New Government Program announced

[Rackat]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Rackat/goldforgramps.jpg


j/k - maybe

[JBond]

Does that mean Obama is going to eliminate the Death Tax?

[TheRat]

Does that mean Obama is going to eliminate the Death Tax?
I think you mean the estate tax, and I hope not. Republicans renamed it the death tax to trick low income individuals to care about it when it really just affects upper income individuals.

[zrinkill]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Rackat/goldforgramps.jpg



:laugh1::lmao2:

[Doomsday101]

I think you mean the estate tax, and I hope not. Republicans renamed it the death tax to trick low income individuals to care about it when it really just affects upper income individuals.

Why should these people pay taxes on money that has been taxed just because a family member died?

[peplaw06]

I think you mean the estate tax, and I hope not. Republicans renamed it the death tax to trick low income individuals to care about it when it really just affects upper income individuals.Democrats named it estate tax to trick people into thinking that they are doing something other than taxing people after they die.

Whether or not it affects only the upper class is irrelevant.

[Doomsday101]

Democrats named it estate tax to trick people into thinking that they are doing something other than taxing people after they die.

Whether or not it affects only the upper class is irrelevant.

It is the same old class warfare played by the democrats. You are not entitled to the money you and your family worked hard to get and somehow the Government deserves a cut of it even though taxes have been paid on the money.

[DFWJC]

I think you mean the estate tax, and I hope not. .

How many times should a person have to pay taxes on the same dollar earned?

[TheRat]

Why should these people pay taxes on money that has been taxed just because a family member died?
it's a transfer of wealth.

[JBond]

I think you mean the estate tax, and I hope not. Republicans renamed it the death tax to trick low income individuals to care about it when it really just affects upper income individuals.

It's not a trick. I die and the government tries to take as much of the money I legally earned (and paid taxes on multiple times already) to support my wife and children just to turn around and blow it on some stupid socialized program a lowlife liberal put together to buy more votes. No thanks. That is why I have an irrevocable trust and the greedy liberal pigs in congress won't be getting anything from me.

[TheRat]

How many times should a person have to pay taxes on the same dollar earned?
Well if you inherit something from a deceased individual you would only be taxed once.

[zrinkill]

How many times should a person have to pay taxes on the same dollar earned?

It's not a trick. I die and the government tries to take as much of the money I legally earned (and paid taxes on multiple times already) to support my wife and children just to turn around and blow it on some stupid socialized program a lowlife liberal put together to buy more votes. No thanks. That is why I have an irrevocable trust and the greedy liberal pigs in congress won't be getting anything from me.


People like Rat will never understand this because they have nothing to leave their loved ones and are jealous of those who do.

[DFWJC]

Well if you inherit something from a deceased individual you would only be taxed once.

Actually, that is true...though it still does not make it right for obvious reasons.

[JBond]

it's a transfer of wealth.

And the award for dumbest post of the day goes to.....



http://www.thehorrordome.com/HDSHOPPINGPROPS/MorrisCostumes/GiantRatLG.jpg

[Doomsday101]

it's a transfer of wealth.

Yes a transfer from the people and family who earned it to the Government. That money has been earned and taxed because someone dies should not give the Government the right to come in and get another cut of that money. You liberals and your wealth redistribution really take the cake. Wanting what you have not earned

[JBond]

Yes a transfer from the people and family who earned it to the Government. That money has been earned and taxed because someone dies should not give the Government the right to come in and get another cut of that money. You liberals and your wealth redistribution really take the cake. Wanting what you have not earned

Their entire survival is based on stealing money that they were incapable of earning on their own. No better than a common thief. They may be worse because they try and hide who they are. At least when you are mugged, the mugger is up front about his intentions.

[Doomsday101]

Their entire survival is based on stealing money that they were incapable of earning on their own. No better than a common thief. They may be worse because the try and hide who they are. At least when you are mugged, the mugger is up front about his intentions.

One thing Rat is right about this tax will not affect me because my family and I are not wealthy. This does not change the principals of what the Government is doing and it is wrong no matter how you slice it.

[JBond]

One thing Rat is right about this tax will not affect me because my family and I are not wealthy. This does not change the principals of what the Government is doing and it is wrong no matter how you slice it.

I appreciate you standing on principle despite the law not effecting you right now. I am by no means wealthy, but do plan on being so eventually. Being an owner of a very small yet growing business I get to see the other side of taxes that most never even realize exist. The government has enough money to meet it's obligations under the Constitution. They just need to learn how to use it more effectively.

[Doomsday101]

I appreciate you standing on principle despite the law does not effecting you right now. I am by no means wealthy, but do plan on being so eventually. Being an owner of a very small yet growing business I get to see the other side of taxes that most never even realize exist. The government has enough money to meet it's obligations under the Constitution. They just need to learn how to use it more effectively.

In this country if you are willing to take the risk then you deserve the rewards. I'm not a big risk taker that is my choice but I see no reason to punish those who are. I expect people to pay their fair share and when found cheating I think the courts should throw the book at them but those who play by the rules and are willing to go out on a limb should reap the rewards that is what this country was founded on. Today we demonize those risk takers and want to take from them because some do not feel they need that much.

[burmafrd]

Rat and the rest of the liberals run from the truth all the time. It is a DEATH TAX because only DEATH starts it.

[TheRat]

Rat and the rest of the liberals run from the truth all the time. It is a DEATH TAX because only DEATH starts it.
No the impression that it leads is that you get taxed for dying. Unless you have a large estate that is not going to be the case at all. The point was to scare people who have no economic interest in seeing an end to the estate tax, which is most people.

[TheRat]

Yes a transfer from the people and family who earned it to the Government. That money has been earned and taxed because someone dies should not give the Government the right to come in and get another cut of that money. You liberals and your wealth redistribution really take the cake. Wanting what you have not earned
You didn't earn that money originally. Someone else did, then you acquired it. Hence YOU haven't been taxed yet. Same reasoning behind the gift tax.

[zrinkill]

No the impression that it leads is that you get taxed for dying. Unless you have a large estate that is not going to be the case at all. The point was to scare people who have no economic interest in seeing an end to the estate tax, which is most people.

And by "large estate" you mean a house?

[Doomsday101]

You didn't earn that money originally. Someone else did, then you acquired it. Hence YOU haven't been taxed yet. Same reasoning behind the gift tax.

No a parent or close relative did, the tax on that money was paid and the rest belongs to the person. Who they give it to is none of your damn business or that of the Government.

[DFWJC]

No a parent or close relative did, the tax on that money was paid and the rest belongs to the person. Who they give it to is none of your damn business or that of the Government.

:thumbup: :toast: :bravo:

[Kangaroo]

Let's be very clear the Taxes are nothing but extortion by our Government.

Now that part is out of the way; I am also not advocating no taxes by the Government we do need taxes to pay for the things that I think the Government should provide. Infrastructure (ie road bridges); Military and law enforcement are some of the core ones. There are a few other things but that should be the primary purpose of the Government not helping everyone not be poor because of their bad decisions.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You didn't earn that money originally. Someone else did, then you acquired it. Hence YOU haven't been taxed yet. Same reasoning behind the gift tax.

Double Taxation. Humm..........

What will be next I wonder? Tax on our Tea? No, we probably don't drink enough of that. Maybe Tax on our Coke.

Call it a fat tax but when you context it in the way I have above, it's really kind of interesting how it looks, is it not?

If this Administration were really interested in helping the economy, they would not consider a repeal of the Estate Tax.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm

It does not help anything.

You want to look at ways to find more sources of revenue for the Government, my suggestion would be to get with the President and find out where the promised 100 Million in budget cuts he promised in the first 90 days, and then promised again, that he would have shorty missing the first deadline.

Maybe ask where all the money for Clunkers went? They went through a billion in 4 days, got an additional 2 Billion added yet they have only paid out 2% of the original billion.

It's time to stop bleeding the American Tax Payers and start adopting the fiscal responsability the President Promised us.

[TheRat]

Maybe Tax on our Coke.


I hope so.



It's time to stop bleeding the American Tax Payers and start adopting the fiscal responsability the President Promised us.
How is it fiscally responsible to reduce government spending when consumers are spending less? It would just make a bad problem even worse.

[Doomsday101]

I hope so.


How is it fiscally responsible to reduce government spending when consumers are spending less? It would just make a bad problem even worse.

Because the Government does not have the money to spend and borrowing from countries like China in the end is only increasing our dept which will make any recovery weak.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I hope so.


How is it fiscally responsible to reduce government spending when consumers are spending less? It would just make a bad problem even worse.

Really? Tax receipts are on pace to decline 18% this fiscal year. That is the single largest decline of receipts since the great depression.

We will not spend our way out of recession because we are not investing in Jobs and the growth of the American Economy.

[TheRat]

Really? Tax receipts are on pace to decline 18% this fiscal year. That is the single largest decline of receipts since the great depression.

We will not spend our way out of recession because we are not investing in Jobs and the growth of the American Economy.
Just because there is less tax receipts doesn't mean we can't do a little deficit spending.

Anyhow we did spend our way out of the Great Depression through massive military spending initiative during WWII.

[TheRat]

Because the Government does not have the money to spend and borrowing from countries like China in the end is only increasing our dept which will make any recovery weak.
Unless if the deficit results in runaway inflation it will have nothing to do with the recovery.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just because there is less tax receipts doesn't mean we can't do a little deficit spending.

Anyhow we did spend our way out of the Great Depression through massive military spending initiative during WWII.

Wrong. We got through that because we made a focused and direct investment in the American Economy. You see, jobs were actually created and not just "Saved".

Their is a big difference between what happened then and what has happened with this Administration. They were not trying to save Harvest Rats in San Francisco back in those days. They were tyring to save the world.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Unless if the deficit results in runaway inflation it will have nothing to do with the recovery.

It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. We are printing money for goodness sakes. We are printing Bonds and buying them up as fast as we can print them. None of this is good and all of it is weakening the economy and deflating the Dollar.

[TheRat]

It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. We are printing money for goodness sakes. We are printing Bonds and buying them up as fast as we can print them. None of this is good and all of it is weakening the economy and deflating the Dollar.
Panic! Panic! I started hording gold in a false wall in my closet.

In all seriousness, I have never seen conservatives so concerned over the deficit in my life. I wonder where this concern was during Reagan and Bush.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Panic! Panic! I started hording gold in a false wall in my closet.

In all seriousness, I have never seen conservatives so concerned over the deficit in my life. I wonder where this concern was during Reagan and Bush.

If I told you, you would not believe it. Why do you ask the question?

[Kangaroo]

Panic! Panic! I started hording gold in a false wall in my closet.

In all seriousness, I have never seen conservatives so concerned over the deficit in my life. I wonder where this concern was during Reagan and Bush.

Under Bush I had concerns I was all over the TARP not happening and that thing was signed by Bush; i means billions of dollars :puke:

[MetalHead]

You didn't earn that money originally. Someone else did, then you acquired it. Hence YOU haven't been taxed yet. Same reasoning behind the gift tax.

JBond,can I borrow that pic of that rat...I think he just outdid himself.

[MetalHead]

Panic! Panic! I started hording Fool's gold in a false wall in my closet.

In all seriousness, I have never seen conservatives so concerned over the deficit in my life. I wonder where this concern was during Reagan and Bush.

Fixed.

[iceberg]

Panic! Panic! I started hording gold in a false wall in my closet.

In all seriousness, I have never seen conservatives so concerned over the deficit in my life. I wonder where this concern was during Reagan and Bush.

maroon.

[Rackat]

It is possible to remedy ignorance, but you can't fix stupid.

[DFWJC]

Panic! Panic! I started hording gold in a false wall in my closet.

In all seriousness, I have never seen conservatives so concerned over the deficit in my life. I wonder where this concern was during Reagan and Bush.

That was the #1 issue that fiscal conservatives had with Bush...they felt he sold out as far as deficit control. True, the war had much to do with these costs, but there was more to it. He had to look the other way when large sums of spending were added to the budget as a trade for committment to the war by basically everyone from both parties. It sucked.

Even after all of that--and the enormous hand-wringing when the deficit reached 500 billion---it was NOTHING compared the spending going on now.
By Sept 30th, 2009, the US budget defit will reach $1.8 TRILLION!!!!!!!

So this is not the giant 20% increase that some feared (which would make it 600 billion) it is more than 10 times worse! The numbers are so large people lose grip on what we are talking about.

[zrinkill]

maroon.

http://thecontaminated.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/bugs-bunny.jpg

What a Maroon!

[TheRat]

That was the #1 issue that fiscal conservatives had with Bush...they felt he sold out as far as deficit control. True, the war had much to do with these costs, but there was more to it. He had to look the other way when large sums of spending were added to the budget as a trade for committment to the war by basically everyone from both parties. It sucked.

Even after all of that--and the enormous hand-wringing when the deficit reached 500 billion---it was NOTHING compared the spending going on now.
By Sept 30th, 2009, the US budget defit will reach $1.8 TRILLION!!!!!!!

