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
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.
"The dude abides. I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' her easy for all us sinners."
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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???
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
You're not "punished" you just don't get a nice big freebie. I'm not happy with it, but I prefer it to pouring a ton of taxpayer money into banks that does nothing to solve the underlying problem here. No, it's not fair, but it might actually accomplish something and at least those homeowners might be able to repay it in the sense of jump starting the economy via more disposable income. Shit, if you want we can spread it around... what have the two bailouts added up to? 1.5 trillion? Say you give $10,000 to everyone with an outstanding mortgage and force the banks to lower monthly payments on all those who ask for it. Everyone gets a break. Or say we give money to buy off mortgages to those who fucked up and everyone who pays theirs or has paid theirs gets a tax break.
This isn't like some big reward for failure. It's a desperate measure to avoid a meltdown.
Any way you slice it, handing trillions to the banks to reward their bad behavior is no better, wouldn't you say? Why is it so awful to reward the individuals who screwed up but rewarding banks for terrible business practices is fine?
Now you know damned well that the $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in. is a fancy and elusive way of saying we are handing out 550 bill to banks as bailouts, only to watch it disappear into thin air and do absolutely nothing to fix the state of the economy.
Doesn't it make much more sense to use it to pay off the homes instead, in a move that you know, without doubt, will fix the economy in several ways?
Now the dems want to add 25 bill more to the package? What it's not quite high enough to make us a third world country? They want to be absolutely positive it will accomplish that?
Like I said, the only money in the stimulus that would be spent as emergency money is the 20 bill that will be used in the first 12 months. The rest must not be that much of an emergency if it can wait a whole year to get used..so my question is, with words like ambiguous and vague descriptions, and many earmarked for many things that will not create new jobs or do anything to help the economy...What exactly is it that Obama is trying to push thru so fast we don't get a chance to examine it?
Obama is using the same exact dirty politician tricks Bush used. Making Obama the same exact dirty politician Bush was.
Now you know damned well that the $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in. is a fancy and elusive way of saying we are handing out 550 bill to banks as bailouts, only to watch it disappear into thin air and do absolutely nothing to fix the state of the economy.
Doesn't it make much more sense to use it to pay off the homes instead, in a move that you know, without doubt, will fix the economy in several ways?
Now the dems want to add 25 bill more to the package? What it's not quite high enough to make us a third world country? They want to be absolutely positive it will accomplish that?
Like I said, the only money in the stimulus that would be spent as emergency money is the 20 bill that will be used in the first 12 months. The rest must not be that much of an emergency if it can wait a whole year to get used..so my question is, with words like ambiguous and vague descriptions, and many earmarked for many things that will not create new jobs or do anything to help the economy...What exactly is it that Obama is trying to push thru so fast we don't get a chance to examine it?
Obama is using the same exact dirty politician tricks Bush used. Making Obama the same exact dirty politician Bush was.
the difference of course is common sense.
I'm no democrat...not by any stretch, but what Obama has done domestically in his first week of office has been more than Bush ever did in his 8 years. re foreign policiy there is much to be desired, but domestically he has been very good so far.
the republicans have given more to the private sector since Reagan than all the democrats combined, including Obama and this stimulus package.
there is nothing conservative about the republican party.
where were the republicans during Bush and his trillion dollar war?
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.
You're not "punished" you just don't get a nice big freebie. I'm not happy with it, but I prefer it to pouring a ton of taxpayer money into banks that does nothing to solve the underlying problem here. No, it's not fair, but it might actually accomplish something and at least those homeowners might be able to repay it in the sense of jump starting the economy via more disposable income. Shit, if you want we can spread it around... what have the two bailouts added up to? 1.5 trillion? Say you give $10,000 to everyone with an outstanding mortgage and force the banks to lower monthly payments on all those who ask for it. Everyone gets a break. Or say we give money to buy off mortgages to those who fucked up and everyone who pays theirs or has paid theirs gets a tax break.
