Stimulus Plan Not Working

[Guest]

Not exactly earth-shartering news but I thought this Editorial summed it up fairly well:

http://detnews.com/article/20090714/OPINION01/907140314/1008/Editorial--Obama-s-stimulus-plan-is-not-working

[Guest]

Receipts are down 31% in 2nd quarter compared to 2nd quarter last year.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/07/13/this-is-what-going-galt-and-obamas-induced-uncertainly-have-led-to/

[Guest]

Perhaps we need to stimulate it.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.
It was his promises that got the bills passed. No unemployment over 8%, dirt shovel jobs before the summer etc, etc. Plus business has lost faith because of all the initiatives and changes he wants. You would think that things would at least stop bleeding.

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.

FDR Extended Depression for 7years

http://www.youtube.com/v/Jnqto6sDtGI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.


VK, I actually understand what you are saying. HOWEVER....what really irks me is how fast we forget two things ...

1. The bill was crammed through without any reading or discussion

2. The bill was, and not even debated by Democrats, about (maybe more) 45% unrelated to the economy and simply social spending !

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.

My concerns about the stimulus are:


the haste and urgency it was pushed through and passed and the concurrent lack of follow-up on implementation,

the changing targets for the stimulus as if a per se stimulus plan never really was a plan but a make it up as you go pork barrel to reward political allies,

the lack of transparency and accountability and the surfacing utilization for unions and selective groups that appears to be emerging.

It appears to me that the administration is commingling stimulus funds and Federal budget funds and most people can't tell the difference. In any case, the outcome can't be good for the country but will help politicians, especially democrats, immensely.....at least until after the next election when those "addicted" to the dole out go through withdrawals when the well is dry and the Obama administration are writing their memoirs.

It would appear that the stimulus package is becoming the biggest Obama reelection war chest ever imagined.

Just random thoughts from a skeptic.

[Guest]

Not only did the stimulus not work, it made things worse. Look at history, government stimulus never works, never has worked and never will work. I still honestly believe that BO is purposely keeping the economy down for the express purpose of remaking America into a central government command and control center. The more they add folks to the government roll the more they will be dependent on the government to meet their daily needs. That translates into votes and power for them.

There's an easy way to turn this economy around and they know it. They just won't do it. Private sector creates jobs, not the government.

BO is getting exactly what he wants and that's to knock the USA down a peg or two... or three so he can transfer wealth and equalize what he has always believed to be an unfair society of the productive and unproductive.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

If they get cap-n-tax Americans will get hammered in energy costs. What will the poor do? Well, I'll tell you what the government will do. They'll offer yet more subsidies so the poor can pay their fuel bills. Which of course translates into more votes because then we'll have yet more people dependent on the government.

Same with health care.

It's unbelievable that more people don't get what's really going on. Why so many people are willing to kiss their freedoms good bye and turn their life over to government is a mystery to me.

[Guest]

...What dklassen said, in Spades!

[Guest]

There’s only one thing and one thing only that’s going to stimulate the economy and that’s companies hiring workers. Unlike some of you I still live my life in the corporate world every day as do most of my friends and I can assure you that even if the loss of jobs stabilize, they have no plans now or in the future to start haring again and we need hiring in a big way NOW.

We need jobs and we need people spending money again. BO has no intention of making that happen. In fact just the opposite is going to occur under his watch. Every single thing he is doing is killing jobs and the opportunity for jobs.

Companies are not going to hire while he is messing with the economy, private sector corporations, health care and sky rocketing our debt.

Some of you think I’m wrong? Just watch.

[Guest]

There’s only one thing and one thing only that’s going to stimulate the economy and that’s companies hiring workers. Unlike some of you I still live my life in the corporate world every day as do most of my friends and I can assure you that even if the loss of jobs stabilize, they have no plans now or in the future to start haring again and we need hiring in a big way NOW.

We need jobs and we need people spending money again. BO has no intention of making that happen. In fact just the opposite is going to occur under his watch. Every single thing he is doing is killing jobs and the opportunity for jobs.

Companies are not going to hire while he is messing with the economy, private sector corporations, health care and sky rocketing our debt.

Some of you think I’m wrong? Just watch.