So this is not the giant 20% increase that some feared (which would make it 600 billion) it is more than 10 times worse! The numbers are so large people lose grip on what we are talking about.
And the U.S produces over 14 trillion dollars of GDP a year. During WWII our debt went over 100% of GDP. The deficit is an important matter that needs to be taken care of after the recession ends, but all of this panic is absurd.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And the U.S produces over 14 trillion dollars of GDP a year. During WWII our debt went over 100% of GDP. The deficit is an important matter that needs to be taken care of after the recession ends, but all of this panic is absurd.

Perhaps, but not nearly as absurd as the Stimulus, Omnibus or TARP. Essentially, all huge spending bills sold to America guised as critical to the health of our Economy. Pure BS.

[TheRat]

Perhaps, but not nearly as absurd as the Stimulus, Omnibus or TARP. Essentially, all huge spending bills sold to America guised as critical to the health of our Economy. Pure BS.
You seem to be stating that as a fact. based on what?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You seem to be stating that as a fact. based on what?

Based on the fact that it's all special interest money.

[DFWJC]

And the U.S produces over 14 trillion dollars of GDP a year. During WWII our debt went over 100% of GDP. The deficit is an important matter that needs to be taken care of after the recession ends, but all of this panic is absurd.

I think part of the "panic" by some folks is the baggage that comes with this spending. It relates directly to an exponentially increasing government footprint.

But there is the real side note--
The U.S. is very dependent on foreign countries buying our bonds, the proceeds of which are used to finance our deficit. With our total debt increasing so rapidly, how long will it take before foreigners start having real concern over our bonds? More specifically, at some point, foreigners may demand higher interest rates on our bonds as an incentive to keep buying them. Things start unraveling quickly once that happens.

There there is a severe price we will have to eventually pay for this massive monetary stimulus program.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think part of the "panic" by some folks is the baggage that comes with this spending. It relates directly to an exponentially increasing government footprint.

But there is the real side note--
The U.S. is very dependent on foreign countries buying our bonds, the proceeds of which are used to finance our deficit. With our total debt increasing so rapidly, how long will it take before foreigners start having real concern over our bonds? More specifically, at some point, foreigners may demand higher interest rates on our bonds as an incentive to keep buying them. Things start unraveling quickly once that happens.

There there is a severe price we will have to eventually pay for this massive monetary stimulus program.

That has already started. Notice that our Government has already started buying up our own bonds before they even hit the street. It's a tell tale sign that our Government has no confidence in being able to sell them abroad. This is really not good.

[iceberg]

http://thecontaminated.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/bugs-bunny.jpg

What a Maroon!

i can't think of any other reply that makes more sense to me for him than this. he won't listen, he wants nothing but libs on the supreme court so the constitution can be interpreted "properly" and in the end is just a fool only surpassed by those who keep pulling his foolish string.

[zrinkill]

only surpassed by those who keep pulling his foolish string.

That would be me ..... but I have my reasons

;)

[iceberg]

That would be me ..... but I have my reasons

;)

hey - sometimes it's fun to put a quarter in the court jester.

[StanleySpadowski]

Anyhow we did spend our way out of the Great Depression through massive military spending initiative during WWII.


If WWII spending ended the Great Depression, then you'd have to admit that it wasn't the result of FDR's radical socialization.

If the New Deal was then a failure, why would anyone support the socializing of America?

[TheRat]

Based on the fact that it's all special interest money.
I huge portion of the stimulus went to state aid which saved hundreds of thousands of state jobs. How is that special interest?

And you think the Tarp was unnecessary?

[Kangaroo]

I huge portion of the stimulus went to state aid which saved hundreds of thousands of state jobs. How is that special interest?

And you think the Tarp was unnecessary?

Yes the TARP was unnecessary business go bankrupt all the time they either reorganize in court and survive or someone else comes in and takes there place. It happens every day in this country what so hard about it to big to fail my left foot.

[TheRat]

If WWII spending ended the Great Depression, then you'd have to admit that it wasn't the result of FDR's radical socialization.

If the New Deal was then a failure, why would anyone support the socializing of America?
Actually the New Deal made the situation a little better and kept our economy from getting worse in the short term. However, people don't realize that New Deal spending was pretty pedestrian from today's standards. On average our government spends like 35% of GDP, during the New Deal our government only spent like 20% of GDP. When we went to War our government peaked at spending 55% of GDP. Moreover, the regulations and programs put into place during the New Deal kept us from entering another depression for the next 70 or so years, whereas before the new deal we used to have depressions every 20 or 30 years.

