• 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!

45% Say Cancel Rest of Stimulus Spending

Don't Tase Me Bro

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
446
Reaction score
195
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans say the rest of the new government spending authorized in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan should now be canceled. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 36% disagree and 20% are not sure.

Rasmussen Reports
Not much of the stimulus money has been spent yet, but regardless, it's not going to matter because the stimulus plan is not a stimulus plan. It is simply a bill stuffed with pork to feed Congressional greed and give kickbacks to special interest groups that helped elect the current Congress.

Some other highlights from this poll:

Americans have mixed feelings about whether speeding up the new government spending in the stimulus package will help the economy. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say the increased spending will be good for the economy, but 44% say it will be bad. Eight percent (8%) think it will have no impact.

and

Only 31% of U.S. voters believe the economic stimulus package has helped the economy. That's down from 38% when it first passed in February.
For the first time in years, voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the handling of the economy.

The Democrats must really be screwing the pooch in the eyes of Americans if they are back to trusting the GOP more on the economy, particularly considering that the disaster began under Republican control.

Most voters predicted that Congress would pass the stimulus plan without knowing what was in it, as many legislators later acknowledged. Sixty percent (60%) also believed the plan was not a bipartisan effort but was instead mostly what congressional Democrats wanted since they control both the House and Senate.

That 60% ought to be a lot higher. No Republican in the House voted for the stimulus and only three Republicans in the Senate voted for it and one of them has since become a Democrat himself.

It would seem that the American people are slowly waking up to the fraud that is "hope and change."
 
The average American knows nothing about economics, so that 45% doesn't mean much.
 
The average American knows nothing about economics, so that 45% doesn't mean much.

You are correct, they don't know much about economics, but you are wrong in saying that 45% doesn't mean much. They don't have to know what's going on. They vote based on their impression of what is going on and if 45% of the country thinks the stimulus bill sucks that's 45% of the voters that won't be happy with the stimulus authors in the next election.
 
Well this is why we watch the cable pundits. Who has time to keep up with everything in the news and form an opinion? Our news has to be analyzed for us by people who do have time.
 
The average American knows nothing about economics, so that 45% doesn't mean much.
Neither does that 36%, so what's your point other than to bash American intelligence?
 
The funny thing is that most economists are now saying that the recession is over and we're entering into a stage of jobless recovery that looks like a recession but has some expansion of the economy.

And something like 15% of the Stimulus has been spent. This is Bush 2001 recession all over again where the recession was declared over by the Governors of the Fed and several key economists and the first tax cut bills had yet to be signed by the president.

What does that tell us? During a crisis, fix the problem that caused the crisis and then stop.
 
You are correct, they don't know much about economics, but you are wrong in saying that 45% doesn't mean much. They don't have to know what's going on. They vote based on their impression of what is going on and if 45% of the country thinks the stimulus bill sucks that's 45% of the voters that won't be happy with the stimulus authors in the next election.

And this is why democracy sucks. The uninformed, uneducated will make decisions that are not always in the best interests of the country. Remember that that hard, necessary decisions are rarely the popular ones. Thus, the uneducated, uninformed who perceive such decisions to be bad will vote against them in election and we'd be worse off in the long run. While I disagree that we should just outright ignore the population, others have made convincing arguments that letting the masses decide policy by electing candidates who disagree will likely lead to poor outcomes, hence why democracy sucks, at least in America.
 
And this is why democracy sucks. The uninformed, uneducated will make decisions that are not always in the best interests of the country. Remember that that hard, necessary decisions are rarely the popular ones. Thus, the uneducated, uninformed who perceive such decisions to be bad will vote against them in election and we'd be worse off in the long run. While I disagree that we should just outright ignore the population, others have made convincing arguments that letting the masses decide policy by electing candidates who disagree will likely lead to poor outcomes, hence why democracy sucks, at least in America.
And yet, thousands of citizens died for my vote in 1776. Thanks for saying that, it means something. If you think people should be ruled by the "knowledgeable few", then go to Saudi Arabia.
 
Last edited:
And yet, thousands of citizens died for my vote in 1776. Thanks for saying that, it means something.

