How are you going to use your tax cut to stimulate the economy?

Wait til we see the actual "credit" in the paycheck. Too many numbers being floated.

Wait til the "maybe" gets resolved about non-workers.

Wait til Bushama gives us something solid.

 

oh wow, what a bunch of .... money

 

I believe it represents 1/3 of the bailout package. The total is huge.

 

If it reflected all of it (whatever the total) it might actually help. But as it is, it won't do much. Obama kept saying this needed to be big and quick. The problem is that it is big in all the wrong places, and the bulk of the spending will not even happen this year, meaning it won't be quick.

 

I guess Obama just can't win, you guys are criticizing the tax cut portion of the bill also.

PL = Your response is an example of why this couldn't be a bipartisan bill yet you guys blame the Democrats and make fun of Obama unsuccessful attempt at bipartisanship. Your view is consistent with that of the GOP to include those on the hill. If it were the 100% tax cuts they wanted then they would vote and support the bill otherwise it's all just waste and there is no compromise and so you put on the full force criticism.

The problem is there are a lot of American's who are not as confident in tax cuts alone helping this situation and wanted to see some spending. It would be nice if the GOP would meet the other side somewhere in the middle but you guys are definitely my way or it's wrong.

I really blame the GOP for any waste that stayed in the plan, I believe had they of been sincere about meeting the Democrats half way they could have negotiated a lot of what you guys call "unstimulating waste" from the bill. Instead they came saying 100% tax cuts or I won't vote, folded their arms, poked out their lips and wondered why that wasn't well received by the Democrats. I say if you're not happy with the bill then you need to blame your own representation.

One day the GOP will have to realize it isn't just their America, America is ours also and since we all have different philosophical views compromise is imperative.

 

Obama can win, but he has to do good things. Nobody should applaud the nonsense that is going on now. The problem with the tax cut part is that it isn't enough. It is said to be $13 a week ... $52 a month ... $600 a year. And that will drop by 1/3 next year apparently . That isn't stimulus in any meaningful sense. It isn't going to enable anyone to buy a new car, make a house payment ... your whole tax savings for the year couldn't make one monthly payment for most people. It won't cover a month of health insurance.

Now you just aren't telling the truth. Most Repubs on the hill did not want complete tax cuts, as I understand it. They were willing to have some spending. They made suggestions, and they got rejected.

I am not a big fan of bipartisanship. I think when people have bad ideas, we shouldn't try to include them. I think we should be much more concerned about doing what is best for the country. (It appears one of the few things that Pelosi and I actually agree on ... Difference being that I am not going around claiming one thing and doing another.)

I blame the Democrats beause they are responsible, just as I blame the Republicans for the bloated spending of the last eight years. Obama did not lead his party. Having people over for cocktails and expensive steak isn't bipartisanship and it isn't leadership. It is a social hour.

First, I am not in the GOP and want very little to do with them. Second, they were willing to meet in the middle somewhere. They were rejected out of hand, apparently not even given a seat at the conference table.

This is just naive. The Republicans made suggestions and they were rejected. What more could they do?

I do blame my representation. I have Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Carl Levin, and Debbie Stabenow. They are 100% at fault.

No, compromise is not imperative when it is a bad compromise. No one should have voted to send us another trillion dollars in debt for a spending plan that won't work.

BTW, do you notice how the Dems are hedging themselves by saying "We don't know if this will work"? What a crock. They would rather do something that they think might not work then take the time to figure out what will work. And the amazing thing is that people like you support them.

The "rush to war" in Iraq took longer than this, and it will probably cost less in the long run. At least in Iraq, people are free. This bill spends more money and doesn't free anyone. It makes us all slaves to the lender.

 

I plan on tithing $1.30 per payday.

 

The democrats are saying the same thing, they are saying there is not enough stimulus spending. They felt the package should be about be $1.3 Trillion So what passed was a huge compromise on their part.

You don't have to take my word, here is a link to the Senate Republican's proposal so you can read it yourself. The House Republican's like Eric Cantor didn't want us to do anything vs some of the moderate republican's who wanted tax cuts with a little spending so the house Republican's never really agreed on a proposal. They spent all their time criticizing everyone else's proposals.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Simid=295

Which is the exact attitude the Republican's had when they were in charge and exact attitude the Democrat's had with this legislation and is the exact problem with our Government. Everyone believes any idea outside of their philosophical view is "BAD" and won't give it a chance.

That's not the way the majority in America sees it but you are entitled to your view.

Obama made a profound statement on one of the interviews, he said his biggest mistake was to include tax cuts in the initial proposal. He should have sent over a bill with no tax cuts so the Republican's could have felt more involved and victorious with getting them added to the plan. I guess we live and learn. This was his first bill.

The ones I heard said it may not work BECAUSE IT IS TOO SMALL. There are a slew of economist who agree with them. I guess we'll see...

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

The Democrats are wrong.

So you are admitting you are wrong by saying, "some of the moderate republican's who wanted tax cuts with a little spending." That's what I said. The Republicans did not demand all tax cuts and no spending. So read your own posts before you disagree with me, becuase you actually agree with me.

No, the problem with our government is corrupt politicians with bad ideas. Why should we put in place a bad idea for the sake of bipartisanship? If the "other side" has a good idea, then by all means use it.

The majority of Americans may see it wrong. After all, the majority of Americans voted twice for Bush and supported the Iraq War. Do you really want to depend on the majority of Americans to support your view? As I have said before, there is no way to expect the American public to have an informed view on these complex matters.

Shows you that he is a liar and doesn't operate out of integrity and character. How about saying his biggest mistake is spending more money than we have to do something that won't work? That would be refreshing. How about saying his biggest mistake is giving into Pelosi? That would be refreshing.

There aren't many of these. And the ones that say this are stupid. This is seriously one of the dumbest things that could ever be said. You don't throw money down a hole and then say "We should be throwing more away."

 

LeBuick

Have you read the Bill? Try it then you will be an expert!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1:

 

Was it ever confirmed Biden was discussion this plan? Last I heard no one knew exactly what Joe was talking about (which is normal).

Because they need us progressive/moderates to do anything. This includes moderates on both sides of the isle. By themselves they don't have enough votes so they had to reduce the bottom line to get moderate support.

 

That is not what they proposed because the moderate Republican's are the minority in the party. So yes, they had bipartisan ideas within their ranks but they never put any bipartisan solutions on the table.

Agreed 100%.

Shows that he is a liar. Now I've seen everything. And Obama was handed a $1 Trillion deficit this year. He was handed the reigns of a country that was spending more money than it has. The deficit has grown under every recent administration to include Ronald Reagan so why should Obama's administration be any different. The only recent president who balanced the budget was Clinton.

 

And is promptly increasing it by a trillion before he ever gets to actual budget work on appropriations.

Because he claimed to be bringing change.

And he only balanced it because of the Republican Congress and fancy accounting tricks. Opposition is a good thing when it is true opposition.

 

Have you read it?