HONESTLY
"Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it." - Governor Ronald Reagan, Speech, Nov. 14, 1974.
Democrats attack Bush for spending but think its okay if Obama spends 9 times the amount Bush spent
No.
1) The bailouts will be paid back....with interest. A few of the big banks want to do just that right now.
2) Stimulus is still needed in the expanded economy to get money into the system. If it is not done, the economic effects would be much worse.
3) Economists just came out earlier this week and expect the recession to start to turn around by the end of the year. If the stimulus and bailouts were not done, the end wouldn't occur until 2011.
That's as honest as I can be.
Honestly, I'm a capitalist. But once Bush bailed out the rich greedy bankers...You have to bailout everyone else to keep the playing field even.
The banks should have never been bailed out. They should be allowed to fail. The only banks they have saved are the biggest and most corrupt. The small banks get siezed all the time by the FDIC.
Do I agree with Obama's bail outs? Yes, but only because it was preceded by Bank bailouts.
If we are going to bailout the greedy *** bankers, then we should at least bailout our Firefighters, law enforcement, education, and healthcare.
The sad reality of all of this is that....we don't need blanket bail outs (which are only a band aid). We need widespread reform.
But the Bail outs are better than doing nothing...even if they are only a temporary solution.
I believe Obama is light years better than Bush...but keep in mind, the game is still rigged. The average working person still gets screwed. Of course the average person isn't so bright...but that doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of. They should be treated fairly.
Honestly, I actually pay attention.
Bush put us into this horrific mess by wanting to fight his wars, but not raising the funds necessary to pay for them. That forced him to have to borrow the funds necessary to pay for these wars from other countries, at extremely high (and exponentially growing) interest rates.
When Bush got to office, he inherited a $4 trillion National Debt from Bill Clinton. When Bush left office, he left us with a nearly $11 trillion National Debt. That means that Bush managed to spend $3 trillion MORE THAN DOUBLE what ALL 42 of his predecessors needed 224 years to amass.
Bush put us into this mess. Then he trapped us in Iraq for a few months yet; and in doing so also managed to trap us in Afghanistan. We are stuck with his mess, and these expenses continue to be Bush's, not Obama's. Obama cannot save the money necessary to save this economy, because Bush trapped us into continuing to pay for the wars.
So if Obama cannot save money, he is doing the next best thing. He is investing it into our economy, to streamline it so that it can produce more while taking in less. That way, if he cannot save the money, we can instead produce what is necessary to cover what Bush did.
Personally, I would prefer we leave the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars immediately; not 19 months from now. Then we should raise taxes, and move all money saved/raised toward paying down what Bush did so that we can save the dollar. But that is not really practical, and somewhat dangerous since Bush left so many terrorists in Afghanistan so that he could go get revenge for Daddy while satisfying his lust for oil.
So Obama is doing the only real option left. I don't think it's great, but it's all Bush left us with. Perhaps if you guys had remembered Conservatism when it mattered, we would not be stuck in this situation as it is.
Add-on:
And for the record, we have already seen this plan work. Despite what Ronald Reagan said, he was quite the fan of big government. He comes in number 3 on the biggest spenders list, right behind Richard Nixon at number 2 and George W. Bush at number 1.
The difference between Reagan and Bush was that Reagan raised taxes on everyone for the last 7 of his 8 years in office. So he actually covered his spending, whereas Bush did not. That saved the dollar, which in turn saved the economy.
We also saw it in George H.W. Bush's final year in office. His Iraq War had had a similar effect on the economy, destroying the dollar and, in turn, sent us into recession. But his willingness to raise taxes, while having cost him his second term in office, did pay for the first Iraq War and paved the way for Clinton to finish the recovery. That is when we had the good years under Clinton.
We HAVE TO raise taxes to pay for what Bush did. To do that, we have to re-establish the economy and make it produce more so that we can cover everything. It worked for Reagan, it worked for George H.W. Bush, it worked for Clinton.
Then we lower taxes under George W. Bush, and it goes all to h*ll.
So I think I'd rather go with Obama, who is following the first three, rather than following Jr.'s plan--which got us into this mess.
Its not as much the bail outs that I oppose(I think they are a bad Idea too just not the worst one). It is the government taking control of these companies. I don't buy the story that they are putting people in charge who will magically bring life back into these dead companies. If there was someone out their who could don't you think they would have already been hired by the company? The bail outs seem to me just a clever way to disguise the government taking control of private industry. One of the first steps to socialism.
In order to correct Bush's mess, spending is necessary. The republican party of NO SENSE came out yesterday with their economic stimulus plan (14 pages) which says they will triple the tax cuts for the wealthy, triple than what it is now.
Which makes more sense? HONESTLY
Oooooh!! Listen up y'all, 9-12 project has spoken and sound quite huffy too!!
To answer your question, no I do not have a problem with the stimulus. However, as I have always stated, I am not, and was never supportive of the bailout. Hope that calms your nerves a little. *smilin*
i think its fine. because hes also helping us little poor people that never saw help when bush was in office. My family has seen alot of fruits of Obamas labor already....he upped our foodstamps.....and my bfs unemployment was extended and he also recieves an extra 50 dollar check with it now. Hes finally found work again and were getting back on our feet and if Bush or Mccain had been elected we'd still be suffering out here.
He should instead choose to invade another country (preferably a country without WMDs, and which can't defend itself) and spend all the money we don't have there, and double our deficit to boot!
In other words, he should follow in GWB's footsteps.
Want a viable alternative? Every American tax free for 1 year.
OR
Do nothing let the banks and insurance compainies fail and let someone else buy them and give them a workable plan releasing them from bad contracts.
I trust the Democratic party.
Clinton administration pulled us out of the hole the 1st Bush dug.
I beileve the Obama folks can pull us outa this situation created by the Bush repubs again
If I remember how to balance my personal checkbook properly(haven't had enough cash to worry about it recently) it never makes sense to spend money you don't have.
It's OK ! Because i have faith and trust in president Obama he have been brilliant up to this point.
Listen up Con. I have no problem with him fixing this mess at all, so yep it's okay with me.
They're good with it. It was only a problem to them when Bush did it.
See what I mean?
I love it....Obama NEEDS the money for his people.
Can't wait to read these replies.
No, just like Bush.
you can see these m----- s have no brains, they are complete dung wipes
No
Not at all. It does not effect me, whatsoever.
It does not effect the majority of Americans.
Try again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment