POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post Reply
GoBabyGo
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by GoBabyGo » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:09 pm

Bailout proposal looking to be passed. Trying to get a pulse of what real people believe. Please answer for or against and a short why for either.



Thanks guys.
GoBabyGo

King of Queens
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by King of Queens » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:46 pm

Originally posted by GoBabyGo:

Trying to get a pulse of what real people believe. I'd give you my opinion, but I'm not a real person.

GoBabyGo
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by GoBabyGo » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:42 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:

Trying to get a pulse of what real people believe. I'd give you my opinion, but I'm not a real person. [/QUOTE]This is what someone I respect said



"Bailout: Stealing a trillion dollars from the American people to give to the banks to loan back to the American people ... at interest."
GoBabyGo

sportsbettingman
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by sportsbettingman » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:15 pm

Originally posted by GoBabyGo:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:

Trying to get a pulse of what real people believe. I'd give you my opinion, but I'm not a real person. [/QUOTE]This is what someone I respect said



"Bailout: Stealing a trillion dollars from the American people to give to the banks to loan back to the American people ... at interest."
[/QUOTE]What do we own?



The Banks own the title to our homes until that last penny is paid in full.



Same goes for the fancy car.



What the hell do you own that's not garbage or trivial? (In a home fire...give me my family first...then family photos...then a few keepsakes...and the rest can burn.)



~Lance



[ February 08, 2009, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."

~Albert Einstein

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by KJ Duke » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:26 pm

Most people, I suspect, would be against the stimulus, except maybe the part where they get a check in the mail. The argument against is easy to understand, the argument for opaque.



My opinion is this. You have to do enough to avoid a systemic meltdown. And then you stop. Difficult to implement though, because NO ONE knows where that line is. These bailouts will be abused, already have and it will happen even more going forward - by bankers and politicians.



But here is an analogy to consider. The legal system has a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", which is designed to protect the innocent, even if the cost is that more of the guilty go free because of it. The same applies here. There will be abuse, we know it, but it still is better than the alternative of a complete economic collapse which would take down even more of the "innocent". That doesn't mean I have to like it, but ultimately I think we will be better off for it.

User avatar
Edwards Kings
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Duluth, Georgia

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Edwards Kings » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:25 am

I am for a stimulas package targeting business growth (i.e. small to mid sized firms that do the most hiring in our economy, not the banks or big boys), and tax cuts to increase investment.



I am against this so called "bail-out" which is filled, even by belt-way standards, with an overabundance of non-stimulas programs including a certain amount of pork to attract key Republicans and every Democratic, socialistic, Ted-Kennedy wannabe give-away program that targets Democratic key constituancy (i.e. mostly people who do not pay taxes therefore will not have to foot the bill).



I asked the security guard where I work what she thought of the bail-out. She said she was all for it because it would put money in her pocket. I asked her where the money came from, and she said "the government, silly". I asked her where the government got the money, she said "they make it". I asked her if any came from taxes, she said "sure, but not from me."



Brilliant.
Baseball is a slow, boring, complex, cerebral game that doesn't lend itself to histrionics. You 'take in' a baseball game, something odd to say about a football or basketball game, with the clock running and the bodies flying.
Charles Krauthammer

Richie
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Richie » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:22 am

Edwards Kings wants more of the same obviously. He wants to target business growth (who doesnt but how to do it is the ?) and tax cuts. Obviously, bring back Cheney and Bush and you can get your business growth and tax cuts. See what good that did



The Dow was lower after 8 years of Cheney and Bush than the day he started by a good amt, is that business growth? Did their tax cuts help?



Clinton raised taxes. We never had a better economy in the past 60 years.



Get real and take off your republican hat and start caring about the people. They are suffering, and will contiue to suffer from the Cheney Bush philosophy. nd u want to continue it. Wow



Change was voted in with something like 345 electoral votes. You need to buy off that heney Bush was a failure.



Yes, I list it as Cheney Bush on purpose.



By te way, if, god forbid, the Obama plan works somewhat quickly, the Repubs would be a dead political party for decades. How could they ever explain no votes for the successful anti Cheney Bush plan?

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by KJ Duke » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:39 am

Originally posted by Richie:

The Dow was lower after 8 years of Cheney and Bush than the day he started by a good amt, is that business growth? Did their tax cuts help?



