Jump to content

Do Republicans think it helps to have such radical spokespeople?


Recommended Posts

Yeah, I love Alan Colmes. He's a great American. I hated how Hannity always pushed him around. In my opinion, Alan was always the more honorable of the two, as he never stooped down to Sean's level when making his points. Ever since he left the show, I haven't been able to sit through it...

 

 

Colmes was a good speaker. The only problem was that he was wrong. The reason why all of these right wing talk show hosts are so successful is not necessarily because they are talented. It is because they are right. It takes a lot more skill to push lies than it does to push the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Colmes was a good speaker. The only problem was that he was wrong. The reason why all of these right wing talk show hosts are so successful is not necessarily because they are talented. It is because they are right. It takes a lot more skill to push lies than it does to push the truth.

 

Colmes is actually one of the few liberals out there with a successful radio show still on the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, you call THESE guys radical?? HAHAHA

 

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other extreme liberal whackjobs are the radical ones...they completely ignore the Constitution (...all powers not expressly granted to the federal government...are reserved to the states...or to the people...) and demand that the Feds take over *everything*...

 

Now they want to take over the internet...(hey they already do that in North Korea by controlling the media and banning citizens from having cell phones...)

 

this after taking over the banks, refusing to let banks pay back the TARP funds so that they can have control over them, and now they're taking over the auto companies, and other corporations too.

 

Hmmm... Stalin did all this. So did Lenin. Oh yeah, and HITLER did this too.

 

(paraphrased) "I think we should have a civil defense force, with the funding and equipment of the military...to control the population of the US..." Barack Obama

 

Yeah, Hitler did that too. Control the citizens so they can't oppose you.

 

The Constitution puts the majority of the power with the STATE governments... Committee Senator: "Where Mr Geithner, in the Constitution does it give you the power to take control of the banking system?" Geithner could cite no such Constitutional authority, because there IS NONE.

 

Hitler called them "Brown Shirts" Obama calls them ACORN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a consequence that stems from the apathetic citizen.

 

There's that D word again. This is a Republic that has sadly seen it's citizens forget the true history of this country.

true we are a republic, but how many times have you heard 'democracy' vs 'republic??

and forums like this, and many others i presume show, just like the partisan/nonpartisan teabagging party, that the populace is growing less apathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true we are a republic, but how many times have you heard 'democracy' vs 'republic??

and forums like this, and many others i presume show, just like the partisan/nonpartisan teabagging party, that the populace is growing less apathetic.

I hear it all the time but that don't make it right. It's a lack of education.

 

I hope people are waking up. The great part I see is there are a lot of young people starting to pay attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true we are a republic, but how many times have you heard 'democracy' vs 'republic??

and forums like this, and many others i presume show, just like the partisan/nonpartisan teabagging party, that the populace is growing less apathetic.

 

For the last eight years conservatives elected Bush twice and during those years Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. The guy left office with five trillion added to the National Debt and over a trillion dollar budget deficit.

 

What did all those that voted for him and his catastrophic policies think was going to happen? I mean are the conservatives/religious nuts really that nutty? Obama comes into office and the country is in a tailspin, and unlike his predecessor, he didn't have a hundred and fifty billion to spend and the economy by all measures was far worse off.

 

We know tax cuts to the wealthy do not work. I mean it was fucking silly to think otherwise especially when we know by examining the numbers when Reagan tried it. It's the reason why they no longer call it "supply side economics" for the numbers actually declined.

 

Now those same idiots still cling to tax-cuts toward the rich/wealthy as a means toward growth. Given all that we know, not assumptions but hard numbers leads me to only one conclusion, they're either suffering from a poor gene pool or they need to lay off the illicit drugs.

 

Then we yet have others that believe tax incentives toward businesses will pull us back from the abyss. To some extent, I agree, but it's not near the panacea some proclaim it to be. The only real hope is government fiscal expansionary policies. I hardly know of any economists that would suggest otherwise.

 

Consequently, now we face higher taxes, at least some of do. Is that some kind of surprise? Were they expecting the tooth fairy to leave a few trillion under the president's pillow after the party was over? What did they think was going to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last eight years conservatives elected Bush twice and during those years Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. I mean are the conservatives/religious nuts really that nutty? I mean it was fucking silly to think otherwise especially when we know by examining the numbers when Reagan tried it. Now those same idiots still cling to tax-cuts toward the rich/wealthy as a means toward growth. Given all that we know, not assumptions but hard numbers leads me to only one conclusion, they're either suffering from a poor gene pool or they need to lay off the illicit drugs.
:hysterical: You do realize that you're part of the problem? :finger:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know tax cuts to the wealthy do not work. I mean it was fucking silly to think otherwise especially when we know by examining the numbers when Reagan tried it. It's the reason why they no longer call it "supply side economics" for the numbers actually declined.