This isn't like some big reward for failure. It's a desperate measure to avoid a meltdown.
Any way you slice it, handing trillions to the banks to reward their bad behavior is no better, wouldn't you say? Why is it so awful to reward the individuals who screwed up but rewarding banks for terrible business practices is fine?
to be fair, a large amount (if not most or even all) of the money going to banks only goes to those banks that are rated high on whatever scale it is used by the government to rate banks for safety. banks who engaged in a lot of the shitty behavior that escalated this whole mess do not get the money. for instance, i work for a bank here in west virginia and we are rated the highest rating you can get, did not engage in any kind of risky behavior, and have been offered money by the gov't, of which we took half. this money is for us to expand, to loan out, etc. it's a good idea when the banks given the money are safe ones. what i'm not clear on is if this money has to be repayed or not. i think it does. which is even better.
Comments
Just check out his immigration policy. Spending was out of control.
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vO0lqnyk20
It's our fault for electing these idiots.
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.
for me, something is better that nothing...it's obvious the policies of last eight years have lead us to today...something needs done...
Yep. Didn't federal spending go from $1 trillion to $3 trillion under Bush? That is opposite of conservatism as I know it
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.
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???
Hail, Hail!!!
You're not "punished" you just don't get a nice big freebie. I'm not happy with it, but I prefer it to pouring a ton of taxpayer money into banks that does nothing to solve the underlying problem here. No, it's not fair, but it might actually accomplish something and at least those homeowners might be able to repay it in the sense of jump starting the economy via more disposable income. Shit, if you want we can spread it around... what have the two bailouts added up to? 1.5 trillion? Say you give $10,000 to everyone with an outstanding mortgage and force the banks to lower monthly payments on all those who ask for it. Everyone gets a break. Or say we give money to buy off mortgages to those who fucked up and everyone who pays theirs or has paid theirs gets a tax break.
This isn't like some big reward for failure. It's a desperate measure to avoid a meltdown.
Any way you slice it, handing trillions to the banks to reward their bad behavior is no better, wouldn't you say? Why is it so awful to reward the individuals who screwed up but rewarding banks for terrible business practices is fine?
Doesn't it make much more sense to use it to pay off the homes instead, in a move that you know, without doubt, will fix the economy in several ways?
Now the dems want to add 25 bill more to the package? What it's not quite high enough to make us a third world country? They want to be absolutely positive it will accomplish that?
Like I said, the only money in the stimulus that would be spent as emergency money is the 20 bill that will be used in the first 12 months. The rest must not be that much of an emergency if it can wait a whole year to get used..so my question is, with words like ambiguous and vague descriptions, and many earmarked for many things that will not create new jobs or do anything to help the economy...What exactly is it that Obama is trying to push thru so fast we don't get a chance to examine it?
Obama is using the same exact dirty politician tricks Bush used. Making Obama the same exact dirty politician Bush was.
the difference of course is common sense.
I'm no democrat...not by any stretch, but what Obama has done domestically in his first week of office has been more than Bush ever did in his 8 years. re foreign policiy there is much to be desired, but domestically he has been very good so far.
the republicans have given more to the private sector since Reagan than all the democrats combined, including Obama and this stimulus package.
there is nothing conservative about the republican party.
where were the republicans during Bush and his trillion dollar war?
to be fair, a large amount (if not most or even all) of the money going to banks only goes to those banks that are rated high on whatever scale it is used by the government to rate banks for safety. banks who engaged in a lot of the shitty behavior that escalated this whole mess do not get the money. for instance, i work for a bank here in west virginia and we are rated the highest rating you can get, did not engage in any kind of risky behavior, and have been offered money by the gov't, of which we took half. this money is for us to expand, to loan out, etc. it's a good idea when the banks given the money are safe ones. what i'm not clear on is if this money has to be repayed or not. i think it does. which is even better.