[TheRat]

Yes the TARP was unnecessary business go bankrupt all the time they either reorganize in court and survive or someone else comes in and takes there place. It happens every day in this country what so hard about it to big to fail my left foot.
Well first of all you are assuming they go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The only reason why a company that was as bad off as GM was able to go into Chapter 11 is because they had financial support from the government, which I am assuming you were unhappy about. A much more likely scenario for many of the banks would be to go into Chapter 7, which means liquidation. Creditors would lose billions of dollars, and the FDIC would be forced to cover for millions of people, and that money doesn't grow on trees. Furthermore, you are ignoring the effect it would have on the credit market, which would essentially freeze, we would see massive deflation, and the economy would tank as a result. Letting the entire financial system fail is crazy.

[Kangaroo]

Well first of all you are assuming they go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The only reason why a company that was as bad off as GM was able to go into Chapter 11 is because they had financial support from the government, which I am assuming you were unhappy about. A much more likely scenario for many of the banks would be to go into Chapter 7, which means liquidation. Creditors would lose billions of dollars, and the FDIC would be forced to cover for millions of people, and that money doesn't grow on trees. Furthermore, you are ignoring the effect it would have on the credit market, which would essentially freeze, we would see massive deflation, and the economy would tank as a result. Letting the entire financial system fail is crazy.

You mean the credit that is not flowing like before and has been tighten even with the loans; you mean the banks that are still going under and the economy that still tanked.

We should have just ripped the bandaid off and yes; I think you like the Politician over worried about that instead of letting the market run it's course.

Of course money does not grow on trees but we gave at a trillion like it does.

[TheRat]

You mean the credit that is not flowing like before and has been tighten even with the loans; you mean the banks that are still going under and the economy that still tanked.

You don't think it could be astronomically worse in every regard? See 75 years ago.


Of course money does not grow on trees but we gave at a trillion like it does.
I'm not as worried about the deficit as some are, but we are eventually going to have to pay it off. Anyhow, the FDIC is a quasi government institution. I wonder why conservatives aren't up in arms about the FDIC taking over the smaller banks' assets when we let them fail. Seems kind of hypocritical.

[Kangaroo]

You don't think it could be astronomically worse in every regard? See 75 years ago.


I'm not as worried about the deficit as some are, but we are eventually going to have to pay it off. Anyhow, the FDIC is a quasi government institution. I wonder why conservatives aren't up in arms about the FDIC taking over the smaller banks' assets when we let them fail. Seems kind of hypocritical.

Know I do not believe it was that bad ; when the FDIC takes over they sell off the assets and closes down the bank not keep the bank afloat for bad business practices. The Banks also pay a fee to the FDIC every year as well.

[TheRat]

Know I do not believe it was that bad ; when the FDIC takes over they sell off the assets and closes down the bank not keep the bank afloat for bad business practices. The Banks also pay a fee to the FDIC every year as well.
It's still government intervention and it interferes with the natural course of the free market, yet you make excuses for it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I huge portion of the stimulus went to state aid which saved hundreds of thousands of state jobs. How is that special interest?

And you think the Tarp was unnecessary?

Less then 20% of all funds have been spent. How on earth can that be a huge portion?

Also, the State Aid was not supposed to be spent on Government or State employees. See the problem?

[iceberg]

You don't think it could be astronomically worse in every regard? See 75 years ago.

I'm not as worried about the deficit as some are, but we are eventually going to have to pay it off. Anyhow, the FDIC is a quasi government institution. I wonder why conservatives aren't up in arms about the FDIC taking over the smaller banks' assets when we let them fail. Seems kind of hypocritical.

and it seems everything you post is just anti-conservative.

seems kinda RAH RAH cheerleader to me. and you're not even that good in doing it.

[Kangaroo]

It's still government intervention and it interferes with the natural course of the free market, yet you make excuses for it.