Nope, your singing to the choir, here. Most businesses started to hunker down since last fall when it was obvious that McCain was too far down in the polls.

Business looks at things in back and white. No gray zones. Either you for free enterprise or against. Every bill that is coming to congress is anti- business. Government doesn't create jobs..mostly small business creates jobs.

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.

RIGHT ON.... IT TOOK EIGHT YEARS TO GET US HERE.. SO IT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO GET THIS MESS UNDER CONTROL AND MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN AGIAN...AND WHY IT IS TAKING SO LONG IS THEY ARE MAKING SURE THE PROJECTS ARE GOOD ONES AND NOT JUST A BUNCH OF FLUFF..NEW CONCEPT. :agree::agree:

[Guest]

...
We need jobs and we need people spending money again...You hit the nail on the head, DK. But I fail to see why "BO has no intention of making that happen" as you allege. What is the entire TARP and then stimulus program all about if it's not to increase employment, which will lead to positive economic growth?

The TARP program was intended to strengthen the banks who would then begin to lend to both individuals and companies, providing the leverage to promote economic growth as quickly as possible. The stimulus program was intended to employ people so they would have money to spend.

Unfortunately, neither program has fixed plummeting housing prices, employment in the construction industry and most important, consumer confidence. Most recent statistics indicate that Americans are using any excess cash they have to either pay down debt or save--neither of which will result in economic growth anytime soon.

The government economists and the administration are in uncharted waters in trying to re-start the economy. History will prove whether the programs they've decided upon were the best or not. But to suggest that the administration will purposely avoid steps to make that happen doesn't make sense. Of course the Obama adminstration wants it to happen, just as a McCain administration would have, had he been elected. The problem is, as I've said, the administration is trying to solve a worldwide economic problem that has lots of moving parts. The magnitude of the problem is greater than anyone has ever experienced and they're using economic tools that have never been used before. At the same time, the geo-political situation is far from settled, which adds to the problem.

Americans have every right to be concerned and even a bit impatient. But to suggest that our political leaders aren't trying and have some motive for recovery not happening is simply wrong.

I'll ask the question that I've asked on this forum many times...rather than simply criticizing what our leaders are doing, what would you do to fix the economy? Getting people working, earning moeny, and then spending it, is the only thing that will lead to economic recovery (measured by reduced unemployment and increased GDP). What would you do, DK, to make that happen?

[Guest]

You hit the nail on the head, DK. But I fail to see why "BO has no intention of making that happen" as you allege. What is the entire TARP and then stimulus program all about if it's not to increase employment, which will lead to positive economic growth?

The TARP program was intended to strengthen the banks who would then begin to lend to both individuals and companies, providing the leverage to promote economic growth as quickly as possible. The stimulus program was intended to employ people so they would have money to spend.

Unfortunately, neither program has fixed plummeting housing prices, employment in the construction industry and most important, consumer confidence. Most recent statistics indicate that Americans are using any excess cash they have to either pay down debt or save--neither of which will result in economic growth anytime soon.

The government economists and the administration are in uncharted waters in trying to re-start the economy. History will prove whether the programs they've decided upon were the best or not. But to suggest that the administration will purposely avoid steps to make that happen doesn't make sense. Of course the Obama adminstration wants it to happen, just as a McCain administration would have, had he been elected. The problem is, as I've said, the administration is trying to solve a worldwide economic problem that has lots of moving parts. The magnitude of the problem is greater than anyone has ever experienced and they're using economic tools that have never been used before. At the same time, the geo-political situation is far from settled, which adds to the problem.

Americans have every right to be concerned and even a bit impatient. But to suggest that our political leaders aren't trying and have some motive for recovery not happening is simply wrong.

I'll ask the question that I've asked on this forum many times...rather than simply criticizing what our leaders are doing, what would you do to fix the economy? Getting people working, earning moeny, and then spending it, is the only thing that will lead to economic recovery (measured by reduced unemployment and increased GDP). What would you do, DK, to make that happen?

That the first problem---he thinks he's the leader of the world or wants to be leader of the world.

Show me where in history that spending the country into massive debt helped the economy. Japan did it as recently as the 1990's and they call that their lost decade.