 

Not true. According to a study conducted by the Heritage Foundation published in January 2007:

 

- The tax cuts have not substantially reduced cur­rent tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre–tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre–tax cut baseline in 2006;

 

- The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";

 

- Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and

 

- The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

 

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

 

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

 

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

 

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

 

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

 

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

 

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

 

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

 

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

 

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

 

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

 

Here's a link to the article, which provides further detail on the facts correcting the myths, and also cites sources, including the Congressional Budget Office and the IRS.

 

Then we yet have others that believe tax incentives toward businesses will pull us back from the abyss. To some extent, I agree, but it's not near the panacea some proclaim it to be. The only real hope is government fiscal expansionary policies. I hardly know of any economists that would suggest otherwise.

 

Expansionary policies that result in increased taxes will scare off investment - especially in an environment in which policy makers attempt to micromanage the economy and when no one knows what those policy makers will do next. This approach seems quite similar to the economic environment during the horribly depressed 1930s, when companies and investors were fearful of new taxes and regulations, and therefore didn't invest, and didn't create new jobs.

 

I would be curious to learn which economists (other that Paul Krugman and Robert Reich - and maybe some of the economic advisors on the Obama team) you are referring to, re: "I hardly know of any economists that would suggest otherwise." I get the impression that you must know a lot of economists!

 

I am not an economist, but Economics 101 would suggest that the mere idea of Obama's budget proposals - which would expand the public debt to over $9 trillion over the next ten years - is enough to scare the hell out of anyone considering investing in anything associated with the United States for the foreseeable future. It scares people because of the threat of increased taxes and/or monetizing the debt - printing money, or as the Fed calls it: "Quantitative Easing."

 

Television coverage of yesterday's tax-day protests showed a sign carried by a little kid that said it most succinctly: I AM 12 YEARS OLD AND $11 TRILLION IN DEBT.

 

You can advocate for an expansionary policy that for the intermediate term will scare off investment and therefore jobs, and for the long term will cripple the buying power of the Dollar, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you talk to your grandchildren about your advocacy of such policies, when they are the ones who must pay for it.

Edited by Roadtrip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. According to a study conducted by the Heritage Foundation published in January 2007:

 

- The tax cuts have not substantially reduced cur­rent tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre–tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre–tax cut baseline in 2006;

 

- The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";

 

- Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and

 

- The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

 

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

 

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

 

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

 

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

 

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

 

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

 

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

 

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

 

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

 

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

 

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

 

Here's a link to the article, which provides further detail on the facts correcting the myths, and also cites sources, including the Congressional Budget Office and the IRS.

 

 

 

Expansionary policies that result in increased taxes will scare off investment - especially in an environment in which policy makers attempt to micromanage the economy and when no one knows what those policy makers will do next. This approach seems quite similar to the economic environment during the horribly depressed 1930s, when companies and investors were fearful of new taxes and regulations, and therefore didn't invest, and didn't create new jobs.

 

I would be curious to learn which economists (other that Paul Krugman and Robert Reich - and maybe some of the economic advisors on the Obama team) you are referring to, re: "I hardly know of any economists that would suggest otherwise." I get the impression that you must know a lot of economists!

 

I am not an economist, but Economics 101 would suggest that the mere idea of Obama's budget proposals - which would expand the public debt to over $9 trillion over the next ten years - is enough to scare the hell out of anyone considering investing in anything associated with the United States for the foreseeable future. It scares people because of the threat of increased taxes and/or monetizing the debt - printing money, or as the Fed calls it: "Quantitative Easing."

 

Television coverage of yesterday's tax-day protests showed a sign carried by a little kid that said it most succinctly: I AM 12 YEARS OLD AND $11 TRILLION IN DEBT.

 

You can advocate for an expansionary policy that for the intermediate term will scare off investment and therefore jobs, and for the long term will cripple the buying power of the Dollar, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you talk to your grandchildren about your advocacy of such policies, when they are the ones who must pay for it.

sounds like somebody needs to defend their vote for bush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment, I own all, or at least a significant part (25% or more) or 6 companies. Collectively I employ about 30 people directly, and probably twice that counting the reps, contributors, and other free lancers that we pay on a monthly basis. We have been hiring. I supported Clinton, and then Obama because I felt that the one party system of Republican rule was out of control. You simply can not make the system fur lined for a single part of the electorate. The religious right turned the Republican party into some kind of hybrid of religion and politics, successfully combining the worst of both.