Clinton raised taxes. We never had a better economy in the past 60 years.



There were major cycles underway almost completely unrelated to both of these Administrations that drove the economy and markets.



Clinton raised taxes "because he could" in a boom economic cycle that was related to (a) a massive technology cycle driven by the Internet, which he had nothing to do with, (b) accelerating global trade with developing countries, for which he gets partial credit for trade deals that he favored (going against his own Dem. Party), and (c) monetary stimulus by Greenspan which was possible because of huge productivity gains without inflation which was related to A and B above.



Bush, on the other hand, was given a sh*t sandwich upon his arrival in office: (a) he inherited the fallout of the Internet Bust, which was inevitable no matter who would have been in power, (b) within his first year had to deal with the 9/11 issue (in part thanks to Clinton's inaction to take down Bin Laden when he could have) which would be a massive "security tax" on our society, no matter how we responded. George overspent to keep the growth party going, that was his economic mistake, not reducing taxes.



[ February 08, 2009, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

King of Queens
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by King of Queens » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:45 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

a massive technology cycle driven by the Internet, which [Clinton] had nothing to do withDidn't Al Gore invent the Internet?

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by KJ Duke » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:53 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

a massive technology cycle driven by the Internet, which [Clinton] had nothing to do withDidn't Al Gore invent the Internet? [/QUOTE]His mind told him he did, until it was pointed out to him that in fact he did not.



He also believes he is saving the planet from high energy use in spite of building a 15,000 square foot mansion for 2 people to live in on a part-time basis, while the rest of the time flying around the world in private jets than burn 50 gallons of fuel per hour.




King of Queens
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by King of Queens » Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:15 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

a massive technology cycle driven by the Internet, which [Clinton] had nothing to do withDidn't Al Gore invent the Internet? [/QUOTE]His mind told him he did, until it was pointed out to him that in fact he did not.



He also believes he is saving the planet from high energy use in spite of building a 15,000 square foot mansion for 2 people to live in on a part-time basis, while the rest of the time flying around the world in private jets than burn 50 gallons of fuel per hour.



[/QUOTE]He needs the mansion to protect his family from ManBearPig -- half man, half bear, half pig.




User avatar
Edwards Kings
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Duluth, Georgia

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Edwards Kings » Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:22 am

Originally posted by Richie:

Edwards Kings wants more of the same obviously. He wants to target business growth (who doesnt but how to do it is the ?) and tax cuts. Obviously, bring back Cheney and Bush and you can get your business growth and tax cuts. See what good that did



The Dow was lower after 8 years of Cheney and Bush than the day he started by a good amt, is that business growth? Did their tax cuts help?



Clinton raised taxes. We never had a better economy in the past 60 years.



Get real and take off your republican hat and start caring about the people. They are suffering, and will contiue to suffer from the Cheney Bush philosophy. nd u want to continue it. Wow



Change was voted in with something like 345 electoral votes. You need to buy off that heney Bush was a failure.



Yes, I list it as Cheney Bush on purpose.



By te way, if, god forbid, the Obama plan works somewhat quickly, the Repubs would be a dead political party for decades. How could they ever explain no votes for the successful anti Cheney Bush plan? Actually, I believe the "economy" as so loosely translated by the morons in the media will rebound, late this year or early next. And it will have nothing to do with President Obama. IMO, and based on looking honestly and without prejudice at prior new administrations, it takes nearly two full business cycles for the programs of a new President to take effect. After the mid-terms, however, watch out.



Clinton was in a precarious state when he came in to office having squeeked by thanks to a split in the Republican Party and did little (other than botch his first 100 days) to impact the plans and programs put in place by the greatest President of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan. Upon winning re-election and after raising taxes, the economy tanked in 2000, 2001, and 2002. President Bush (if you cannot respect the man, please respect the office and use proper titles), whom I do not think was as fiscally responsible as he should have been and I objected to his version of the bail out as well, did however bring the economy back. However, within two years of the Democrats taking control of both Houses of Congress, the economy tanks again. Coincedence? I think not. And lets give credit where credit is due. Who instituted the idea and program to force those bad old banks to lend money to people for houses and lifestyles they couldn't afford. Why the husband of our current Secretary of State of course. How nice!



I hope and pray President Obama will be successful. However I have my doubts because his "fresh ideas" are recyled from prior failed socialistic programs the Democrats have tried and failed with before.
Baseball is a slow, boring, complex, cerebral game that doesn't lend itself to histrionics. You 'take in' a baseball game, something odd to say about a football or basketball game, with the clock running and the bodies flying.
Charles Krauthammer

King of Queens
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by King of Queens » Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:58 am

Wayne, Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century?



FDR and JFK down?



[ February 08, 2009, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: King of Queens ]

Gordon Gekko II
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Gordon Gekko II » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:21 am

i'm against any stimulus. people need to live within their means. same goes for government. if they can't, they fail. really very simple.

GOD Loves You
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by GOD Loves You » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:32 am

Originally posted by GoBabyGo:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:

Trying to get a pulse of what real people believe. I'd give you my opinion, but I'm not a real person. [/QUOTE]This is what someone I respect said



"Bailout: Stealing a trillion dollars from the American people to give to the banks to loan back to the American people ... at interest."
[/QUOTE]More like "borrowing" more money from China. They already own nearly 50% of the country.



I pray I do not see the day when they decide to collect....but I fear it's coming sooner than people think. :(

GOD Loves You
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by GOD Loves You » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:48 am

WOW, KJ, glad to see somebody else has their eyes open. I don't delve into politics the way many people do, but I've always laughed at all the credit given to Clinton when he was in office. The technological/dotcom revolution wasn't going to be stopped, regardless of the person in office. A chimp would've profited during that time.....If Bush was in office, the results would've been the same IMO.



And many people only look at the NOW and attribute it to the current residing president. Do your research and quit blaming the current when most of the problems stemmed from the past. This big mess we are in, due to the housing market, is directly related to Carter and then Clinton. To blame it solely on Bush is very sad, and quite humiliating to the many who think this.



I've posted this on a few occasions over at the NFFC boards.......THIS COUNTRY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME...no matter what the optimist thinks or believes. Our time as a "super power" in the world has come to an end. "Empires" only last an average of 250-300 years....the time has come for America to step down and for China to emerge. If you cannot see that, I don't know what to tell you.



What this is going to bring America, I have no idea, your guess is a good as mine. But to those who think it's going to boom, like it did after the great depression, you are wrong. Call me a pessimist all you want....but believe it or not, if you study history and prophecy, you could see America was heading for an eventual downturn.



Hopefully people start turning toward God before its to late.



[ February 08, 2009, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: GOD Loves You ]

GoBabyGo
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:00 pm
Contact:

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by GoBabyGo » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:55 am

FDR did not bring us out of the depression with his social work programs. Believe it or not it was the WAR that did it.



That's what I smell a coming, a war with IRAN on the horizion, WHY? Because People in the USA want to sell BOMBS that is the only industry that seems to be rocking for the USA. Making cluster bombs and white phosperous bombs for the rest of the world to use. imho
GoBabyGo

User avatar
Edwards Kings
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Duluth, Georgia

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Edwards Kings » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:12 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Wayne, Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century?



FDR and JFK down? President Kennedy was an American hero. He served his country and he died in that service.



As a President, his foreign policy was a disaster, his economics were flawed, his morals questionable, his party suffered in the '62 mid-terms and he was far from a sure thing in '64. In an regard, less than three years of service cannot possibly fare favorably to Reagans' eight.



President Franklin Roosevelt and President Reagan had at least one thing in common...they gave Americans hope. President Roosevelt is an icon revered by the greatest generation (whom by the way were the most dedicated supporters of President Reagan as well). That is good enough for me, but not good enough for the top spot. President Roosevelt, in his clashes with the Supreme Court, attempted dictatorial powers by trying to stack the Court. Many of his programs were so socialistic and over-reaching presidental power that they were deemed unconsitutional. President Roosevelt promised much, provided less. On the eve of WWII, as many Americans were out of work as they were when President Roosevelt came into power. Could anyone have solved the problems of the depression I do not know, but I know he wasn't able to. He actively hid his physical condition from most Americans and, when obviously drained in service and dying, refused to give up power in 1944. Because of that reluctance, Congress ended up limiting the terms of the President to two-four year terms, giving us the true lame duck. If President Roosevelt had resisted what some have called his meglomania and followed the tradition of President's Washington, Jefferson and others, perhaps we would not have to suffer throught the pitfalls of the last two years of ineffective Presidents, hamstrung by their status, and leading, in my opinion or at least being a contributing factor in leadership voids like what we are suffering with now.
Baseball is a slow, boring, complex, cerebral game that doesn't lend itself to histrionics. You 'take in' a baseball game, something odd to say about a football or basketball game, with the clock running and the bodies flying.
Charles Krauthammer

Richie
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Richie » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:47 pm

You guys should really look at the record of St. Ronald. Please add up for me the number of tax hikes he did. You will be surprised and embarrassed



Also, was that not a market crash in 1987? I suppose Carter, President Carter , was to blame as it was only 7 yrs after he left office. . All you guys blame Clinton and he was gone for 7 yrs before this decline. Did Cheney Bush not have enough time to fix all the failings of Clinton. Sorry to say, but blaming Clinton for any of this is Bush league.

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by KJ Duke » Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:12 pm

Originally posted by Richie:

You guys should really look at the record of St. Ronald. Please add up for me the number of tax hikes he did. You will be surprised and embarrassed



Also, was that not a market crash in 1987? I suppose Carter, President Carter , was to blame as it was only 7 yrs after he left office. . All you guys blame Clinton and he was gone for 7 yrs before this decline. Did Cheney Bush not have enough time to fix all the failings of Clinton. Sorry to say, but blaming Clinton for any of this is Bush league. All recent Administrations, Congresses and financial regulators over the past 15-20 years have a hand in the current mess.



The crash of '87 was not the result of any President. It was an excess of optimism which led to unsustainable valuation levels, which led to an unusually fast correction because of so-called "portfolio insurance" and the rise of program trading. FYI, the market finished in positive ground overall in '87.

Richie
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Richie » Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:37 pm

Please do not ever quote St. Ronald



Straight from Wikipedia:





anyone want to remember Reagans TEFRA:



The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), a United States federal law, rescinded some of the effects of the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA, colloquially known as the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) passed the year before.



The scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions were repealed, a 10 percent withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals was instituted, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act wage base and tax rate were increased. Excise taxes on cigarettes were temporarily doubled, and excise taxes on telephone service temporarily tripled, in TEFRA.[1]





how about the highway recovery act:



The Highway Revenue Act of 1982 temporarily increased the United States gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents through September 30, 1988.



This act was created during a time of recession





Reagans tax reform act of 1986- he should be ashamed- Bush like - lower taxes for the rich friends , up them for the middle class. real fair:



top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% - the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt were no longer deductible. An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated (although later partially reinstated, for farmers in 1997 and for fishermen in 2004). The Act, however, increased the personal exemption and standard deduction.

User avatar
Edwards Kings
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Duluth, Georgia

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by Edwards Kings » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:34 am

Originally posted by Richie:

Please do not ever quote St. Ronald



Straight from Wikipedia: One, he is properly addressed President Reagan to anyone with any sense of respect for the office. Many times, I have referred to President Clinton as "Slick Willy" or worse, but have come to the mature realization that some sense of decorum is proper and helpful.



Second, please do not quote Wikipedia. My kids have not been able to use that as a reference even for elementary school projects because it is not a recognized verifiable, complete or accurate source.



Third, cherry picking certain "sacred cows" from the simplification of the tax code (Tax Reform Act of 1986) dulls the real picture which was a real improvement to the economy and where ALL boats rose with the tide. For those of us who lived it, we deeply appreciated the iniative of President Reagan, supported by a Congress in which may of the ineffective left wing had been turned out, which put into place the economic programs which, in his eight years, reduced unemployment by 1/3 from the levels left by the previous Congress/Administration, as well as taking home mortgages from the 1980 level of 14.7+% down to one where most families could afford to own their own homes without strong-arming the financial section in to making bad loans. His programs sustained the US economy for years after his tenure. That is, in my mind and if you disagree, well ok it is a free country still....for a little while, indisputable.
Baseball is a slow, boring, complex, cerebral game that doesn't lend itself to histrionics. You 'take in' a baseball game, something odd to say about a football or basketball game, with the clock running and the bodies flying.
Charles Krauthammer

GOD Loves You
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:00 pm

POLL: For or Against the STIMULUS

Post by GOD Loves You » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:57 pm





[ November 30, 2010, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: GOD Loves You ]

Post Reply