Obama Stimulus Plan

Cosmo

Pats54 wrote:

We still hav the 2nd highest corporate tax rates as compared to other industralized countries. We were going to set-up a manufact. facility in this country. Our tax people looked at the HUGE tax breaks we would receive by going to PR and they you have it.

As noted below India is becoming costly as far as workers go etc.

...
Maybe you can answer me this...
How many manufactured goods are stamped with 'Made in India' do you find on the store shelfs?
How many manufactured goods are stamped with 'Made In China' do you find on those same store shelves?
...
My point? Goods versus Services.
As BinFrog stated, it was customer complaints about service, ever try to call about that defective hard drive you just put into your computer?
India was the one who fielded all of those servie calls... hell, a couple of years back, they were talking about outsourcing drive-thru windows at McDonalds to India. But, when you can't figure out what the hell the guy on the other end of the phone is saying... it ain't worth it.
China produces the goods. Those are the jobs that are never coming back. For every Chinese guy with a shitty factory job making plastic hair brushes, there are 300 applicants in line for his job. He can slack off on his production numbers... or ask for a raise... because he gets the boot and the next guy in line takes his place. There is no way Americans can compete with that.
Case in point:
http://www.madeinusaproductsstore.com/
Great... made in the good ol' U.S.A., right? Browse through there... look at all of those goods.
Tell me.. where are the Blue Ray DVD players? The 42" LCD Televisions? The Washing Machines? Refridgerators? Water Heaters? Air Conditioning Unit?
If you want a job in a glass factory, making coffee mugs... those jobs are here. But, what about those Middle Class jobs that your parents could work at, making furniture or ovens? Those jobs allowed them to carve out a pretty descent living, without a college degree.
Those are the jobs I'm talking about.

patrickredeyes

What a freaking mess.

callen

We need national healthcare and take that burden off of employers.

_Crazy_Mary_

Let's see:
Bush puts out a stimulus package during his presidency and now Obama is doing the same (only costing us even more!)
Good thing we 'voted for change.'

Cosmo

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

Let's see:
Bush puts out a stimulus package during his presidency and now Obama is doing the same (only costing us even more!)
Good thing we 'voted for change.'

...
Hi Mary...
I'm a little bit confused here...
Are you saying Obama is like Bush? (hence, the 'Voted for Change' remark)
Would that mean either:
A. You supported Bush... since Obama is like Bush... you support Obama... OR
B. You oppose Obama... since Obama is like Bush... you opposed Bush.
...
I don't get it.

_Crazy_Mary_

Cosmo wrote:

...
Hi Mary...
I'm a little bit confused here...
Are you saying Obama is like Bush? (hence, the 'Voted for Change' remark)
Would that mean either:
A. You supported Bush... since Obama is like Bush... you support Obama... OR
B. You oppose Obama... since Obama is like Bush... you opposed Bush.
...
I don't get it.

B.
I don't get it, either. I don't support the Stimulus plan. I didn't support Bush's either.
I think you know I'm a conservative, and I believe both Bush and Obama are to the left of center.

Cosmo

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Hi Mary...
I'm a little bit confused here...
Are you saying Obama is like Bush? (hence, the 'Voted for Change' remark)
Would that mean either:
A. You supported Bush... since Obama is like Bush... you support Obama... OR
B. You oppose Obama... since Obama is like Bush... you opposed Bush.
...
I don't get it.

B.
I don't get it, either. I don't support the Stimulus plan. I didn't support Bush's either.
I think you know I'm a conservative, and I believe both Bush and Obama are to the left of center.

...
Sorry to disappoint you, Hon... but, Bush is NOT to the left of Center. Maybe you see him as left of Center because he is so far on the EXTREME RIGHT side of the scale... he circles around and pops up on the other side. You know he is part of that whole Neo-Conservatism thing, right?
You can't brush off Bush as not being on your side of the coin... if you are a Conservative and Bush is a Conservative... there is only one outcome... you are both Conservatives.

decides2dream

Cosmo wrote:

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Hi Mary...
I'm a little bit confused here...
Are you saying Obama is like Bush? (hence, the 'Voted for Change' remark)
Would that mean either:
A. You supported Bush... since Obama is like Bush... you support Obama... OR
B. You oppose Obama... since Obama is like Bush... you opposed Bush.
...
I don't get it.