Motives??? Staying in power. Idealism...legacies...narcissistic ambitions...literally trying to turn the country into a socialist rat trap. Pick any one you want. Go back into history and do the opposite of his hero, FDR.

[Guest]

RIGHT ON.... IT TOOK EIGHT YEARS TO GET US HERE.. SO IT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO GET THIS MESS UNDER CONTROL AND MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN AGIAN...AND WHY IT IS TAKING SO LONG IS THEY ARE MAKING SURE THE PROJECTS ARE GOOD ONES AND NOT JUST A BUNCH OF FLUFF..NEW CONCEPT. :agree::agree:

Didn't you know that yelling is rather rude.....especially in red!!!:shrug:

[Guest]

---he thinks he's the leader of the world or wants to be leader of the world...The U.S. has the largest economy in the world, by a very wide margin. Whether the President of the U.S.--whether he be named Obama or McCain or Pailn or another name--his/her administration IS the economic leader of the world! It's an unavoidable position and for a POTUS to somehow act otherwise would not be in the best interests of the country.

[Guest]

The U.S. has the largest economy in the world, by a very wide margin. Whether the President of the U.S.--whether he be named Obama or McCain or Pailn or another name--his/her administration IS the economic leader of the world! It's an unavoidable position and for a POTUS to somehow act otherwise would not be in the best interests of the country.

China might have something to say about who is bigger. I would also think that he has enough on his plate with the USA. So, tell me again how this global economy works? Do we send all our manufacturing overseas and put all our people out of work? Oh..too late!!!

[Guest]

I would like for someone to answer this for me. I just heard on TV that it looks like the health bill is about to happen. My question is:

If everyone is going to be required to have insurance, who is going to require that the insurance companies pay up. Right now, too many times, it is, "Oh, that's not covered." What good is insurance if they always come up with a reason not to pay and what good are new drugs if #1) you can't afford them and #2) insurance won't pay for them?

Thanks

[Guest]

China might have something to say about who is bigger...The rise of China from a poor, stagnant country to a major economic power within a time span of only 28 years is often described by analysts as one of the greatest economic success stories in modern times. From 1979 (when economic reforms and strong central control by the government were first introduced in China) to 2006, China’s real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 9.7%, the size of its economy increased over 11-fold, its real per capita GDP grew over 8-fold, and its world ranking for total trade rose from 27th to 3rd. By some measurements, China has become the world’s second-largest economy, and it could be the largest within a decade.

Most recent numbers show the U.S. gross domestic product to be about $8 trillion per year. China's GDP is a little more than $4 trillion. So, at present the U.S. economy is slightly less than twice the size of China's. At present, the U.S. IS the largest economic power in the world. But it is quite clear that if economic trends continue, China will surpass the U.S. in a very few years.

Having said that, one must consider where the two countries were a little as thirty years ago. And where most experts expect them to be in the future. While the U.S. is currently experiencing a period of economic decline, China's economy continues to grow at close to a 10% annual growth rate. Most economists project that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy in a decade or so.

From one perspective, China already dominates the U.S. Our political leaders have chosen to spend at a rate that far surpasses our national income, much for uses outside the U.S. and having nothing whatsoever to do with sustaining or growing our economy. The result of those political decisions, combined with China's focus on domestic affairs and growing it's own economy, is that China has accumulated a huge treasury while the U.S. has become the world's largest debtor nation. In fact, were it not for China's willingness to both lend and invest in the U.S., it's clear that our political agenda is not sustainable. In fact, our political agenda is already almost totally dependent on China as a source for financing.

One must keep these facts in mind when assessing the policies and decisions of our political leaders. Again, it's important to note that THE CHOICES MADE BY U.S. POLITICAL LEADERS IN RECENT DECADES HAVE PRODUCED ECONOMIC RESULTS THAT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Yes, size does matter. And I'm afraid we will find it will matter even more in the near-term future. Said more simply, our way of life and our ability to continue to continue to make the kinds of political decisions which we've made in recent decades cannot continue.

[Guest]

...I just heard on TV that it looks like the health bill is about to happen....Heard where? From some opinion-maker or entertainer?