Now I see what you are trying you think I do not think the Government should not have any role :lmao:. So you twist it around and try to have me say the Government should have no involvement. I understand the Government has a role in this country how much and what is a different story. I am not a guy that goes off have cocked wanting the Government disbanded from everything I am not stupid that just be anarchy. I just believe the Government role should be smaller. The FDIC does not prop up companies that are failing they take the ones that fail and dismantle them.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually the New Deal made the situation a little better and kept our economy from getting worse in the short term. However, people don't realize that New Deal spending was pretty pedestrian from today's standards. On average our government spends like 35% of GDP, during the New Deal our government only spent like 20% of GDP. When we went to War our government peaked at spending 55% of GDP. Moreover, the regulations and programs put into place during the New Deal kept us from entering another depression for the next 70 or so years, whereas before the new deal we used to have depressions every 20 or 30 years.

The New Deal made things worse. I don't even know how this can be argued but I'm certain you will.

[TheRat]

Less then 20% of all funds have been spent. How on earth can that be a huge portion?

Also, the State Aid was not supposed to be spent on Government or State employees. See the problem?
18% of the Stimulus went to state aid, that is approximately 155 billion of the top of my head.

Jobs were saved
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/LEGI01_20090228-221948/218665/
and that is just one state.

[TheRat]

The New Deal made things worse. I don't even know how this can be argued but I'm certain you will.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/02/depression_gdp_output_1.gif

http://www.workbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/1938-depression.gif

[TheRat]

Now I see what you are trying you think I do not think the Government should not have any role :lmao:. So you twist it around and try to have me say the Government should have no involvement. I understand the Government has a role in this country how much and what is a different story. I am not a guy that goes off have cocked wanting the Government disbanded from everything I am not stupid that just be anarchy. I just believe the Government role should be smaller. The FDIC does not prop up companies that are failing they take the ones that fail and dismantle them.
Do you want to get rid of the Fed like Ron Paul?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Do you want to get rid of the Fed like Ron Paul?

I don't know that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Fed. I've only heard him say that he wants an audit of it, which is a very reasonable suggestion. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say a very necessary one.

[TheRat]

I don't know that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Fed. I've only heard him say that he wants an audit of it, which is a very reasonable suggestion. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say a very necessary one.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.
:lmao:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't know that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Fed. I've only heard him say that he wants an audit of it, which is a very reasonable suggestion. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say a very necessary one.

I believe he has stated he wanted to get rid of that or the IRS...maybe both.

But he has also said that he knew that it would never happen IIRC.

[ABQCOWBOY]

18% of the Stimulus went to state aid, that is approximately 155 billion of the top of my head.

Jobs were saved
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/LEGI01_20090228-221948/218665/
and that is just one state.

Stimulus was not supposed to go to state budgets to shore them up. Don't get it huh?

I wonder what these job numbers would look like if we looked at them now? Unemployment is at 9.4 at latest count?

In Washington, which is where I believe that article was written, the unemployement rate in March of 09 was 6.8%. Today it's 9.2%. Who's jobs, exactly, were saved Rat?

[TheRat]

Stimulus was not supposed to go to state budgets to shore them up. Don't get it huh?

I wonder what these job numbers would look like if we looked at them now? Unemployment is at 9.4 at latest count?

In Washington, which is where I believe that article was written, the unemployement rate in March of 09 was 6.8%. Today it's 9.2%. Who's jobs, exactly, were saved Rat?
Are you operating under the assumption it couldn't have been worse?

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

:lmao:

OK. If that is what he said, that's fine. I simply stated that I didn't know if that was his position or not. I don't read his FaceBook.

However, if Ron Paul thinks it should go, then I'd imagine that their is a pretty good reason for it. Ron Paul is a politician that I have a great deal of respect for. I don't think he's in it to screw us. I could be wrong but those are my feelings on Ron Paul.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you operating under the assumption it couldn't have been worse?

You want to stop avoiding the question and provide an answer?

[TheRat]

OK. If that is what he said, that's fine. I simply stated that I didn't know if that was his position or not. I don't read his FaceBook.

However, if Ron Paul thinks it should go, then I'd imagine that their is a pretty good reason for it. Ron Paul is a politician that I have a great deal of respect for. I don't think he's in it to screw us. I could be wrong but those are my feelings on Ron Paul.
And the gold standard?:lmao:

There may be a reason for it, but I sincerely doubt it is a good reason.

[TheRat]

You want to stop avoiding the question and provide an answer?
My answer it could have been worse. But do you think so?

[ABQCOWBOY]

My answer it could have been worse. But do you think so?

My answer to you is that it is worse. The Stimulus has not helped IMO. The money has not been put back into the economy, as was promised. It is worse.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And the gold standard?:lmao:

There may be a reason for it, but I sincerely doubt it is a good reason.

