Stimulate this

[paul.karen]

Just trying to see other peoples views on this stimulus plan.

The interest from the first of Obamas stimulus plan has already surpassed the WHOLE cost of the Iraq war to date. (just the interst)
We still may bail out the automakers (more then we have), and president obama is thinking of another new stimulus package.

Thoughts?

[jbeany]

I think it's too early to judge.  We didn't get into this mess in a month's time - there's no way we're going to get out of it that fast.

[kellyt]

I was shocked to see some of the things the money is going for.  AND I heard them on CNN not Fox.

I may have the exact amount wrong, but I believe they said $40 million will go to Mexico so that they can create "incentives" for Mexicans to STAY in Mexico
huh?  And I have to pay for this?

There were others, but I started to blank out.

I hope Obama knows something the rest of us don't, because I don't have a lot of faith at this point.  I'm willing to get on board if things start to turn around, but right now I just don't see it.   

[willieandwinnie]

It's a run on the Treasury.

[paul.karen]

Im with you kelly.  I want to HOPE for CHANGE but what i am reading and seeing is not good.

GM is letting people retire at age 48 with full benefits and pensions.  Which normally would be a good thing right?

But we the tax payers are paying for it??? WTF


I dont think many people actually know what is going on here.
people are saying well governors are STUPID for not taking the money??  Are they?  What many dont understand is if they take the money for extended services it is written in law that you have to keep these extended services enacted forever.  
To break it down a bit for those who may not understand this.
Oboma will give the governors X amount of money for SOCIAL/WELFARE programs.  Which in short terms may be good.  But it isnt short term it is forever.  So when Obomas stimulus ends then the Governors have to raise taxes to keep these new programs going.
We dont need new programs.  We dont need a giant stimulus.  we dont need to give Fannie and Freddie MORE money? WTF  for every new refinance they give they get $1000.  They are being paid to fix there own selfmade errors.
We are bailing people out who shouldnt be in the houses they are in.
Dont i feel STUPID for not OVEREXTENDING myself. I mean i could have had the people here at IHD paying for part of my house.  Everyone is getting a pc. of this stimulus except for the hard working people like many here.  How will i benefit from all of this?  Buy having my money go to people who dont deserve it.  My money paying for OTHER peoples retirement fund.  

We need to put an end to UNIONS, or at least reel them in.
Facts
The states with major unions in them are losing jobs and companies are leaving
Fact
States that are non union are not losing jobs and NEW BUSINESS are going there
I think the breakdown is like 28 states are Union the others nonunion.  If you put it on a map you can see the union states are all looking like Michigan.  High unemployment and companies leaving faster then ever.
Unions can be good.  But at this point and time they are dangerous and unwilling to give in at the one time they need to.

Lets talk retirement.  Baby boomers are starting to retire.
Small secret.  Social security is BROKEN. BANKRUPT KAPUT.  how will we retire?

You want to make the economy self fix itself.  First it is to late we got the money from China.  They owe us.
But if we stopped all federal and local taxes for six months many people say we would have been able to self correct this mess.  Money in our pockets and im not talking an extra $13 a week.
Then we need to GET GOVERNMENT UNDER CONTROL.
The Jersey Turnpike as an example.  To REPAVE not PAVE but to REPAVE one foot forward.  That means to move 8 lanes forward one foot each is costing NJ taxpayers $i million dollars a foot.  Can you say Union RIPOFF.  We need govt. to get in check.  We can holler and cry about how and who got us here.  It wasnt us the people it was the politicians dems repubs libs left right it dont matter what party.  But they let spending do this to us.  And here we are.

Sorry for venting since i work hard and wont get any stimulus this is all i have.


Ps.  I didnt even mention any of the pork. THe pork the president promised wouldnt be there.
he was gonna go over the bills line by line himself.  

[BigSky]

The alleged stimulus plan will more likely than not only stimulate inflation.

Too much of the bill isnt even actually about stimulating anything.  More to the point its not going to create the 3.5 million jobs obama first claimed it would.

As to taking the money and having to keep those extended services after the money is gone, that is blackmail and the States need to take action against the Federal government on it.  It nothing more than an unfunded mandate.

As to obamas claim to cut the deficit in 1/2 by 2013 is nothing but propaganda on his part.  Year budget cycle starts afresh. His claim is he will spend half as much in 2013 than what he is spending today.   How one can spend more than we take in and claim they are cutting the budget deficit is nothing but utter bs.

He currently on track to have a budget deficit almost 1.5 times vs last year.  Also Obama has already added more to the Federal deficit in roughly one month what took Bush his entire first year to add to it.  Obama complained about what Bush spent, Obama is on track to spend 12 times as much as Bush did.

[Wallyz]

The reason the Budget Deficit is so hgih compared to last year is that the Bush Budgets had  ahuge  amount of off budget expenditures that are being brought on budget.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/20/obama-budget/

I think this is a positive step, although it needs to be speeded up.

