Obama Stimulus Plan

soulsinging

Drew263 wrote:

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?

Flutter Girl

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.

Commy

RM291946 wrote:

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?

deadmosquito

soulsinging wrote:

Drew263 wrote:

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.