The fact that you doubt it does not make it a bad idea.

[TheRat]

My answer to you is that it is worse. The Stimulus has not helped IMO. The money has not been put back into the economy, as was promised. It is worse.
You are patently wrong. It was promised to be a two year program.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are patently wrong. It was promised to be a two year program.

After the fact. While selling it, it was promised to be Shovel Ready. It was threatened that if not passed, our economy would shrivel and die. It was promised that the Banks would lend, based on this Stimulus. None of that has happened. It was promised to be transparent and it has been anything but. I'm sorry Rat but your wrong. None of what was originally promised has taken place. It was nothing more then a spending bill.

[TheRat]

After the fact. While selling it, it was promised to be Shovel Ready. It was threatened that if not passed, our economy would shrivel and die. It was promised that the Banks would lend, based on this Stimulus. None of that has happened. It was promised to be transparent and it has been anything but. I'm sorry Rat but your wrong. None of what was originally promised has taken place. It was nothing more then a spending bill.
So many problems with that post. Firstly, it was promised that there were certain shovel ready projects that the stimulus would help immediately, which was the case. It was always sold as a long term program. Secondly, the Stimulus had little to do with the Banks. That has more to do with the TARP. I don't know where you are getting your info from.

What makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3½ million jobs over the next two years, including nearly 60,000 in Colorado.http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.stimulus.remarks/index.html?iref=newssearch

[ABQCOWBOY]

So many problems with that post. Firstly, it was promised that there were certain shovel ready projects that the stimulus would help immediately, which was the case. It was always sold as a long term program. Secondly, the Stimulus had little to do with the Banks. That has more to do with the TARP. I don't know where you are getting your info from.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.stimulus.remarks/index.html?iref=newssearch

I call BS on this. 3 thousand new jobs were promised, then changed to Saved or created. Now it's just Saved I think. Sad.

As for the rest, I already knew that the Stimulus would not help. Unfortunately, it was passsed anyway. The American people were sold a pile of stuff. It's a crap sandwich and we have to choke it down. I guess not all of us thou. You seem to like it.

Good for you I say.

You can't lie your way out of this one. You can post till your blue in the face but the American people are the final judge and it's clear that, at this point in time, their judgement on this is not in your favor.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Don't know about you guys.

But I have seen the stimulus shovel ready jobs in my state, heck my county.

They have already had two roads repaved from the stimulus money.

To be fair they actually do a good job in my county of keeping the roads in pretty good shape so I don't know if that has changed much...but they have done to repaving/upgrading of two different roads in the last couple of months under the stimulus money.

I have also noticed that the stock market has went from a 6k point total to 9k and growing as we speak.

Also as much as rat is super lefty biased and over the mark many times, he is right that it was a situation where the stimulus plan included some shovel ready projects but many of the items were slated for long term (2 years or more) time frame and I even remember many conservatives complaining about that at the time the package was going through.

[TheRat]

I call BS on this. 3 thousand new jobs were promised, then changed to Saved or created. Now it's just Saved I think. Sad.

As for the rest, I already knew that the Stimulus would not help. Unfortunately, it was passsed anyway. The American people were sold a pile of stuff. It's a crap sandwich and we have to choke it down. I guess not all of us thou. You seem to like it.

Good for you I say.

You can't lie your way out of this one. You can post till your blue in the face but the American people are the final judge and it's clear that, at this point in time, their judgement on this is not in your favor.
You speak like you are so much more knowledgeable than everyone else, yet you thought the TARP was part of the stimulus. Ha!

Anyhow Obama didn't promise new jobs until the 4th quarter as you can see by this graph. So the only one who is lying is you.
http://www.suitablyflip.com/.a/6a00d8341c572653ef01156fe61fb6970c-800wi

And as for judgment, The vast majority of economists say the GDP should begin to increase this quarter, so so far the stimulus is looking pretty good.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You speak like you are so much more knowledgeable than everyone else, yet you thought the TARP was part of the stimulus. Ha!

Anyhow Obama didn't promise new jobs until the 4th quarter as you can see by this graph. So the only one who is lying is you.
http://www.suitablyflip.com/.a/6a00d8341c572653ef01156fe61fb6970c-800wi

And as for judgment, The vast majority of economists say the GDP should begin to increase this quarter, so so far the stimulus is looking pretty good.

