• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate passes Obama's economic recovery plan

WillRockwell said:
Think about it. If it takes 3 years to build a bridge, or a highway, you don't spend all the money at once. What good would a stimulus package be that ran out of money in a year?
Click to expand...

This is less a stimulus and more an increase in the yearly budget.

A lot of the items in it will be renewed for years on end.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Let the fail begin.


I am truly concerned for my nation.
Click to expand...

I agree, and let me commend you for jumping on Bush over his bailout too. There are some who supported everything Bush did, including his bailout, and criticize Obama for doing the same. It's good to see a few people who regard this as a load of crap, whether Bush or Obama does it.
 
danarhea said:
I agree, and let me commend you for jumping on Bush over his bailout too. There are some who supported everything Bush did, including his bailout, and criticize Obama for doing the same. It's good to see a few people who regard this as a load of crap, whether Bush or Obama does it.
Click to expand...




What are we up to between the two? 1.4 trillion hard cash? :shock:
 
danarhea said:
I agree, and let me commend you for jumping on Bush over his bailout too. It's good to see a few people who regard this as a load of crap, whether Bush or Obama does it.
Click to expand...

What's good now? God be willing to makes us wrong.
 
Gibberish said:
Actually there is a ton of stimulus in the plan. Every project puts money back into the market. Though some of the items could have been either removed or planned better (STD spending for example), they will still have an effect.
Click to expand...

The issue with these things that "could have been either removed or planned better" is the fact that while they may still have an effect, the amount of money going to them and the stress it puts on the debt may have a net NEGATIVE effect instead of a positive.

Hacking off your arm will stop the gangreen on your pinky from spreading. However, hacking off the pinky would do the job and still give you a hand and arm to use.

This is hacking off the arm.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html?hp

In addition, there are tens of billions of dollars in differences on spending programs and even in the tax provisions. The Senate, for instance, scaled back Mr. Obama’s signature middle-class tax cut proposal, called “Making Work Pay” to save about $2 billion from the overall cost of the package.

The trims made by the Senate would mean that only about 87 percent of American taxpayers would benefit from the tax cut, with the wealthiest of those receiving only a partial credit. Mr. Obama, during his campaign for the presidency, had promised a tax cut for 95 percent of American families.
Click to expand...

That means that Obama's tax cut would only benefit those making less than around $85k. Of course, that also ignores the 41% of people who either don't pay taxes or don't file. So, in reality, after you count the 13% of taxpayers who won't be getting anything under this provision, Obama's "tax cut for 95% of American families" would actually only cut taxes for 51% of families.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but I have also read that the bulk of the money wont be released for two years. If we could get congress back in 2012 would we be able to reverse this?
 
The New Deal ran into trouble because it ran out of money 4 years in. This is a problem that will take a long time to fix, it would be shortsighted to throw all the money at the issue at the same time
 
WillRockwell said:
The New Deal ran into trouble because it ran out of money 4 years in. This is a problem that will take a long time to fix, it would be shortsighted to throw all the money at the issue at the same time
Click to expand...

OK now I know that whatever is amount of money government takes to spend it runs out of money in exactly 4 years. 25% of unemployment in 4 years?... I wish it would happen now and be over in 4 years without spending any money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom