I understand, but I tend to think MA Johnson's post about doing nothing might be closer to the right answer than this.
We can't continue the course we have been on, I agree. But doing 'something different', if it is the wrong thing, could potentially make matters even worse. The Federal Government is the most corrupt, ineffective, wasteful organization in the world. Putting huge amounts of borrowed money in their hands to 'spend wisely' scares the shit out of me. Coupled with the fact that they are listing many, many projects in this bill that I think are not even remotely related to stimulating the economy, makes me extremely uncomfortable with this bill. Perhaps this is moot as the bill will pass. But I'm willing to bet that the $350B to the banks is just the tip of the iceberg. $350B and what did we get... nothing. Talk about buyer's remorse! On Feb 10, 1:51 pm, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is that at least the Obama administration is doing something, > and something different. Continuing on the course of the past 8 years > is a road to disaster. > > On Feb 10, 1:36 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> "The real issue is not with what he said, but that he said it. " > > > > I'll give you that...but just ignore the elephant in the room, ok? > > > OK :) > > > >> "Funny thing about the stimulus effort is it really is exactly what > > >> the Bush administration was doing - out of control spending." > > > > I believe there is a difference in spending billions overseas and > > > investing it at home. We've torn down and rebuilt Iraq's > > > infrastructure, now it's time to take care of our own. > > > Under the Bush administration there was wild domestic spending as well > > as spending in Iraq. You can’t rack up the deficit they did without > > that. > > > >> "Well, fine.. they SHOULD be in a modern school, > > >> and if their quality of education improves in the process, that's > > >> great. But HOW does this stimulate the economy?" > > > > You can't put a price on an education, and you may not see the > > > benefits immediately, but they exist. > > > I’m not disputing education is a top priority and yes, down the road > > superior education helps us. But that’s NOT what the stimulus package > > is supposed to be about. Projects such as this should be covered under > > the normal budget, within a balanced budget framework. The stimulus > > package must remain focused and not include these types of projects > > that do not meet the criteria. > > > >> "A stimulus program has got to be able to kick start processes that > > >> can then become self-sustaining." > > > > Please tell me how sending our money to the Middle East helps sustain > > > our economy. > > > It doesn’t and I never said it does, nor do I see the relevance of > > your comment to mine. I’m talking specifically about elements > > contained in the stimulus package and what the criteria should be for > > inclusion. Spending money in the ME is NOT in the stimulus package. > > > On Feb 10, 1:18 pm, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "The real issue is not with what he said, but that he said it. " > > > > I'll give you that...but just ignore the elephant in the room, ok? > > > > "Funny thing about the stimulus effort is it really is exactly what > > > the > > > Bush administration was doing - out of control spending." > > > > I believe there is a difference in spending billions overseas and > > > investing it at home. We've torn down and rebuilt Iraq's > > > infrastructure, now it's time to take care of our own. > > > > "Well, fine.. they SHOULD be in a modern school, > > > and if their quality of education improves in the process, that's > > > great. But HOW does this stimulate the economy?" > > > > You can't put a price on an education, and you may not see the > > > benefits immediately, but they exist. > > > > "A stimulus program has got to be able to kick start processes that > > > can > > > then become self-sustaining." > > > > Please tell me how sending our money to the Middle East helps sustain > > > our economy. > > > > On Feb 10, 1:05 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree what Biden said has an element of truth. If the answers were > > > > obvious then anyone could be President. The real issue is not with > > > > what he said, but that he said it. > > > > > Funny thing about the stimulus effort is it really is exactly what the > > > > Bush administration was doing - out of control spending. If government > > > > spending would ignite the economy then the economy should have been > > > > blazing like a super nova under Bush. My fear is there will be a brief > > > > improvement, but at the end of the two years, without continued > > > > spending by the government, we'll be right back where we are today but > > > > with a much larger deficit than before. > > > > > One example; from last night's speech, Obama was talking about a SC > > > > school that was extremely old and how it's time these kids are taught > > > > in a modern school. Well, fine.. they SHOULD be in a modern school, > > > > and if their quality of education improves in the process, that's > > > > great. But HOW does this stimulate the economy? Oh sure, it's a > > > > construction job so for the time being it creates jobs. But once the > > > > school is done those jobs are gone. The money has been spent and from > > > > an economic perspective we are not at all improved. > > > > > A stimulus program has got to be able to kick start processes that can > > > > then become self-sustaining. Government spending on road and bridge > > > > construction, schools, etc., is not self-sustaining. When the money > > > > runs out the jobs are gone. That's my concern with this stimulus plan > > > > - they are proposing to spend money where they feel it would be good > > > > to spend money rather than spending money on things that will create > > > > sustainable employment and growth. > > > > > On Feb 10, 10:48 am, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sadly, what Biden said may have some truth in it, although I question > > > > > his putting an exact numeric percentage on the chance of failure. I > > > > > think what he's saying is that no one has a crystal ball; no one knows > > > > > with 100% certainty that the stimulus efforts will be that silver > > > > > bullet we're looking for. But the point is, the Obama administration > > > > > is doing *something*, and it is the best chance our economy has right > > > > > now. > > > > > I agree with your final paragraph though. > > > > > > On Feb 10, 10:29 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Biden: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute > > > > > > certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough > > > > > > decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it > > > > > > wrong." > > > > > > Obama: "You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring > > > > > > to, > > > > > > not surprisingly." > > > > > > > I think it was a fair question to ask Obama, even though Biden made > > > > > > the comment, because it pertains to Obama's administration and the > > > > > > expected performance of it according to Biden. Perhaps it wasn't > > > > > > throwing him under a bus in the clinical sense, but damn... Obama > > > > > > had > > > > > > to be pissed he had to respond to this. And to think the Democrats > > > > > > were making fun of Palin as VP choice. > > > > > > > After 8 years of listening to Bush stumble his way thru speeches, it > > > > > > really is a pleasure to listen to someone as articulate as Obama. I > > > > > > just hope he doesn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time > > > > > > having > > > > > > to cover up for stupid Biden comments. > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:57 am, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Perhaps the reporter should have asked Joe Biden what he meant > > > > > > > when he > > > > > > > spoke those words. I think that most people don't want to answer > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > the words of another, but I don't see how you call that throwing > > > > > > > someone under the bus. > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:18 am, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/02/10/barack_obam... > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
