|
Drake
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2009, 05:39:14 PM » |
|
I heard they passed the stimulus package too. In my opinion that's a lot of money!!! It will never be repaid in my life time. I think the high price tag is what makes people uneasy about passing the bill and if it doesn't work, it will be a very costly mistake.
In addition, people are concerned that we are becoming a socialized society. Government has a say in everything we do and passing this stimulus package will add to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Tetley
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2009, 01:54:47 PM » |
|
We don't get Rush over here in the UK. Though I'm sure you can listen to his show online. Recently he said that he wanted Obama to fail. Obama then said Republicans who are considering a new era of bi-partisanship should not listen to Rush, followed by Hannity and many, many Republicans saying that Obama is turning on Rush. Hannity actually asked the question, what has made Obama turn on Rush like this. I think if a left leaning talk radio host (of which there aren't too many) said they wanted Bush to fail eight years ago they would have been lynched as un patriotic. Come to think of it many possibly did say that but still. I like O Reilly because although he has his opinions (which may not be "spin" but they certainly are his opinions) he tells it pretty much like it is. The stimulus plan has no earmarks, no pork and O Reilly said that.
Since I like people that I disagree with so much I probably should see if I can listen to a bit of Rush online. Bill Clinton said recently that absurd as some of his opinions were (probably referring to him hoping Obama fails) that he is quite entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2009, 05:48:09 PM » |
|
Surely if aliens were looking at the world from afar - which they might be doing - and viewed this as socialism vs capitalism then capitalism has failed. Folks might fear socialism is returning - whatever that is exactly  - but if the capitalist society cannot keep it's head above water without money from the Governments then it seems to me that it has failed 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drake
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2009, 08:48:02 PM » |
|
Hi Robin, politics is a dirty business. I don't recall hearing Hannity say, "The stimulus plan has no earmarks, no pork" I listen to Hannity quite often and he seems to question the stimulus package and is very pessimistic about it working.
The bottom line is this, America needs government's help to fix the economy. Rather than having a stimulus package, a better solutions could be:
1. Big tax incentives for home buyers to “jump-start” the economy.
2. Home owners should be eligible to refinance for a new, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate
3. Develop more programs to help families under threat of home foreclosure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Tetley
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2009, 11:19:14 AM » |
|
Hey Drake. It was O Reilly that said it contains no earmarks or pork. Hannity (as I'm sure you know if you listen to him) has been all over it claiming it to be full of pork. I think strictly speaking it doesn't contain any. Hannity's new definition of pork barrel spending seems to be, a Democratic congressman possibly suggested that roads in his or her district are terrible and need repair. OK so that area will get a few billion for road repair and offer new jobs for a certain amount of time. I don't think that really is pork. I may be wrong in my definition and/or thought. I know Politicians will say anything but Obama seems very passionate in his "this bill contains no pork" comments and I feel if Bill O Reilly agrees it must be true. This is the "no spin guy" sticking up for the "folks" after all. The only people I've heard say it's full of pork are Hannity, Rush, Rove and their ilk. Either way I guess it's now been signed into legislation so time will tell if the US economy is affected in the ways they hope. Don't forget Joe (Gaffmeister) Biden said there's still a 30% chance they could fail even if they do exactly what they feel is right. Difficult times. Though I think that they three points you mentioned are all in some large or small way within this package. I know Obama is making a speech sometime soon (it may have happened already) about foreclosures and helping people to avoid that. I know it's around a third to a half tax cuts. Again, time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Drake
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2009, 10:46:03 PM » |
|
The problem with fixing the roads, it's only a temporary job. Once the roads are fixed, then what? People will be out of work.
I am favor the idea of creating alternative energy, which is in the plan. We are creating a whole new industry with permanent jobs that will last a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Tetley
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2009, 09:53:11 AM » |
|
I see the point many are making about the roads thing. The same with the bridges thing or the re-paving of the national mall that came up here a few days ago. I don't know...I guess the roads will get fixed and there will be a few years work there which is better than none. I don't know what will happen further down the road (accidental pun there) but maybe they will be able to continue funding those kinds of things?
The renewable energy projects I agree are excellent. It seems Obama is taking his "getting the US off it's foreign oil dependency" promise seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
|
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2009, 12:50:13 PM » |
|
I heard battery cars have been ready for years but top bosses in the oil business have somehow blocked there research and release. Is this true does anybody know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Tetley
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2009, 01:38:41 PM » |
|
I don't know if that's true but it wouldn't surprise me. Why would a multi billion pound industry allow something to be developed that would basically kill the multi billion pound industry in it's tracks?
|
|
|
|
|
Coultrane
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2009, 11:21:19 PM » |
|
There is so much corruption going on in big businesses. The auto makers should have been building cars that are energy efficient, not dependent on gas, and doesn't create harmful toxins in our environment. It wasn't until government stepped in that they were forced to change the way they build cars. It's a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Tetley
|
|
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2009, 02:41:13 PM » |
|
I agree. And there's so much lobbying in Washington (and I know the auto makers throw (or have thrown) so much money that way. It's obviously worked till now. Let's hope change really does come to Washington as has been promised.
|
|
|
|
|
lava
|
|
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2009, 05:26:34 PM » |
|
I think the automakers have to make some deep cuts in order to stay in business, but it's the labor unions who are making it difficult. They refuse to take a pay cut and reduce their benefits package. If they don't budge, the automakers will never make a profit and continue to operate with a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spinner
|
|
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2009, 05:51:50 PM » |
|
I think the automakers should go bankrupt. How many times can you bail out the automakers? If they aren't making a profit and continue to ask for money, let them go under. China kept bailing out their corporations in 1999 and it never worked out. Today their stock market is still shaky. We should learn from their mistakes and let the big automakers go bankrupt. It's the only solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Betty
|
|
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2009, 05:05:22 PM » |
|
Yes, recall back in the 1990's China was facing similar problems in their economy and they kept giving money to help the big companies. It never worked. It took ten years till their economy turned around.
I think the American politicians are scared to let any of the big companies fail. If they fail, more people will be out of a job and the economy could tank. It's a risky decision and the American people don't want to see any more unemployment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
|
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2009, 11:24:12 AM » |
|
China must be doing better now as they own America don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Community