[David13]

The reason the Budget Deficit is so hgih compared to last year is that the Bush Budgets had ahuge amount of off budget expenditures that are being brought on budget.
I think this is a positive step, although it needs to be speeded up.

   What in the world is an "off budget expenditure"?  Is it something the former administration didn't want to include in the budget because it didn't look good?  "We don't like how much the war in Iraq is costing and we know the taxpayers won't like it either, so we will just leave it off of the budget and pretend it isn't there." 

Sounds like fantasy land to me.  That money has to come from somewhere, and we deserve to know about it. 

Simply leaving it off the budget doesn't make it any less of a real expenditure.  It just makes the people who took it off the budget dishonest and sneaky.

[BigSky]

It would be impossible to consider it sneaky because it is well known what the costs of Iraq war happen to be and that it has been said more than once the funds for that war were not part of the regular military budget, thus going back to Congress to approve funds for the war.

You might want to consider what obama is doing.

The government usually takes roughly 2.5 trillion and spends 2.9 trillion annually.

As it stands over a trillion dollars is to be spent so far in the stimulus packages between the current stimulus (787) and the 350 billion that was allocated but not spent from the last package.


Currently the cost of the war in Iraq since the start  (2003) is  just over 600 billion.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

[David13]

Oh, I beg to differ.  To not include these costs in the budget by labeling them "off budget expenditures" is the epitome of sneaky.  If it is so "well known" what the costs of these wars are, then why not account for them in the budget where we, the taxpayers, can see it and their impact can be fully seen?  These are costs -- huge costs -- no matter what the former administration chose to label them.  Costs require payment regardless of what you label them.

"Impossible to consider it sneaky?"  Not in this lifetime.

[BigSky]

Because they are off budget expenditures.

Was it not widely publicized each time Congress approved funds for the war? 

Since we all know for a FACT that it was widely publicized by the media how much Congress approved each time just how do you not consider these costs are well known by the public?   By all means please do tell.

These costs did go into the Federal deficit.

The Iraq war is costing just over 100 billion a year if you average it out.   About half of what Obama has already added to the National deficit in one month of office.

[David13]

Competely off point.  The HUGE costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars needs to be included within the budget where their impact can be seen.  To try to label them as "off budget expenditures is sneaky.  Period.

FACT.

[BigSky]

Competely off point.  The HUGE costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars needs to be included within the budget where their impact can be seen.  To try to lable them "off budget expenditures is sneaky.  Period.

FACT.

Huge?  You must be up in arms with obama already adding 200 billion to the national deficit in one month of office then.

[David13]

Hey, I can go all day, and I will not allow the continued attempt at changing the topic to go without response. 

Labeling the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as "off budget expenditures" is sneaky.  It is an attempt to cover something up so that the impact cannot be seen. FACT.

[BigSky]

No changing at all.

You made the fictitious claim that the costs were not well known and that the amount spent in Iraq was huge and I merely disproved that notion.  If you consider it changing topic so be, quit making fictitious claims then.


When the military says it needs extra money it needs it.    Its not a hard concept to grasp.

[David13]

Absolutely nothing was disproved and there was an attempt to change the subject from the sneaky act of labeling the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as "off budget expenditures" to a different subject, namely that of the current amount of the stimulus bill that was recently passed. 

Additionally, I never said the costs of these wars was not well known.  What I said was that not including these costs in the budget and labeling them as "off budget expenditures" is a sneaky attempt to keep their impact from being fully appreciated.

Labeling the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as "off budget expenditures" is sneaky. It is an attempt to keep these costs out of the budget so that their impact cannot be easily seen.  Period.  Not fiction.  FACT.

[glitter]

Labeling the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as "off budget expenditures" is sneaky. It is an attempt to keep these costs out of the budget so that their impact cannot be easily seen.  Period.  Not fiction.  FACT.

that isn't a FACT- its an OPINION

[nursewratchet]

I think it's too early to judge.  We didn't get into this mess in a month's time - there's no way we're going to get out of it that fast.

    I totally agree.  I see both sides.  On the one hand,  I live within my means, pay my bills on time, and although I make a very good living, I don't buy something I can't afford.  I save money for things I want.  On the other hand, jobs are being lost at alarming rates, and should we just let people (not corporations, banks, and auto companies) drown?  Texas isn't seeing much of a recession, not like some parts of the country, so I may not see the big picture.  I am probably leaning more towards, let whatever happen, happen. 

[BigSky]

Absolutely nothing was disproved and there was an attempt to change the subject from the sneaky act of labeling the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as "off budget expenditures" to a different subject, namely that of the current amount of the stimulus bill that was recently passed. 

