing within our own boundaries. But I do believe some of the general public miss-interpreted it as a means to an end instead of just an example. If the stimulus was a step 1 attempt, then where has a step two or re-do of step one been? That's what I want to know.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba Ray DJ on Feb 24, 2009 23:25:58 GMT -5
Some people get it confused. It was meant to be just a small sample of what could possibly help our economy if people would understand to keep money flowing within our own boundaries. But I do believe some of the general public miss-interpreted it as a means to an end instead of just an example. If the stimulus was a step 1 attempt, then where has a step two or re-do of step one been? That's what I want to know. Perhaps it's because the stimulus was signed in mid February of last year...and it took time to get checks. Then time to see what the stiumulus would actually accomplish, then time again to actually put a step two into motion. I think you see where I'm heading. By the time the plan was already moving forward Bush's term was over. Which brings us to present day.
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Feb 25, 2009 0:07:31 GMT -5
If the stimulus was a step 1 attempt, then where has a step two or re-do of step one been? That's what I want to know. Perhaps it's because the stimulus was signed in mid February of last year...and it took time to get checks. Then time to see what the stiumulus would actually accomplish, then time again to actually put a step two into motion. I think you see where I'm heading. By the time the plan was already moving forward Bush's term was over. Which brings us to present day. Why then, as everyone on here has been bitching about the Dem's wasted gestures, I have to ask exactly why do a plan which you are 90 percent sure will never see step two? With Bush's approval rating being so low, they had to suspect they were not going to get in for another term in the White House, and so they should have spent more effort creating something they could actually accomplish, instead of just piling on to the massive inflation. Or at least made step 2 and tell everyone what step 2 would be, and see if the Dem's would rather pursue that road.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba Ray DJ on Feb 25, 2009 0:10:56 GMT -5
Perhaps it's because the stimulus was signed in mid February of last year...and it took time to get checks. Then time to see what the stiumulus would actually accomplish, then time again to actually put a step two into motion. I think you see where I'm heading. By the time the plan was already moving forward Bush's term was over. Which brings us to present day. Why then, as everyone on here has been bitching about the Dem's wasted gestures, I have to ask exactly why do a plan which you are 90 percent sure will never see step two? With Bush's approval rating being so low, they had to suspect they were not going to get in for another term in the White House, and so they should have spent more effort creating something they could actually accomplish, instead of just piling on to the massive inflation. Or at least made step 2 and tell everyone what step 2 would be, and see if the Dem's would rather pursue that road. With a democratic lead house and senate...what do you think the odds are that they would use a President's (who they disliked) plan once he was out of power? Probably not that great. My guess is the Bush administration and congress had a knee jerk reaction and that's why BOTH of them went forward with the first stimulus package.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 25, 2009 0:19:30 GMT -5
Obviously the checks aren't going to be a solution, just something to help everything else get going.
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on Feb 25, 2009 0:44:02 GMT -5
Some people get it confused. It was meant to be just a small sample of what could possibly help our economy if people would understand to keep money flowing within our own boundaries. But I do believe some of the general public miss-interpreted it as a means to an end instead of just an example. If the stimulus was a step 1 attempt, then where has a step two or re-do of step one been? That's what I want to know. I do agree with you and understand where you are coming from. At the same time I do not believe that a step two was in the plan from the get go and thus the misconception alone that this was even meant to be a step 1 makes it seem intellectually- disabled. If we can just stave away from the idea that it was meant to be a step 1 and merely call it step 0.000001 then maybe it can just lay to rest as just a plain band aid over a gash. Though it really wasn't much of a band aid to begin with I get, but it was something and truly I believe that some people really thought it would help more than it did but we also have to realize we are Americans. We like cheap and fast and instant gratification which most Americans will go to Wal-Mart for and shopping at Wal-mart just doesn't help our economy at all (for those that do not understand I am merely using Wal-mart as an example, I am not saying that Wal-mart is the sole reason for any of our economic crisis but it is a damn good example of how much us Americans really need to stop looking for deals and start buying at home products).