 

I opposed the Bush deficit. I oppose the Obama deficit even more. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now, probably even more so. Taxes do not concern me so much other than the legacy we pass to our children. In a good year, I will make more than $300K, last year I made less than $10K ( don't worry I am fine, I have been a saver for the past 30 years, no debt, lots of cash). I can pass taxes along to customers, but I cannot pass along a net loss. (When Warren Buffet tells you he should be taxed higher, he is telling you that YOU should be taxed higher, any one who owns a successful business knows that taxes are simply a cost, like every other cost, to be passed on to the customer).

 

We all behave based on our perception of reality. My perception is that this is a very bad time to have capital at risk. I see absolutely nothing that tells me that creating jobs, or building a business, is a good idea. My gut instinct is to liquidate now, get the money out of the USA ( I like Canada pretty well) and to sit this one out. If small business is the engine for growth, it should be getting a little fuel. Instead it looks like every single obstacle that can be placed in the way is being set in front of us. And most of America is oblivious to all of this... I am very hopeful that the Obama plan will work, but I have looked for historical evidence, and have found nothing to give me any hope.

 

Two Thirds of the US economy comes from consumer spending. So it seems like the thing to try to stimulate would be consumer spending. The direct approach comes in the form of tax cuts for consumers, (note: real tax cuts go to those who pay taxes; not just the poor folks): not gonna happen. Well then, would it be too much to ask for Obama to encourage the people who still have a job to buy a car, go on vacation, think about remodeling their house? I would not encourage consumers to go into deep debt to these things, just as would not encourage the government to over spend it's own income. But a little can go a long way.

 

Jobs should be the VERY top issue for government. The direct approach would be to give employers tax credits for hiring new employees. A $20K tax credit for hiring a $40K employee would go a long way to solving unemployment. And a tax credit means the company would have to be profitable to ever collect a dime. This subsidizes every company, not just the ones on the governments list of companies too big to fail. The stimulus package creates jobs at a cost of $250K each. That could provide easily tens times as many jobs if they focused directly on the problem, instead of trying to social engineer with money instead.

 

How many cars would Ford sell if there was tax credit of $5000 per car. How about 1 million? It would cost $5 billion, about what it takes GM to stay alive for a month without those sales. But a million car sales would sure do a lot for every dealership, every guy that drives a transport truck, every DMV employee, and every bank, credit union and leasing company that touched the deal.

 

None of this will happen. It would involve putting the money in the hands of the people. Instead we will get make work programs: Every body gets a shovel, half of you dig a hole, and the other half fill them in. Even on the infrastructure projects, when the project is complete, the jobs are gone, and not every one is suited to, or wants to work, construction.

Edited by xr7g428
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment, I own all, or at least a significant part (25% or more) or 6 companies. Collectively I employ about 30 people directly, and probably twice that counting the reps, contributors, and other free lancers that we pay on a monthly basis. We have been hiring. I supported Clinton, and then Obama because I felt that the one party system of Republican rule was out of control. You simply can not make the system fur lined for a single part of the electorate. The religious right turned the Republican party into some kind of hybrid of religion and politics, successfully combining the worst of both.

 

I opposed the Bush deficit. I oppose the Obama deficit even more. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now, probably even more so. Taxes do not concern me so much other than the legacy we pass to our children. In a good year, I will make more than $300K, last year I made less than $10K ( don't worry I am fine, I have been a saver for the past 30 years, no debt, lots of cash). I can pass taxes along to customers, but I cannot pass along a net loss. (When Warren Buffet tells you he should be taxed higher, he is telling you that YOU should be taxed higher, any one who owns a successful business knows that taxes are simply a cost, like every other cost, to be passed on to the customer).

 

We all behave based on our perception of reality. My perception is that this is a very bad time to have capital at risk. I see absolutely nothing that tells me that creating jobs, or building a business, is a good idea. My gut instinct is to liquidate now, get the money out of the USA ( I like Canada pretty well) and to sit this one out. If small business is the engine for growth, it should be getting a little fuel. Instead it looks like every single obstacle that can be placed in the way is being set in front of us. And most of America is oblivious to all of this... I am very hopeful that the Obama plan will work, but I have looked for historical evidence, and have found nothing to give me any hope.

 

Two Thirds of the US economy comes from consumer spending. So it seems like the thing to try to stimulate would be consumer spending. This comes on the form of tax cuts for consumers. Would it be so much to ask for Obama to encourage the people who still have a job to buy a car, go on vacation, think about remodeling their house? I would not encourage consumers to go into deep debt to these things, just as would not encourage the government to over spend it's own income. But a little can go a long way.

 

Jobs should be the VERY top issue for government. The direct approach would be to give employers tax credits for hiring new employees. A $20K tax credit for hiring a $40K employee would go a long way to solving unemployment. And a tax credit means the company would have to be profitable to ever collect a dime. This subsidizes every company, not just the ones on the governments list of companies too big to fail. The stimulus package creates jobs at a cost of $250K each. That could provide easily tens times as many jobs if they focused directly on the problem, instead of trying to social engineer with money instead.

 

How many cars would Ford sell if there was tax credit of $5000 per car. How about 1 million? It would cost $5 billion, about what it takes GM to stay alive for a month without those sales. But a million car sales would sure do a lot for every dealership, every guy that drives a transport truck, every DMV employee, and every bank, credit union and leasing company that touched the deal.

 

None of this will happen. It would involve putting the money in the hands of the people. Instead we will get make work programs: Every body gets a shovel, half of you dig a hole, and the other half fill them in. Even on the infrastructure projects, when the project is complete, the jobs are gone, and not every one is suited to, or wants to work construction.

Thank God someone else here actually does the math. Now if some of these other guys would just go by the numbers, and more important, the history... naw, they would still probably just trust their emotions and spew this self-destructive garbage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone needs to take the blinders off? The way I read it he was responding to tax cuts not Bush, he was just the example.

well if your a bush supporter why the ron paul banner?

stick to your guns and dont be a puss cuz your too chicken shit to throw your vote away to a dem, or black man , or what ever your lame excuse might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if your a bush supporter why the ron paul banner?

stick to your guns and dont be a puss cuz your too chicken shit to throw your vote away to a dem, or black man , or what ever your lame excuse might be.

You do realize that you just proved his point :hysterical:

 

 

your the one buying into big box politics not me!
Stop projecting your own weakness on the rest of us. If you would just take off your solar shield, you might realize that I do my own research and listen to no one, let alone a bunch of corrupt politicians and journalists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I supported........Obama because I felt that the one party system of Republican rule was out of control. You simply can not make the system fur lined for a single part of the electorate. The religious right turned the Republican party into some kind of hybrid of religion and politics, successfully combining the worst of both.

 

I oppose the Obama deficit even more.

 

So you opposed one-party rule before, and apparently oppose it more now, even though you voted to go back to one-party rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that you just proved his point :hysterical:

 

 

Stop projecting your own weakness on the rest of us. If you would just take off your solar shield, you might realize that I do my own research and listen to no one, let alone a bunch of corrupt politicians and journalists.

well you listened too me!

so keep up the research, and the nonlistening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Bush's fiscal policies was not the tax cuts. The problem was the tax cuts coupled with unprecedented increases in government spending. Anyone who voted for Bush (myself included, the first time anyway) hoping for a fiscal conservative in office got the shaft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if your a bush supporter why the ron paul banner?

stick to your guns and dont be a puss cuz your too chicken shit to throw your vote away to a dem, or black man , or what ever your lame excuse might be.

HELLO!!!!, what are you talking about??????? You know who I supported and since you have no answer in return you make shit up? C'mon, go back and read this was about a tax cut being worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Bush's fiscal policies was not the tax cuts. The problem was the tax cuts coupled with unprecedented increases in government spending. Anyone who voted for Bush (myself included, the first time anyway) hoping for a fiscal conservative in office got the shaft.

The increases came about because of the Dems also. I'm not arguing this side that side, just the hell with both of them because they both caused it. This side wanted tax cuts, and could only get them if that side got there projects and in the end they each received what they wanted. What did we receive?

 

There were record tax revenues after the cut just they more than exceeded that with record spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this will happen. It would involve putting the money in the hands of the people. Instead we will get make work programs: Every body gets a shovel, half of you dig a hole, and the other half fill them in. Even on the infrastructure projects, when the project is complete, the jobs are gone, and not every one is suited to, or wants to work construction.

You have some very good points.

