Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jan 10, 2009.
The only thing absurd is the idea that it is a recovery plan.
There are a number of myths in the article, starting with the idea that it is the government's job to manage the economy. Let it be. The economy went south, in large part, because of government pressure to make loans to people who were bad investors. It has now been made worse by printing money to give to banks.
It was a very funny line when he said we should raise taxes on the rich because they are the only ones with money left. Great idea ... If you find someone with money, make sure you take it away from them. Excellent ...
They're the ones who have been having a party for the past eight years at the expense of the other 95% of us. It's past time for them to start paying for their party.
Just slightly over 60% of American's pay federal income taxes now, carrying the load financially for everything this country does.
Obama intends to shrink that number even further.
Just part of the redistributor's plans for income redistribution. He runs the real risk, like the UAW , of killing the goose that lays all the eggs.
I have seen no "stimulus" plan coming from the socialist Obama, just government "spending" plans. He apparently has no clue what drives the economic engine of the nation.
It saddens me a great deal to see the obvious envy of those who have more than they do by those who call themselves Christians.
Then I respectfully suggest that you improve your understanding of the situation.
What exactly is - or was - his plan that is - or was - going to save America? It still seems like the same old generic messages that "we need change", "we need to do something quickly", and "we need government action". But what are the specifics of what he thinks we need to do? What are the risks verses benefits, the financial costs, and the long term costs to our capitalistic economic structure? How much more government will we get with his ideas and will they become yet another permanent drain on the productive sector of our society?
Hey Ken, when did you become a Keynesian? If Ron Paul had a grave he would be turning over in it.
Maybe you need to watch something other than Fox News Channel and read something besides the Human Events website.
When the Bus administration's supply side, tickle down economic policies were proven to be a failure during 2008.
The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain. Ludvig Von Mises
What we witnessed during 2008 pretty much proved that to be true.
Supply side economics only works if everyone is on board. You cant cut taxes and keep on spending like a drunk Massachusettes senator. Then you end up with a deficit. Thats what happened in the Reagan administration.
Maybe you need to read more of these two and less of the socialist organs you're heavy into these days?
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on the specifics of Obama's grand plan? Something other than "we need change" would be good!
Anyone who thinks spending trillions of dollars is a "stimulus" is either deluded or dishonest. That amount of money goes far beyond a stimulus.
Not at all. Just think about how large the stimulus of World War II was on the economy.
First, they are the only ones paying anyway.
Second, they have lost way more money than you have in the last year, and have lost the same percentage, if not a greater percentage.
Third, I was making no statement about then the funny irony of it.
Fourth, the truth is that the article wasn't that good. Obama's plan to print money and pass it out is not good. For those who complained about the growing budget deficit under Bush, you ain't seen nothing yet. You can't spend your way to prosperity. Creating work for people is inherently unproductive if the work does not pay for itself.
From the article
Already happened and the Liberal Democrats are in charge in Congress.
I don't beleive that either side has a plan that will work.
Your point is a bust. You need to try again. So who did you get this from?