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 25, 2009 11:12:57 GMT -5
Obviously the checks aren't going to be a solution, just something to help everything else get going. The value of the dollar continues to fall with every one we print. It's amazing that not only are we printing money with no 'backing', we're also just GIVING IT AWAY. It's preposterous. It was preposterous with Bush, it's preposterous with Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 25, 2009 11:19:20 GMT -5
Perhaps it's because the stimulus was signed in mid February of last year...and it took time to get checks. Then time to see what the stiumulus would actually accomplish, then time again to actually put a step two into motion. I think you see where I'm heading. By the time the plan was already moving forward Bush's term was over. Which brings us to present day. Why then, as everyone on here has been bitching about the Dem's wasted gestures, I have to ask exactly why do a plan which you are 90 percent sure will never see step two? With Bush's approval rating being so low, they had to suspect they were not going to get in for another term in the White House, and so they should have spent more effort creating something they could actually accomplish, instead of just piling on to the massive inflation. Or at least made step 2 and tell everyone what step 2 would be, and see if the Dem's would rather pursue that road. Bush pushed through his stimulus bill because we were in the middle of an election and he was hoping for a quick fix that McCain could then take credit for and hopefully keep the White House in the hands of the Republicans.
|
|
Reasoning through Questioning
Main Eventer
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. -Plato
Joined on: Oct 8, 2005 23:36:54 GMT -5
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by Reasoning through Questioning on Feb 25, 2009 11:32:37 GMT -5
If the stimulus was a step 1 attempt, then where has a step two or re-do of step one been? That's what I want to know. I do agree with you and understand where you are coming from. At the same time I do not believe that a step two was in the plan from the get go and thus the misconception alone that this was even meant to be a step 1 makes it seem intellectually- disabled. If we can just stave away from the idea that it was meant to be a step 1 and merely call it step 0.000001 then maybe it can just lay to rest as just a plain band aid over a gash. Though it really wasn't much of a band aid to begin with I get, but it was something and truly I believe that some people really thought it would help more than it did but we also have to realize we are Americans. We like cheap and fast and instant gratification which most Americans will go to Wal-Mart for and shopping at Wal-mart just doesn't help our economy at all (for those that do not understand I am merely using Wal-mart as an example, I am not saying that Wal-mart is the sole reason for any of our economic crisis but it is a damn good example of how much us Americans really need to stop looking for deals and start buying at home products). By keeping those millions of people employed by Wal-Mart with jobs are we not putting money back into our economy?You are right though. The consumer is the reason Wal-Mart is doing so well. Wal-Mart didn't kill small business the American consumer did.
|
|
Reasoning through Questioning
Main Eventer
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. -Plato
Joined on: Oct 8, 2005 23:36:54 GMT -5
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by Reasoning through Questioning on Feb 25, 2009 11:34:29 GMT -5
Why then, as everyone on here has been bitching about the Dem's wasted gestures, I have to ask exactly why do a plan which you are 90 percent sure will never see step two? With Bush's approval rating being so low, they had to suspect they were not going to get in for another term in the White House, and so they should have spent more effort creating something they could actually accomplish, instead of just piling on to the massive inflation. Or at least made step 2 and tell everyone what step 2 would be, and see if the Dem's would rather pursue that road. Bush pushed through his stimulus bill because we were in the middle of an election and he was hoping for a quick fix that McCain could then take credit for and hopefully keep the White House in the hands of the Republicans. I think he did just to make a mess. Bush has a very dickish persona. Why would he care what happened after he was gone? He obviously didn't care while he was in office.
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Feb 25, 2009 14:41:15 GMT -5
I dunno, $13 a week can make a difference if you use it right. People who are looking at it on from a weekly perspective aren't taking into consideration how much you may spend in one week.
I get paid every 2 weeks...so techincally for me that $26 more per check that will be in my pocket. Last year when I got my "stimulus" check...you know what I did? I paid off a credit card, thats it. That did NOTHING for the economy...it just helped me get one step closer to being Credit Card debt free.
Al the retail outlets were advertising crazy deals if you spent your stimulous check...."get $50 gift cards if you buy a TV with your check"....c"ash your check here and you'll get a $25 gas card!" thats all well and good, but most people probably dumped their money into existing debts instead of buying groceries...in effect it didn't "stimulate" anything
Having an extra $26 per paycheck will mean I will be more inclined to go out and buy the toaster I need, or the Air conditioner in the summer. $52 a month can go to your gas or electric bill, allowing you to keep your heat on longer, or watch more TV...which in turn helps the electric company, and so on.
I think people hear "stimulus" and figured they'd be getting a nice fat bonus check just like last year...when they aren't realizing the bottom line. A little extra money every week can go a long way. I, for one, am happy about it.
If the government really wanted to help more...maybe instead of giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries overseas that are just taking advantage of us...they could cut all of the hard working taxpayers another little bonus check...just to get things moving again.
|
|
I LIKE BIG BUTTS
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
5-1
Joined on: May 14, 2008 16:35:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,557
|
Post by I LIKE BIG BUTTS on Feb 25, 2009 15:26:54 GMT -5
What if you don't work ?
|
|