Those who are watching the Congress and the administration closely have concluded that the negotiations are at a stage where there is no chance that a bill could be considered by both houses before the beginning of the August recess. Many have opined that proposed legislation might not even be formally considered this year. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in writing as to the content of any proposed legislation. The President has said "don't bet against the passage of healthcare legislation"...but he doesn't say WHEN.

Simply put, Dilly, there is no answer to your question at the moment. And there may be no definitive answer for several months.

[Guest]

VK,
You will probably discount the fact that I caught just a portion of Neil Cavuto when he was interviewing one of the congressional people. I can't tell you which one, but he was having a hard time answering the questions being posed to him. He was the one that was saying how close they were to getting the bill through and saying how much money was going to be saved. Cavuto was asking him that if it is going to be such a savings, then would there be a tax cut. The guy just got a blank look on his face and kinda stammered around a bit. Cavuto finally pinned him down and he finally said that there would be. Cavuto asked him, "Do you promise?". Once again he had a blank look and after being asked a couple more times said, "Yes." Cavuto ended by congratulating the guy on his upcoming marriage, so maybe that will give you a clue as to who the guy is.

As for my original question, I just think that insurance companies should be held accountable. We, as consumers, hold other companies accountable for goods and services and I just think insurance should be no different.

Thanks for responding to me. I just like trying to learn as much as I can and asking questions seems to be a way of doing it. So many are being chastised for not caring or having the attitude of not being bothered and I, too, think we should all be concerned regardless of whether we agree on things.

[Guest]

Heard where? From some opinion-maker or entertainer?

Those who are watching the Congress and the administration closely have concluded that the negotiations are at a stage where there is no chance that a bill could be considered by both houses before the beginning of the August recess. Many have opined that proposed legislation might not even be formally considered this year. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in writing as to the content of any proposed legislation. The President has said "don't bet against the passage of healthcare legislation"...but he doesn't say WHEN.

Simply put, Dilly, there is no answer to your question at the moment. And there may be no definitive answer for several months.

Looks like they are looking to try and steamroll something through quickly....

"and top advisers to Obama are discussing the possibility of relying only on Democrats to ram the legislation through Congress."

AND

Make being a millionaire not a goal to aspire to :)

"House Democrats plan to fund the broadest U.S. health-care expansion in four decades by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, imposing a surtax of 5.4 percent on couples with more than $1 million in income.

The legislation unveiled yesterday would place additional taxes on households with more than $350,000 a year in income and calls for further increases if the measure doesn’t hit a target for cost savings. The provisions are intended to raise $544 billion over 10 years. "

"The House is also proposing a mandate on Americans above a certain income level: People would be penalized as much as 2.5 percent of their income for failure to buy health insurance. Most employers would be required to insure their employees or pay a penalty equal to as much as 8 percent of their payroll."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090715/pl_bloomberg/a6fujb5nwlde_1

[Guest]

It's unbelievable that more people don't get what's really going on. Why so many people are willing to kiss their freedoms good bye and turn their life over to government is a mystery to me.

No mystery to me! Ther are too many Americans (or non Americasns for that matter) on the recieveing end of government largess. Sanity has dissapeared in American society in favor of vote getting politicians

[Guest]

....Why so many people are willing to kiss their freedoms good bye and turn their life over to government is a mystery to me....I don't want to turn my freedoms over to the government any more than anyone else posting here. But with regard to health insurance, OUR "FREEDOMS" ARE ALREADY GONE! They've been gone for a long time. The insurance companies and the corporations that negotiated the policies that cover their employees have seen to that a long time ago. For those old enough to be required to have Medicare as their principal health insurance, they too have lost any freedom that might have been associated with healthcare insurance. Your doctors have very little to say about how you should be treated. They will provide service only when the insurance companies or Medicare will pay them for providing it. Some clerk or bureaucrat is on the phone telling your doctor or hospital what treatments are "approved", when you should be sent home, and will be paid for. Is that a "lost freedom"?

All this has happened over the last 10-15 years and can't be laid at the doorstep of any particular President or Congress. We've had Presidents as well as Congresses from both political parties that have overseen this happening. Oh, I suppose you can blame the politicians for reducing the payments for services covered by Medicare so significantly that over 40% of the doctors in the U.S. refuse to offer service to patients who have Medicare as their principal form of insurance. Many big hospitals are following suit. Many of the best hospitals in New York city refuse Medicare insurance, as an example. Aren't those "lost freedoms"?

All this has happened in what we so lovingly refer to as the "free market system". From what I can see, there's not many more freedoms to be lost if a portion of the new healthcare bill has a government-provided insurance option. How could it be any worse than Medicare is now? And with a lousy economy and large companies really watching their pennies and dimes, wait until we begin to read of the dramatically reduced benefits and increased deductibles and co-pays with employer-provided insurance. Or even the withdrawl of health insurance as a company-funded benefit at all. It won't surprise me if lots of companies simply shift the total cost of health insurance to their employees, limiting their involvement to only negotiating the group policy. Heck, the big bank that I retired from did that twenty years ago!

These freedoms are already gone folks. And it happened while were looking and enjoying our increased wealth as the result of skyrocketing home values...even though in our hearts we knew it didn't make sense. Now that our home values and the economy are in the tank, we're suddenly beginning to realize the other "freedoms" that have been taken from us already. And the government had very little to do with it.
----------------------------------------
P.S. By the way, Bucco, who better to pay for the cost of a new healthcare plan than the wealthiest Americans who have been treated so royally by politicians, particularly from 2000 to 2008? Even if income taxes on the richest are increased by the amounts being discussed in the press, the top 3% or so will still be way ahead of where they were before the "Bush tax cuts". They'd still be enjoying marginal tax rates that are near the lowest level they've ever been since the enactment of the income tax in the U.S. almost 100 years ago.

[Guest]

VK....

"P.S. By the way, Bucco, who better to pay for the cost of a new healthcare plan than the wealthiest Americans who have been treated so royally by politicians, particularly from 2000 to 2008? Even if income taxes on the richest are increased by the amounts being discussed in the press, the top 3% or so will still be way ahead of where they were before the "Bush tax cuts". They'd still be enjoying marginal tax rates that are near the lowest level they've ever been since the enactment of the income tax in the U.S. almost 100 years ago."


You dont think this will dynamically affect small business and JOBS....and SUBSTANTIALLY !

It also, to me anyway..can see if you dont agree....is the absolute beginning of open class warfare in this country along with an admission that future generations are just going to be all the same ! Perhaps a bit overstated except for the class warfare part.

And, as you know, I believe that this is where our President wanted us to go from the very beginning

[Guest]

P.S. By the way, Bucco, who better to pay for the cost of a new healthcare plan than the wealthiest Americans who have been treated so royally by politicians, particularly from 2000 to 2008? Even if income taxes on the richest are increased by the amounts being discussed in the press, the top 3% or so will still be way ahead of where they were before the "Bush tax cuts". They'd still be enjoying marginal tax rates that are near the lowest level they've ever been since the enactment of the income tax in the U.S. almost 100 years ago.
__________________

Hmmmm The top 3% pay what percentage of the total share of taxes? Odd sense of fair.. IMHO
If you take their incentive to produce and they "Go Gault"...who is going to pick up the slack?

[Guest]

...You dont think this will dynamically affect small business and JOBS....and SUBSTANTIALLY !No, I really don't. Even with the increased taxes, the marginal rates for the top 3% of earners will still be at historical low levels. Even if some small business owners achieve the $250,000 to $300,000 taxable income to get into this category, the tax rates will still be low enough not to disincent people from making the effort to make this much money.

....is the absolute beginning of open class warfare in this country...I don't believe that either, for much the same reason as stated above. In fact, if the pattern of the last 20-30 years were to be permitted to continue--the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to struggle with no increases in real income--that really would result in class warfare.

I might even argue that class warfare has already begun. The lowest income classes have not enjoyed any gains in real income in a decade or more, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed real and significant gains in real income during the same period. The result was a landslide election victory for liberal candidates in 2008, who are now legislating for the benefit of the lower classes. Even as obvious as this pattern seems to be, there is no significant upswelling of conservative political action or candidates that appear to be effective in reversing this pattern. We may not like it, but class warfare might have already begun. Unless there is some reversal in the single party dominance of the federal government beginning in 2010 and continuing in the 2012 elections, it will be pretty clear that class warfare actually has begun.