B.
I don't get it, either. I don't support the Stimulus plan. I didn't support Bush's either.
I think you know I'm a conservative, and I believe both Bush and Obama are to the left of center.

...
Sorry to disappoint you, Hon... but, Bush is NOT to the left of Center. Maybe you see him as left of Center because he is so far on the EXTREME RIGHT side of the scale... he circles around and pops up on the other side. You know he is part of that whole Neo-Conservatism thing, right?
You can't brush off Bush as not being on your side of the coin... if you are a Conservative and Bush is a Conservative... there is only one outcome... you are both Conservatives.

seriously!
how anyone can even imagine bush to be LEFT of center...... :shock:


and ya know, this stimulus package is a bit scary to say the least.....but things ARE dire, so i am hoping it is the right choice. i've read that the package carries the same pricetag as the iraqi war thus far.....well THAT, was a complete waste of money, life....EVERYthing imo. at least this is meant to BENEFIT americans, so i can only hope that it WILL and down the road we see it as a positive, and it winds up BEING a positive. time WILL tell, that's for sure.

WaveCameCrashin

Cosmo wrote:

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Hi Mary...
I'm a little bit confused here...
Are you saying Obama is like Bush? (hence, the 'Voted for Change' remark)
Would that mean either:
A. You supported Bush... since Obama is like Bush... you support Obama... OR
B. You oppose Obama... since Obama is like Bush... you opposed Bush.
...
I don't get it.

B.
I don't get it, either. I don't support the Stimulus plan. I didn't support Bush's either.
I think you know I'm a conservative, and I believe both Bush and Obama are to the left of center.

...
Sorry to disappoint you, Hon... but, Bush is NOT to the left of Center. Maybe you see him as left of Center because he is so far on the EXTREME RIGHT side of the scale... he circles around and pops up on the other side. You know he is part of that whole Neo-Conservatism thing, right?
You can't brush off Bush as not being on your side of the coin... if you are a Conservative and Bush is a Conservative... there is only one outcome... you are both Conservatives.

bush is far from being a true coservative

milarso

gvn2fly74 wrote:

bush is far from being a true coservative

I'm one of the biggest Bush opponents out there, but gvn2fly74 is right. Bush was one of the least conservative republican presidents in recent history. He's an idiot in my opinion, but he's not even close to being a true conservative.

WaveCameCrashin

ask any true conservative and see what kind of answer you get, just b/c bush is a republican doesn't make him a conservative. he spends like a left wing loon.with all due respect

milarso

gvn2fly74 wrote:

ask any true conservative and see what kind of answer you get, just b/c bush is a republican doesn't make him a conservative. he spends like a left wing loon.with all due respect

Just check out his immigration policy. Spending was out of control.

Flutter Girl

soulsinging wrote:

That was exactly what I thought when this all hit the fan too... if we're going to bail people out with tax dollars, why not the citizens, not the banks? The banks get their money, the people are free of mortgages and can start spending, everyone can breathe easier. Sure, the banks take a bit of a hit because they depend on the interest to make money, but they should take a hit and they can still make money on the other loans. Make it a one-time thing, the US buys out a bunch of mortgages and we start over.

For big businesses that are going under, banks should lower payments, NOT interest, and extend the loans to make up the difference. That paired with bailing out the home owners would end the crisis once and for all.

But no, instead they want to dole out billions more in bailouts to banks who will only pocket it, and a stimulus that will put us into a debt that not even our great grandchildren will see the end of, and worse, a good lot of the stuff in it won't even create new jobs..

I wrote to both my senators suggesting the idea.

Anyone who disagrees should at least consider one factor. We bail out the banks, tax payers get stuck with the bill. We let the banks go bankrupt, tax payers get stuck with the bill. Pass a stimulus, tax payers get stuck with the bill. Bail out the home owners, tax payers get stuck with the bill.

And of those options, bailing out the banks will just give out our money for it to disappear into thin air, not fixing anything.

Letting them go bankrupt won't solve anything cos the houses will still be foreclosing.

The stimulus is straight stupid and hardly any of it creates more jobs. A huge chunk will go towards building a new worthless climate model. More large chunks go to research, not creating jobs. etc..

Bailing out the home owners will absolutely lead to bettering the economy and is the cheapest option on the table.

South of Seattle

soulsinging wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

The only thing that could better the economy is if all bailouts to banks stop, and instead, are given to the idiots who bought homes they can't afford (or got duped, I won't blame 'em all), solely to pay off their homes. The banks get the money keeping them from going bankrupt, the people keep the homes and are free of massive mortgage payments, and without mortgage payments, they can afford to go out and spend on other things. It's not fuckin rocket science. Coulda saved a fortune doing that from the get, literally, a very humongous fortune..

That was exactly what I thought when this all hit the fan too... if we're going to bail people out with tax dollars, why not the citizens, not the banks? The banks get their money, the people are free of mortgages and can start spending, everyone can breathe easier. Sure, the banks take a bit of a hit because they depend on the interest to make money, but they should take a hit and they can still make money on the other loans. Make it a one-time thing, the US buys out a bunch of mortgages and we start over.

The only problem I have with that is the fact that someone like me, who knew they couldn't afford a house and didn't buy is left out. If I were irresponsible and bought a house then I would be golden under this scenario.

I think citizens should get the money, not just the citizens behind on their mortgage payments.

Drew263

As long as we're letting morons like this decide what to do with our hard earned tax money..we're fucked..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vO0lqnyk20

It's our fault for electing these idiots.

Drew263

South of Seattle wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

The only thing that could better the economy is if all bailouts to banks stop, and instead, are given to the idiots who bought homes they can't afford (or got duped, I won't blame 'em all), solely to pay off their homes. The banks get the money keeping them from going bankrupt, the people keep the homes and are free of massive mortgage payments, and without mortgage payments, they can afford to go out and spend on other things. It's not fuckin rocket science. Coulda saved a fortune doing that from the get, literally, a very humongous fortune..

That was exactly what I thought when this all hit the fan too... if we're going to bail people out with tax dollars, why not the citizens, not the banks? The banks get their money, the people are free of mortgages and can start spending, everyone can breathe easier. Sure, the banks take a bit of a hit because they depend on the interest to make money, but they should take a hit and they can still make money on the other loans. Make it a one-time thing, the US buys out a bunch of mortgages and we start over.

The only problem I have with that is the fact that someone like me, who knew they couldn't afford a house and didn't buy is left out. If I were irresponsible and bought a house then I would be golden under this scenario.

I think citizens should get the money, not just the citizens behind on their mortgage payments.

Exactly, failure should not be rewarded. You and I did the right thing and under that scenario, we'd be punished. That is not right.

inmytree

As I see it, this plan is so big it makes it easy to upset people. I mean no matter what, someone somewhere is going to find something "wrong" with this plan...

for me, something is better that nothing...it's obvious the policies of last eight years have lead us to today...something needs done...

_Crazy_Mary_

gvn2fly74 wrote:

ask any true conservative and see what kind of answer you get, just b/c bush is a republican doesn't make him a conservative. he spends like a left wing loon.with all due respect

Yep. Didn't federal spending go from $1 trillion to $3 trillion under Bush? That is opposite of conservatism as I know it

Flutter Girl

South of Seattle wrote:

The only problem I have with that is the fact that someone like me, who knew they couldn't afford a house and didn't buy is left out. If I were irresponsible and bought a house then I would be golden under this scenario.

I think citizens should get the money, not just the citizens behind on their mortgage payments.

You have to think of it from a differen't perspective. No matter which path is taken to supposedly 'fix' this mess, you and I are still going to pay for it thru taxes.

I did a little sorting out of the stimulus and the differences in cost..
First in foremost I want to mention that this is meant to be an emergency stimulus, but only $20 bill will be spent within the next 12 months. so why not cut it down to the $20 billion which are apparently the most crucial as it's the only part getting used immediately, and leave the rest to be looked at thoroughly and argued over properly over time? What exactly is it that he is trying to rush thru with the actual $20 bill emergency money?

Anyways, here's my breakdown-
they want to send people digital converter boxes to the tune of an obscene $650 mill..
for the gw model- 140$ mill.....neither of which would create any new jobs..We're off to a bad start with it already.

$54 bill to create new renewable energy sources..
Why?
Go nuclear. Recycle trash to fuel (even nuclear waste). Two beautifully cheap and abundant sources that already exist. No experimentation necessary. Best part about it, the sooner we get crackin with it, the sooner more jobs will be created to build and manage the new plants. I'd rather spend that amount of money to build these new jobs, then to hand over to a handful of already employed scientists to expirement with, wasting a good majority on things that turn out to be crap ideas that don't work.


$550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.
For that massive amount I want to know exactly what they consider "thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments." My tax dollars, my right to know what the fuck it’s funding. Call me crazy but I wouldn’t even spend $5.50 for a mystery package.


$ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology)
This best be damned targeted and specific. Our county sent out money to schools to build onto them making them big enough to handle the growth in students attending. One of my old schools has travertine facing, and I don’t mean a little bit either, a new 10,000$ logo to show it’s a school of the arts, etc. A massive waste of our money.


$ 10 billion for science/technology
We already provide for this annually, why is this being thrown into an emergency package? What is hidden in it that he wants to rush thru before we can break it down to find out exactly what it's going to fund? This is a perfect example of what worries me about the package..Not to mention it doesn't create new jobs, just doles out more money to the already employed..


$ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization
When it comes to my money, I am not cool, in any shape or form, with the word ambiguous. Another one that doesn't create any new jobs..


$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas
Are you shitting me? Are you seriously shitting me??


$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.
Here’s a much better idea...Do away with biofuel. Food prices will drop back down again. The economy has jack to do with rising food cost. It’s a sham. And the best part, this plan is free for us.


Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time.
What? Why? Jobs? Anyone see any new jobs in this?


Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
You gotta be kidding me..No new jobs being created here either.


<i>Overall, about one-quarter of the entire $825 billion recovery package would be devoted to activities crucial to governors, mayors, and local school boards - making them among the plans biggest beneficiaries.[/i] Also known as: not creating new jobs. Instead of No new taxes, Obama should be saying no new jobs...just free money for the already employed who are not in a position to expand a "business" and/or create new jobs.


Cut the spending for the converters, gw model, renewable energy experiments, high-speed internet connections, food stamp increase (by ditching E85), and what is essentially massive bailouts dubbed as "investments," and you can drop that $825 bill stimulus down to $194 bill




183,800$ was the national median price for a home in 2005. Multiply that by the estimated 2 million oncoming foreclosures, it's $367 bill. Adjust that to $567 bill for inflation. You can pay off the homes for less money than the stimulus, put money in the pockets of the citizen's, and their spending will stimulate the economy encouraging business/job growth.

Cosmo

gvn2fly74 wrote:

ask any true conservative and see what kind of answer you get, just b/c bush is a republican doesn't make him a conservative. he spends like a left wing loon.with all due respect

...
You are ALL saying the same thing as I have been railing at for the past 7 years... WHAT part of 'Conservative Ideals' is:
Massive, intrusive Government?
Unchecked Federal Spending?
War by CHOICE, not of necessity?
Move towards Religious Theocracy?
Disregard for the Constitution?
Soviet style tactics?
(add Man on man sex in filthy public restrooms, or Man/Boy intern love texting)...
...
Where the hell were all the 'CONSERVATIVES' when all of this shit was going on? And WHY did they VOTE for him???