Additionally, I never said the costs of these wars was not well known.  What I said was that not including these costs in the budget and labeling them as "off budget expenditures" is a sneaky attempt to keep their impact from being fully appreciated.

Labeling the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as "off budget expenditures" is sneaky. It is an attempt to keep these costs out of the budget so that their impact cannot be easily seen.  Period.  Not fiction.  FACT.

Actually that wasnt the subject in the first place.  So you can quit with the feigned indignity of the subject trying to be changed.

The fact the additional money given for the war by Congress was not in the initial budget passed by Congress.    So since it was not on the original budget its called what? 


Also on average a 100 billion a year is far from huge in terms of government spending considering that already twice that amount has been added to the national debt in the past month alone.  And no that isnt condoning the overspending done by Bush.

Also its hardly sneaky because we know the impact of these costs as they are part of the national deficit.  Since the national debt is well known, it voids your argument that it is sneaky and the impact of these costs isnt known.


If you truly want to say something was sneaky you might look into the claims by a President that claimed he had a budget surplus and paid down the national debt.


As far as a budget deficit and claims it will be reduced.  Budget deficits could be eliminated day one by just living within our means.

  But hey at least obama was up front and saying he was only going to overspend half as much by 2013 as he is doing today.

[David13]

No "feigned" indignation here.  It was the subject that I was addressing and that you subsequently responded to.  And you tried to change that subject when you couldn't come up with a better response to it.  So you can stop trying to get the last word on this by changing the subject because I can tell you I will not allow it.

The subject that we were discussing was that labeling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as "off budget expenditures" is a sneaky act to limit the impact of their cost so that it cannot be easily seen.  I have deliberately not engaged in any response to any other aspect of this thread.  Budgeting zero dollars for the wars in the official budgets of the former administration was dishonest to the American taxpayers.

I will steadfastly stick to the subject I responded to (i.e. sneakiness and dishonesty with respect to how the former administration accounted for the expense of their wars) and I will continue to repeat that response without fail.  I will not change the topic.   

[BigSky]

No "feigned" indignation here.  It was the subject that I was addressing and that you subsequently responded to.  And you tried to change that subject when you couldn't come up with a better response to it.  So you can stop trying to get the last word on this by changing the subject because I can tell you I will not allow it.

I tried to change nothing.  I challenged your suggestion these costs were not well known and your claims to it being huge.  That was not changing subject, it was flat out debunking your claims you made to the subject.

The subject that we were discussing was that labeling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as "off budget expenditures" is a sneaky act to limit the impact of their cost so that it cannot be easily seen.  I have deliberately not engaged in any response to any other aspect of this thread.  Budgeting zero dollars for the wars in the official budgets of the former administration was dishonest to the American taxpayers.

Tsk tsk, the subject got changed to that.  Again with your feigned indignation about  subject change.


So why didnt the dems who controlled Congress since 2006 budget for it then.

Seems you didnt know that the President only submits a proposed budget, from there Congress takes over and reviews the budget and then develops its own budget and approves the spending and revenue bills and then sends it to the Presidents desk to sign.

[David13]

You can continue to copy and paste quotes and to change the subject as often as you like.  You debunked absolutely nothing. You can continue to attempt to twist my words by insisting I said that these costs were not well known.  I never said the costs of the wars were not well known.  I said they were misrepresented.  Nothing you write nor any attempt to change the subject will change that labeling the wars as off budget expenditures was dishonest. 

I will continue to state this same simple phrase over and over again as many times as I have to, regardless of how many times you respond and try to twist my words and selectively paste quotes.  I will respond every single time the same way. 

Every. Single. Time.

[BigSky]

Keep up with that feigned indignation.  You wear it well.


You did suggest the costs were not well known.  Despite it the fact those costs were played by the media time and again.


Hmm lets see.  You claim you said they were misrepresented. 

That would be false (some might call that a lie and dishonest) because you never said any such thing. 



You suggested it in the same manner as you did the costs.  So your claim of twisting your words is fictitious.

[David13]

As I stated previously many, many times now: No attempts at changing the subject will be accepted by this writer, nor will attempts at twisting my words or meaning be accepted. 

What I have said from the beginning and continue to repeat over and over and over again is very clear. 

I will continue to respond this same way every single time. 

Every. Single. Time.

Labeling the costs of the wars as "off budget expenditures" was dishonest and a misrepresentation.

[paul.karen]

If you wanna talk Money look at it this way.



We will be getting $13 a week from what i hear and our state and local taxes are soon to be going UP.  More then $13 a week

As for Oboma taxing the top 5%.  Well that is the same as taxing us the regular Joe.  Cause the rich may pay what they are suppose to.  But there cost will be offset through there companies by raising prices on us the consumers.

No one can buy there way out if this economy.  But try as they will it is us the taxpayers who will feel the full brunt of pain in our pockets.

Sorry Carry on.