I was not aware that the Americans who lived in 1776 were still alive today and that those who died were as ignorant as we are today. Care to provide evidence of this? After all, the problem with today's democracy is that the voting population is ignorant and uninformed. In the revolutionary times, relatively few had the right to vote and those who did were informed about the issues of the day. Democracy in the founder's day was hardly open to everyone. And in a way that mitigated the problem we face today. We could of course fix this by actually having an educated, informed voting population, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

If you think people should be ruled by the "knowledgeable few", then go to Saudi Arabia.

You can do better than that. Try.
 
And something like 15% of the Stimulus has been spent.

Off by 12%.
Only 3 percent of stimulus spent so far | csmonitor.com

And this is why democracy sucks. The uninformed, uneducated will make decisions that are not always in the best interests of the country. Remember that that hard, necessary decisions are rarely the popular ones. Thus, the uneducated, uninformed who perceive such decisions to be bad will vote against them in election and we'd be worse off in the long run. While I disagree that we should just outright ignore the population, others have made convincing arguments that letting the masses decide policy by electing candidates who disagree will likely lead to poor outcomes, hence why democracy sucks, at least in America.

An incredibly elitist sentiment. For one thing, most Americans are educated and only need to be minimally informed to make a decision. Anyways, without democracy, the government can do whatever the hell it wants and nobody can say otherwise; even if most people were stupid, and only a select few knew what was best for them, there would be no way to guarantee that that elite would always act in everyone's interest. Plus, how would that elite come to power in the first place? Without democracy the only way to come to power would be through the use of power itself- which is blind to whether one is part of the elite or not.


I was not aware that the Americans who lived in 1776 were still alive today and that those who died were as ignorant as we are today. Care to provide evidence of this? After all, the problem with today's democracy is that the voting population is ignorant and uninformed. In the revolutionary times, relatively few had the right to vote and those who did were informed about the issues of the day. Democracy in the founder's day was hardly open to everyone. And in a way that mitigated the problem we face today. We could of course fix this by actually having an educated, informed voting population, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Yes, let's go back to the good old days when women and colored people knew their place. After all, they had poor or no education back then, why should they have been able to vote?

You can do better than that. Try.
Cuba? The former Soviet Union? Zimbabwe? We could go on all day.
 
Well this is why we watch the cable pundits. Who has time to keep up with everything in the news and form an opinion? Our news has to be analyzed for us by people who do have time.

BS. People only listen to analysis which they already agree with.
 
Neither does that 36%, so what's your point other than to bash American intelligence?

It looks like I'm bashing American intelligence but I would say the same thing about any country. The vast majority are not involved too deeply in their country's economics or even know how the system works. I remember one time I was sitting in the living room with my family and tried to tell them about supply and demand. Their eyes just glazed over.

It's mostly propaganda and media that shapes people's opinions, not hard facts.
 

Your numbers are incorrect due to late timing. It's roughly 6% with an estimate of 11% to be done by the end of the year.

How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent? : Rutledge Capital

Point is still the same: it's just as effective as the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Aka, super, duper, not effective.

An incredibly elitist sentiment. For one thing, most Americans are educated and only need to be minimally informed to make a decision.

O'rly? Tell me, how many Americans do you know, know just where stem cells come from? How many do you know would state IVF clinics as the origin? How many do you know, know where those leftover embryos go? If Americans knew what was happening now, do you think so many would have voted against it on the bull**** reason the religious folk claim?

Furthermore, if Americans are so informed and educated (which by the way is incorrect if you look at percentage of population holding college degrees), then why do they keep voting their incumbents back into office when? We don't get the legislation we need for a reason. The US Congress is stale. Yet we do nothing about it. Informed you say?

Anyways, without democracy, the government can do whatever the hell it wants and nobody can say otherwise; even if most people were stupid, and only a select few knew what was best for them, there would be no way to guarantee that that elite would always act in everyone's interest.

While that is true, it doesn't actually address what I was writing. We get bad government because we keep voting for it. If we had informed, educated voting populace, we wouldn't have this problem. But we don't.

Plus, how would that elite come to power in the first place? Without democracy the only way to come to power would be through the use of power itself- which is blind to whether one is part of the elite or not.

Don't know. This discussion stems partly from my talk with Harry Guerrilla. He's very anti- listening to the majority for many of the reasons I stated.

Yes, let's go back to the good old days when women and colored people knew their place. After all, they had poor or no education back then, why should they have been able to vote?