 

However, IMHO, you are too negative when you state "Every body gets a shovel, half of you dig a hole, and the other half fill them in. "

 

Why? Because, IMHO, you underestimate how much 3 decades of Reaganomics has destroyed U.S. infrastructure. It all has to be re-built, and it's going to take years. That's a lot of employment, to replace broken, worn-out infrastructure, not just make-work. And the construction jobs will support all the "background" jobs of suppliers and manufacturers.

 

Time will tell. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you opposed one-party rule before, and apparently oppose it more now, even though you voted to go back to one-party rule?

 

 

In general, I think we do better with a Republican legislature, and a Democrat President. The contrast causes each to act more on principal, and less like they own the joint.

 

Specifically, the problem with the Republican congress was that they believed that they could be good Democrats and good Republicans at the same time: They could spend spend spend; buying votes along the way, as long as they threw a few tax cuts to the true conservatives, and accommodated the religious right by pandering to their social agenda.

 

Given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can look back and see what got us into this mess.

 

The stage was set by increasing demand for housing. The well intentioned efforts to increase home ownership on the part of both parties produced a variety of unintended consequences. On the one side we had a pool of investment money that had doubled in less than a generation, and on the other side, we had borrowers that were willing to buy the most house they could possibly swing. It is not surprising that all kinds of new financial products cropped up to fill the void. Attempts to slow the party down were met with resistance on both sides. The Democrats saw it as a challenge to accessible credit, and the Republicans saw it as government interference with the market. (Admittedly, we should have realized that anytime the Republicans come out in favor of government regulations, we ought to jump as it means things are probably already in the tank.)

 

The run up of oil prices was the straw, actually more like the ton of bricks, that broke the camels back. While the Democrats were ranting about the cost of the war, and deficit spending, the real killer was the hundreds of billions of dollars we were literally sending up in smoke buying imported oil. As wasteful as it might have been, at least the money the government spent on the war was spent primarily with US based companies. That money tended to stay in our economy. The same was true for the deficit spending; the bridge might go nowhere, but at least it was being built here. Oil money, on the other hand, in most cases was gone forever, or came back to haunt us as more capital looking to inflate the already over heated real estate market.

 

The thing that makes spending on imported oil so pernicious is that it is a commodity, and like all commodities, the margins are always razor thin. This means the ratio of the price of the product at retail to the cost of the raw materials is very low. Most consumer products are sold at prices that are about 5 times the cost of the raw materials. A widget that costs $1 to make is usually $5 buy the time it hits the shelf at your local store. This means that the $5 item you see at WalMart probably meant $1 to a Chinese company, and $4 to Walmart and its US based Supply Chain. Comparing the price of a gallon of gas at the corner station to the cost of a gallon of crude, the gasoline is well less than twice the cost of the crude. This point is illustrated time and again when we compare the price of bottled water with the price of gasoline. The reason this is important, is because in comparison with say goods purchased from China, or other imported items, very little of the purchase price stays in the US economy.

 

With the money being funneled out of the US economy at an unprecedented rate, it should have come as no surprise that the house of cards would begin to fall. Consumer spending is the largest chunk of the US economy (2/3rds). Consumers can't spend money they don't have, and when the price of gas absorbs too much income, the cards begin to tumble. The increased costs of transportation ripple through the economy. Consumer goods purchases start to fall. Companies respond to rising costs and decreasing sales with lay offs. Lay offs lead to defaults, and pretty soon you have a full on crisis.

 

The first stimulus package was the Bush tax rebate check. For a time it offset the inevitable, but when the effects wore off we fell off the cliff. I expect the exact same thing will occur following the Obama stimulus package. If the fix to our problems was free, then there would never be a problem: we could just spend our way out of anything, NOT. I think this is what is bothering so many people today. They have a gut feeling that the solution to the problem is not doing more of what got us here. We all know that we need to act, but for some reason we are sleep walking through the process. We prefer the dream of a simple solution to the truth of our experience.

 

So here we are. We have a credit crisis brought about in part by the consequences of loosening credit requirements in the name of increased home ownership. We have an economy that continues to leak billions of dollars buying too much imported oil. We have unemployment caused by a collapse of the consumer goods segment of the economy. So we need to fix three things: credit, energy and private sector jobs. What we get is a stimulus plan that is focused on government jobs, education and the environment, all to be paid for by taxing the small businesses that generate the most jobs, consumer goods spending, and innovations in things like alternative energy. Ask me why I have doubts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...