So a bunch of whining about nothing that hasn't even happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
What Liberals do not want us to see.
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
So a bunch of whining about nothing that hasn't even happened.
What does that have to do with anything. I do not want to support some whining liberal who will not support themselves. As was mentioned before, a true liberal is willing to spend or use anything that someone else owns.
Pretty much. If you are poor and don't work the world is your oyster here. Free housing, food, clothing, medical...all free.
The poor have always had the best medical coverage and all for free.
It is those who work and have no medical care that will be mandated to pay for health care.
This is funny...
Reduced taxes as part of the stimulus package...
Do you see what is wrong with that? At all?
What IS the stimulus? Where does stimulus money come from? Politicians wallets? A collection at the Capital Cafeteria?
Too easy.
Here is what the U.S. taxpayer has to support.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Any other taxpayer from any other country even close?
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Any other taxpayer from any other country even close?
With one difference....If you have spent your life "on the dole"...the only thing you can look forward to when you reach retirement age is spending your days at the Mall yapping with other cronies...
Such was a guy who would be laughing at me and waving drinking a beer when I was working 4 to 12 going to work, I had to walk or drive by one of them low rental housing he was living in on the taxpayer's dime.
A week ago when I went to pick up my trailer from where I store it for the winter, I did a little detour to drive by that same housing project where he still lives to wave to him and beep the horn, like I've been doing for the last ten years......and when I leave in a few weeks for the summer.....I will do it again....and also in august when I come back. And all that time I will be on the road pickin' and grinnin' while he's sitting on a mall bench:lol:
:lol:Why is that funny? It's true. Here's a list of 25 tax cuts in the stimulus package.
PolitiFact | Axelrod claims Democrats passed 25 tax cuts last year without the help of Republicans
It's greatly better that President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts because the stimulus targets lower income individuals for tax cuts.
There never should have been a stimulus package in the first place, that would have saved us money. As is being shown now companies and banks really didn't need it, they have or are paying it off years ahead of whey it is due. The amounts given directly to the people were useless, most only gambled or drank it away.
In keeping with the old adage "there is an exception to every rule" I think in the case of General Motors the stimulus package appears to be a good thing as G.M. appears to be getting back on its feet and from news reports the loans have already been all repaid.
And where did Bush's tax cuts come from? Was that the result of prudent economic management, whereby he had hundreds fo billions in surplus to give tax cuts? Bush ran a huge deficit, converted 100 billion $ surplus into 550 billion $ deficit and gave tax cuts to the rich. And he didn't even have to do it, he inherited a thriving, roaring economy from Clinton. But I assume if Bush did it, it must be right.
What Obama did was out of dire necessity, to avoid a depression which would have lasted for decades. What Bush did was for doctrinaire ideology. He ran up a huge deficit, and gave tax cuts to the rich.
Tell me something. Did the clock matter to you when Bush and the Republicans were in office? Or did you discover existence of the clock all of a sudden, after Obama came to office?
Indeed. Obama enacted tax cuts even at the cost of increased deficit out of necessity, to stave off the depression. Bush ran up a huge deficit and gave tax cuts to the rich out of ideological reasons, to stay true to the conservative borrow and spend philosophy. That is the difference between the two.
Incidentally, conservatives had no problem with Bush stimulus package (which was necessary) but went apoplectic, started foaming at the mouth at Obama stimulus package (which also was necessary).
I see. So Bush stimulus package was OK, it was a great display of prudent economic management, but Obama simulus package was not necessary?
The way I read the news, the loans were made with stimulus money and were repaid from profits. So which way was it?
Businesses did need the stimulus. Every objective economist I've listened to has said the stimulus has prevented the economy from being worse than it is. Mark Zandi, an economic adviser to the 2008 John McCain campaign, has said some pretty positive things about the stimulus, saying things like GDP wouldn't have grown like it did and the unemployment rate would be 1-2 percentage points higher than it is without the stimulus.
You also have to keep in mind that the real substancial spending in the stimulus has only been happening for 6-7 months. Even though the bill itself was signed into law in Feb. 2009, the spending didn't begin in earnest until the start of FY 2010 (Oct. 2009), so we haven't even seen the full economic impact of it yet.