I never argued that was overall better. I argued that by historically, the limitation on voting to certain people mitigated the problems we have now, and specifically, if you noticed, I specifically wrote that having an informed, educated population would do much of the same.

My point is that a democracy of the uninformed and uneducated results in bad decisions. Democracy's value is determined by its voters. And America's voters suck. The fact that we still have a one party system pretending to be a two party system with that one party screwing every American is more evidence that we don't have that educated, informed voting population.
 
The funny thing is that most economists are now saying that the recession is over and we're entering into a stage of jobless recovery that looks like a recession but has some expansion of the economy.

Well, that's pretty much meaningless. Most of the economists didn't see this coming.

What does that tell us? During a crisis, fix the problem that caused the crisis and then stop.

But their solution has been what "caused the crisis," so they're really not fixing anything.
 
Your numbers are incorrect due to late timing. It's roughly 6% with an estimate of 11% to be done by the end of the year.

How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent? : Rutledge Capital

Point is still the same: it's just as effective as the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Aka, super, duper, not effective.

Huh, I was actually under the impression that you supported the stimulus.

O'rly? Tell me, how many Americans do you know, know just where stem cells come from? How many do you know would state IVF clinics as the origin? How many do you know, know where those leftover embryos go? If Americans knew what was happening now, do you think so many would have voted against it on the bull**** reason the religious folk claim?

Yes. The issue here is using aborted embryos for research, and people's opinion of the act isn't going to change based on how much they know about the actual process.

Furthermore, if Americans are so informed and educated (which by the way is incorrect if you look at percentage of population holding college degrees),

Should holding a college degree really be a requirement for the ability to vote?

then why do they keep voting their incumbents back into office when? We don't get the legislation we need for a reason. The US Congress is stale. Yet we do nothing about it. Informed you say?

This can be fixed with term limits. And no, I did not say "informed". I said that very little information is actually necessary. A person could know relatively little about a subject, form an opinion, learn lots and lots about the subject, and the chances are that person would still hold the same opinion.

While that is true, it doesn't actually address what I was writing. We get bad government because we keep voting for it. If we had informed, educated voting populace, we wouldn't have this problem. But we don't.

I think it has more to do with the lack of good candidates on the market. Elections nowadays seem to be between a crook and another crook. I also think the partisan system has a lot to do with that... a nonpartisan primary system just may solve it.

Don't know. This discussion stems partly from my talk with Harry Guerrilla. He's very anti- listening to the majority for many of the reasons I stated.

Listening to the majority is not always a good thing (see Nazi Germany). As Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. There is simply no effective way to date to decide who gets to govern other than letting the people decide.

I never argued that was overall better. I argued that by historically, the limitation on voting to certain people mitigated the problems we have now, and specifically, if you noticed, I specifically wrote that having an informed, educated population would do much of the same.

My point is that a democracy of the uninformed and uneducated results in bad decisions. Democracy's value is determined by its voters. And America's voters suck. The fact that we still have a one party system pretending to be a two party system with that one party screwing every American is more evidence that we don't have that educated, informed voting population.

I think you're just being a pessimist; things really aren't that bad, and if they get that bad, voters will start pushing back.

I've heard that "one party" crud before and have never bought it.
 
I support a stimulus, not the "so called" stimulus package. :2razz:
 
I support a stimulus, not the "so called" stimulus package. :2razz:

How would it be different for you?

And I'm still wondering how you're a libertarian. Haven't heard anything that isn't interventionist from you.
 
So... 55% want it to continue? Good thing we live in a democracy.
 
Your numbers are incorrect due to late timing. It's roughly 6% with an estimate of 11% to be done by the end of the year.

How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent? : Rutledge Capital

Point is still the same: it's just as effective as the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Aka, super, duper, not effective.



O'rly? Tell me, how many Americans do you know, know just where stem cells come from? How many do you know would state IVF clinics as the origin? How many do you know, know where those leftover embryos go? If Americans knew what was happening now, do you think so many would have voted against it on the bull**** reason the religious folk claim?

Furthermore, if Americans are so informed and educated (which by the way is incorrect if you look at percentage of population holding college degrees), then why do they keep voting their incumbents back into office when? We don't get the legislation we need for a reason. The US Congress is stale. Yet we do nothing about it. Informed you say?