[Guest]

No, I really don't. Even with the increased taxes, the marginal rates for the top 3% of earners will still be at historical low levels. Even if some small business owners achieve the $250,000 to $300,000 taxable income to get into this category, the tax rates will still be low enough not to disincent people from making the effort to make this much money.

I don't believe that either, for much the same reason as stated above. In fact, if the pattern of the last 20-30 years were to be permitted to continue--the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to struggle with no increases in real income--that really would result in class warfare.

I might even argue that class warfare has already begun. The lowest income classes have not enjoyed any gains in real income in more than a decade, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed real and significant gains in real income during the same period. The result was a landslide election victory for liberal candidates in 2008, who are now legislating for the benefit of the lower classes. Even as obvious as this pattern seems to be, there is no significant upswelling of conservative political action or candidates to reverse this pattern. We may not like it, but class warfare might have already begun.

Get a grip...The democrats have been playing the class envy card for years. They have been playing the race card too. Tax the rich...tax the rich...nothing new here...

From what I understand the class envy thing has been big in England for a long time...look at them now.

In the USA..the American dream was to work hard and make it. Now the people say why bother...Uncle Sam willk take care of me!!!!!

[Guest]

No, I really don't. Even with the increased taxes, the marginal rates for the top 3% of earners will still be at historical low levels. Even if some small business owners achieve the $250,000 to $300,000 taxable income to get into this category, the tax rates will still be low enough not to disincent people from making the effort to make this much money.

I don't believe that either, for much the same reason as stated above. In fact, if the pattern of the last 20-30 years were to be permitted to continue--the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to struggle with no increases in real income--that really would result in class warfare.

I might even argue that class warfare has already begun. The lowest income classes have not enjoyed any real income gains in more than a decade, while the welathiest Americans have enjoyed real and significant gains in real income. The result was a landslide election victory for liberal candidates, who are now legislating for the benefit of the lower classes. We may not like it, but class warfare might have already begun.


I will tell you VK....TONIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, I am just about to give it up !

You read what I wrote during the campaign(s) and I thought it would take AT LEAST 2 years to get to this point, and we may have a chance as a result of mid term elections to reverse this,but what he has done..what has been rammed down our throat....what is passed off as legislation...the lying he did during the campaign and continues to do....the anti politics stand he took just to win votes and to become the single most political President in my memory.

But he did it....people will wake up someday but it will be too late..maybe already it is. It is not the healthcare.....it is the total package...the bailouts...the government involvment in everything...at the other end, the organizations that have been put together that remind me of parts of history that I want to forget...the spending....the foreign policy is just beginning..backing the President of Honduras as he shoves that countries constitution you know where. And so much of it is being done "under the table"

I sincerely believe at this moment that he has brought this country to its knees and is meeting ALL of his expectations....we are all going to be equal....there is not more incentive to do anything...to make your life better because he/they will take it and pass it around to even things up.

He is rich...he lives rich and he always will.

Sorry for being so "down" but all I read is exactly as I and others predicted it would be...just so fast and so soon !

You tire of me saying ALINSKY..ACORN, etc. BUT Keep you eye on the ball as I know you will...it is all...ALL coming out the way folks said it would..ALL of it.

[Guest]

...In the USA..the American dream was to work hard and make it. Now the people say why bother...Uncle Sam willk take care of me!!!!!...OK, that seems to be the case. Now, other than beating our gums about the problem here in TOTV, what to do about it?

By the way, that's not totally true. The upper income classes have grown as a percentage of the population in the last twenty years or so. Someone must be incented to work hard and invest to "get there".

[Guest]

If there has been an inequity it coincided with the "upper classes" sending the work overseas...Cheap labor= bigger profits...

[Guest]

I have only one difference with what you say, Bucco. That difference is that President Obama really didn't lie to us during the campaign. He campaigned on change and laid out his agenda pretty clearly. About the only thing that was unexpected is the financial meltdown that began to occur late in the campaign and put the world on life support just about the time of the inauguration. Beyond the actions and legislation designed to address that problem, he's pretty much doing what he said he intended to do during the campaign.

Our problem is that we became so accustomed to candidates saying one thing during a political campaign, and then doing another once elected, that we don't quite know how to deal with someone who is actually doing what he said he would.

I will compliment you on one thing--staying true to your beliefs based on your own analysis of the facts. You and I didn't always agree on the emphasis placed on one set of facts or another, but you never changed course. Good for you. I complement you for that.

In my case, I still haven't thrown in the towel on our new President. Even knowing what I do now, I still would not have voted for the McCain-Palin ticket. I honestly think things would be worse now had they been elected, mostly because of their inability to understand and react, particularly to the financial and economic situation. The leadership that John McCain has provided from his important slot in the Senate since he lost the election has been disappointing. It's almost as if he has gone into early retirement, even though the situation and the issues are dire. His abdication of his position of leadership is unexplicable and very disappointing to me. Governor Palin's recent withdrawal from elected office is also disappointing. She says she'll provide conservative leadership, but how? Had that team been elected, I am convinced that the situation would actually be worse than we're experiencing.

I certainly don't like or agree with everything this administration has done and I've said so. But on balance so far--as I've said--I'm not willing to throw in the towel just yet. I'm just hopeful that the GOP can present a candidate in 2012 that will permit me to honestly conclude that things could get better with a new and truly conservative administration. Otherwise, I'm stuck with the decision of voting for the devil I know--or simply withdrawing from the elective process.

[Guest]

Wow! The country encounters maybe the worst financial crisis in history. Then following a couple of months of debate among the politicos, we come up with a "stimulus" plan to try to re-start the economy. Now, only 5-6 months later, we're bitching because it isn't working.

Are you kidding? We'll be lucky to get the economy to turn into positive growth by the end of 2010, certainly not the end of 2009. It isn't really possible--in my opinion anyway--under this President with his plans, nor would it have been under any other President with a different set of plans.

All we're proving here is that Americans really do expect instantaneous gratification.

VK I believe you're wrong on this. I remember Obama speaking at Caterpillar I believe. He told the workers there would be NO layoffs if this Stimulus bill was passed immediately. The CEO of the company said regardless they would have layoffs. The Bill passed and they had layoffs within a few weeks. It was sold to us with having immediate results. NOT :cus::cus:

[Guest]

Always ignored by the press, this President began right away....

This is from 2004 right after being elected senator....

"Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years."


How long was it before he began his campaign ???

He continues to this day. I will hold on the promises about health care he made with the same amount of certainity until we see what is RAMMED through in haste and with an excuse worded somehow to say that he had no choice....that there was no alternative and we all know the truth,.there is...everyone wants change...so lets have input from everywhere !

And lest we forget, the famous stimulus bill, the subject of this thread was almost 50% social programs and unrelated to the economic problems, thus I stronglly object to those who say..."what else could we do"...for starters cut out the social programs rammed through and focus on the economy !

[Guest]

VK I believe you're wrong on this. I remember Obama speaking at Caterpillar I believe. He told the workers there would be NO layoffs if this Stimulus bill was passed immediately. The CEO of the company said regardless they would have layoffs. The Bill passed and they had layoffs within a few weeks. It was sold to us with having immediate results. NOT :cus::cus:

Excellent point JUREK:

He said his stimulus plan would unleash a wave of construction and growth once he signed it into law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29163714/

[Guest]

PS: This is what our President said in referring to this stimulus bill...

The package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review," he said. "We're not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period."

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEHnc88OH6M

[Guest]

PS: This is what our President said in referring to this stimulus bill...

The package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review," he said. "We're not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period."

BUCCO: Now they are telling us about the same thing with the Health Care plan. I was watching TV last night and there was a discussion that there would be a minimum of close to 30 new departments created to administrate this monstrosity. Change we believe in :agree::agree:

[Guest]

BUCCO: Now they are telling us about the same thing with the Health Care plan. I was watching TV last night and there was a discussion that there would be a minimum of close to 30 new departments created to administrate this monstrosity. Change we believe in :agree::agree:

For the last week or so, I keep thinking...what have we done !!!!

We are 6 months in to this administration; I recall when the last President in 2005 or so suggested we talk about Social Security..TALK..he had an idea but said he was open to discussion, he was mocked and told we could not afford to even talk about it, and that there was not even a problem with SS !