Perchoutofwater Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 What is wrong with this stimulus plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nothing is wrong with it, per say. It would spur some short term spending, but not much else IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nothing is wrong with it, per say. It would spur some short term spending, but not much else IMO. Bingo. I don't think anything, short of maybe a complete change in the approach to taxation, will pull us out of this. I think it's just the pain we've brought on by making bad decisions. The bed has been pizzed in, we now have to lie in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Bingo. I don't think anything, short of maybe a complete change in the approach to taxation, will pull us out of this. I think it's just the pain we've brought on by making bad decisions. The bed has been pizzed in, we now have to lie in it. I think it's funny that a republican problem supposedly requires a republican solution. Just sit tight and watch stuff get better through what I like to call "non-incompetence", mmmkay? It may take more than 2 weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think it's funny that a republican problem supposedly requires a republican solution. Just sit tight and watch stuff get better through what I like to call "non-incompetence", mmmkay? It may take more than 2 weeks. I'm giving it 3 weeks then I'm calling for heads to roll!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think it's funny that a republican problem supposedly requires a republican solution. Just sit tight and watch stuff get better through what I like to call "non-incompetence", mmmkay? It may take more than 2 weeks. I find it humorous that you feel this is a republican problem. Didn't this whole mess start with Freddie and Fanny? Who was in charge of the congressional committee that was supposed to be overseeing them? Who received the most money from them? Atomic, you can try to say this is a republican problem, and it might make you feel better thinking that it is, but that doesn't make it so. There were plenty on both sides of the isle to blame this on, including the man that recently left the Whitehouse as well as the man currently residing there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The biggest problem I see with the plan is that it is February. If you make a ton of money it sounds like a great deal. Not sure how much a tax break is going to help the 1/2 million people laid off in the last 30 days or the rest of us who don't make $hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I find it humorous that you feel this is a republican problem. Didn't this whole mess start with Freddie and Fanny? Who was in charge of the congressional committee that was supposed to be overseeing them? Who received the most money from them? Atomic, you can try to say this is a republican problem, and it might make you feel better thinking that it is, but that doesn't make it so. There were plenty on both sides of the isle to blame this on, including the man that recently left the Whitehouse as well as the man currently residing there. I know who was in complete control of all three branches of the federal government between the time everything was awesome, and the time when everything went to crap. Everyone does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I know who was in complete control of all three branches of the federal government between the time everything was awesome, and the time when everything went to crap. Everyone does. In the last 6 months you have become a raving idiot. In 2000 Bush had to deal with the busting of the tech bubble. In 2001 we had 9/11. He and congress brought us out of that thanks largely to his tax policies. The current recession started less than a year ago, and is tied to policies started in 1996 with Freddie and Fannie. Your party has been in charge for the last two years. Your party was in charge of overseeing Freddie and Fannie. Your party is the one that regularly receives campaign contributions form Freddie and Fannie, as well as the UAW that has strangled Detroit. It is easy to blame Bush, and Bush deserves some of the blame but not nearly as much as you seem to attribute to him. You can blame Bush for increasing the size of government. You can blame Bush for not going after Osama. I'll be right there with you. But blaming this crisis on Bush or on Republicans without admitting the Democrats share as much if not more responsibility is blind partisanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The current recession started less than a year ago, and is tied to policies started in 1996 with Freddie and Fannie. It started more than a year ago, and no ecomomist in the world agrees that anything in 1996 was a significant cause of this recession, but as you try to throw crap at the wall, I wouldn't expect you to get the facts right either. Your explanation is unnecessarily complicated... as it needs to be because you're trying to make a very counter-ntuitive argument: That the party in control of all three branches of government was not responsible for a catastophic series of mistakes from 2000 to 2007. You're trying to sell something here, and nobody is buying because the answer is obvious. Your people screwed everything up from 2000 to when the recession started in late 2007. See here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The current recession started less than a year ago, and is tied to policies started in 1996 with Freddie and Fannie. And you wonder why people are impressed with Obama's ability to admit to making a mistake? Are you seirous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 It started more than a year ago, and no ecomomist in the world agrees that anything in 1996 was a significant cause of this recession, but as you try to throw crap at the wall, I wouldn't expect you to get the facts right either. Your explanation is unnecessarily complicated... as it needs to be because you're trying to make a very counter-ntuitive argument: That the party in control of all three branches of government was not responsible for a catastophic series of mistakes from 2000 to 2007. You're trying to sell something here, and nobody is buying because the answer is obvious. Your people screwed everything up from 2000 to when the recession started in late 2007. See here it started when people spent more than they could afford. when banks took more risk then they could afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 This sounds like the most reasonable solution to date. Why does the governments' answer always involve spending in some manner? Who needs relief? How can we directly have an impact on that relief? What will this relief allow for? I see this as a solid way to relieve that weight that is on the American taxpayers shoulders, and given a long enough holiday, spur the economy on. Then, the government can come to us with their spending bills... not rolling them all up into a "stimulus" bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 it started when people spent more than they could afford. when banks took more risk then they could afford. Subprimes took off in 2004, going from 8% of all mortgages to 30%, IIRC. The piper first came to collect his due in 2006 and 2007 by which time the mortgage originators had sold on the mortgages to , who then sold them on to bigger . Then the roof caved in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.