While that is true, it doesn't actually address what I was writing. We get bad government because we keep voting for it. If we had informed, educated voting populace, we wouldn't have this problem. But we don't.



Don't know. This discussion stems partly from my talk with Harry Guerrilla. He's very anti- listening to the majority for many of the reasons I stated.



I never argued that was overall better. I argued that by historically, the limitation on voting to certain people mitigated the problems we have now, and specifically, if you noticed, I specifically wrote that having an informed, educated population would do much of the same.

My point is that a democracy of the uninformed and uneducated results in bad decisions. Democracy's value is determined by its voters. And America's voters suck. The fact that we still have a one party system pretending to be a two party system with that one party screwing every American is more evidence that we don't have that educated, informed voting population.

Only net tax-payers and veterans should be allowed to vote. Net tax-consumers get to vote when they stop leaching off the system.
 
Well, that's pretty much meaningless. Most of the economists didn't see this coming.

I'm not sure that means much when you have a history of making up your own criteria.

But their solution has been what "caused the crisis," so they're really not fixing anything.

Their solution? Really? This mess's severity was caused principally by leverage purchases of securitized mortgages. If financials had merely done equity purchases, we would not be in this mess. And don't even bother with CRA loans. Materiality alone negates their impact.
 
Huh, I was actually under the impression that you supported the stimulus.

The idea behind the stimulus is not a bad idea. It's just the actual plan doesn't work, and the added debt is insane. It's bad enough Bush brought us to record levels. Adding more to record levels is not a good idea.

Yes. The issue here is using aborted embryos for research, and people's opinion of the act isn't going to change based on how much they know about the actual process.

So you're saying that people vote independent of their knowledge? That's rather frightening. That evidence and facts are not relevant. The simple fact of the matter is that those embryos are doomed anyways and none were made primarily to harvest stem cells. Notice that never is mentioned in the press.

Should holding a college degree really be a requirement for the ability to vote?

No. I'm just pointing out that the populace isn't as educated as you make them out be on the basis of college degrees.

This can be fixed with term limits. And no, I did not say "informed". I said that very little information is actually necessary. A person could know relatively little about a subject, form an opinion, learn lots and lots about the subject, and the chances are that person would still hold the same opinion.

While that is true, it does not address my argument. Simple fact of the matter is our Congress sucks and incumbency is part of that. People constantly complain about how Congress is failing, yet Senate and House incumbency rates are often 90%. Term limits would eliminate this problem, but not the underlying problem of why we keep that incumbency rate so high.

I think it has more to do with the lack of good candidates on the market. Elections nowadays seem to be between a crook and another crook. I also think the partisan system has a lot to do with that... a nonpartisan primary system just may solve it.

It is a distinct possibility. Do you mean lack of good candidates running for all parties, or just good candidates running for democrat/republican?

I think you're just being a pessimist; things really aren't that bad, and if they get that bad, voters will start pushing back.

While that is true that things aren't that bad (well, depends how one defines bad), Americans have a long history of changing things only when they get to the breaking point. Someone's gotta die before we change the laws. That's a bad way of running a country. We seem to have accepted that a pound of cure is less expensive than an ounce of prevention.
 
Only net tax-payers and veterans should be allowed to vote. Net tax-consumers get to vote when they stop leaching off the system.

A bit too much Heinlein there eh?

Alright, so, imagine that a net tax payer who has a bad year and takes many of his deferred losses is for the tax year not a net tax payer despite a long history of being a net tax payer, should be disqualified from voting?
 
AnThe uninformed, uneducated will make decisions that are not always in the best interests of the country.

Dont forget cattle herded by a bought and paid for media.
 
A bit too much Heinlein there eh?

Alright, so, imagine that a net tax payer who has a bad year and takes many of his deferred losses is for the tax year not a net tax payer despite a long history of being a net tax payer, should be disqualified from voting?

Instead of an annual basis is could be a lifetime basis.

Year one - Net tax payer in the amount of $10,000.
Total: $10,000.
Status: Voter.

Year two - Net tax consumer in the amount of $8,000.
Total: $2,000.
Status: Voter.

Year three - Net tax consumer in the amount of $4,000.
Total: -$2,000.
Status: Non-voter.
 
Back
Top Bottom