I realize that 100%, but whether it's a stimulus package from Obama, or one from any of his critics, it's still going to be an expensive freaking bill and a hefty addition to the national debt of the US. Be it stimulus packages, government bailouts, the iraq war, or Dick Cheney's addiction to high-class Swedish male prostitutes, there's a giant mountain of cash that won't be paid off for generations to come.Freakzilla wrote:How do you think the jobs that are created with the package are going to be paid for? The money that we pay these people with is taxpayer money, YOUR money. We have to borrow this money from OUW OWN FUTURE!.Drunken Idaho wrote:Well there are certainly a lot of critics of Obama's package (not Michelle), and I even agree that many of the earmarks might be unnecessary. I just think it's sad that the system relies on so much extraneous spending, not just on this bill but on apparently every major bill that has been passed in recent history. Neither party is unfamiliar with this technique, but both sides attack it when it's convenient to do so, as we're seeing now.
But besides that, I support Obama's political instincts when it comes to this bill. In his speech last night, I found myself saying "damned right!" a lot. I love this talk about denying failed CEOs their monster salaries when they come to Washington for bailouts. It's exactly the kind of treatment they deserve, save for being denied any bailout at all. He also went on about encouraging the production of hybrid cars, which would create jobs and reduce spending on over-priced foreign fuel, while also reducing dependency. In addition to that, he's putting money into wind and solar, which also will produce jobs and reduce dependancy on planet-poisoning resources. It was the first time I can ever say I was truly satisfied with the words of a US president.
But of course even the stuff I loved about it was attacked, saying that the speech was highly partisan. Can someone explain to me why environmental responsibility is considered a partisan issue? Especially when it could kill two birds with one stone (to be ironic) like we see here? Is protecting the planet for future generations a democrat thing? And if so, does that make protecting the oil industry a republican thing? I know it's not black & white like that, but why do so many US politicians still act like such innovation isn't a moral responsibility? If you're going to leave your children with massive debt, you might as well try to make it so that they'll be less impacted by climate disasters and oil wars.
The government doesn't CREATE any wealth, it only takes it from you.
The disagreement right now in Washington is about different ways to stimulate the economy or alleviate the ramifications. What I'm saying is that since this black hole of debt is so huge (with or without Obama's plan) why not use it as a vehicle to improve the other challenges being left for the kiddies???
And it was in 2004 when the Bush Administration allowed Merrill lynch and others ot exemot themselves from all government oversight and operate with ZERO regulation. They quickly amassed debt/fund ratio's of 35-40/1 way over the federal allowed 12/1 ratio. While there have been many loans to people who should not of received them, they are an extremely small part of the problem, in fact, the majority of bad loans were made to people as a second mortgage according to the lending industry. Clinton's program started in 1999 and Bush EXPANDED it in 2004, right around the time the banks were cut loose of regulation, funny that. 
I kinda like Ron Paul. He doesn't seem too Tin Foil Hatlike to me...Yet. What struck me odd about the LaRouche folks was that they kinda gave me a couple selling points & sent me off with a couple free dvd's. Upon watching one of them there were clips of college kids at what seemed like community meetings spouting the same points almost verbatim. Something about that struck me as very odd.I dunno..