Your story, you tell it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Don't know about you guys.

But I have seen the stimulus shovel ready jobs in my state, heck my county.

They have already had two roads repaved from the stimulus money.

To be fair they actually do a good job in my county of keeping the roads in pretty good shape so I don't know if that has changed much...but they have done to repaving/upgrading of two different roads in the last couple of months under the stimulus money.

I have also noticed that the stock market has went from a 6k point total to 9k and growing as we speak.

Also as much as rat is super lefty biased and over the mark many times, he is right that it was a situation where the stimulus plan included some shovel ready projects but many of the items were slated for long term (2 years or more) time frame and I even remember many conservatives complaining about that at the time the package was going through.

Well, I don't know about what's going on in WV but I do know that projections indicate only 24% of what was given to the Government in the Stimulus will be spent by the end of 2009. Of that 24%, only 11% will have been spent on Shovel Ready projects. That's not a great deal. The majority of the money spent this year will be on Entitlements.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well, I don't know about what's going on in WV but I do know that projections indicate only 24% of what was given to the Government in the Stimulus will be spent by the end of 2009. Of that 24%, only 11% will have been spent on Shovel Ready projects. That's not a great deal. The majority of the money spent this year will be on Entitlements.

And again it seems you ignore rat's part about many of these things being long term and there were people complaining about that at the time.

Now I can understand you just kind of ignoring what he says, since he says a bunch of leftist stuff...but occasionally he makes a valid point in the mess.:D

And if it happens in one podunk small county in WV, I am sure it is happening elsewhere. Wasn't beohner (sp?) already proven to be false in his claims that none of it was being used in his state only to have yet another road project actually going on there as well?

Not saying the stimulus thing is great or anything of that nature, but just because we were against it, just because we don't like the pork in it...it does not mean projects are not being done and that portions of it are long term projects slated for the future.

[ScipioCowboy]

http://www.workbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/1938-depression.gif

You'll notice the unemployment rate spikes again in 1937 during the Roosevelt Recession, which was an unexpected downturn in the midst of recovery. This is the basis for many claims that Roosevelt's policies actually prolonged the Depression.

"The Recession of 1937, sometimes called the Roosevelt Recession, was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery, which occurred in 1937-38. It was part of the Great Depression in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States), and had serious political results, and helped strengthen the new Conservative Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Coalition) led by Senators Robert A. Taft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft) and Richard B. Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Russell). Economic historians have not agreed on the causes [1] (http://www1.pickens.k12.sc.us/dhsteachers/instructional_staff/hylkemaj/ushistory/newdeal/Notes/ndreces37.htm), but many of the causes show that because the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) involved spending money from the Federal budget, President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) had to end New Deal spending, and thus programs, as a result. In addition to lowering spending, Roosevelt raised taxes in order to balance the budget.

"By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high, although it was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In 1937, the American economy took an unexpected downturn, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. In two months, unemployment rose from 5 million to over 9 million, reaching almost 12 million in early 1938. Manufacturing output fell off by 40% from the 1937 peak; it was back to 1934 levels. Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.

"It began to get better in mid-1938, and every month it was better. However, employment did not regain the 1937 level until the war began in late 1941. Productivity steadily increased, and output in 1942 was well above the levels of both 1929 and 1937. Personal income in 1939 was almost at 1919 levels in aggregate, but not per capita. The farm population had fallen 5%, but farm output was up 19%.
Employment in private sector factories recovered to the level of the late 1920s by 1937 but did not grow much bigger until the war came and manufacturing employment leaped from 11 million in 1940 to 18 million in 1943."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937

[ABQCOWBOY]

And again it seems you ignore rat's part about many of these things being long term and there were people complaining about that at the time.

Now I can understand you just kind of ignoring what he says, since he says a bunch of leftist stuff...but occasionally he makes a valid point in the mess.:D

And if it happens in one podunk small county in WV, I am sure it is happening elsewhere. Wasn't beohner (sp?) already proven to be false in his claims that none of it was being used in his state only to have yet another road project actually going on there as well?

Not saying the stimulus thing is great or anything of that nature, but just because we were against it, just because we don't like the pork in it...it does not mean projects are not being done and that portions of it are long term projects slated for the future.

You have a point about ingnoring Rat's statement but it's not because he is Rat. It is because of how this Bill was advertised to the American people. I knew what I was hearing was a bunch of BS but it still speaks to the trust worthness of this Administration. They believed that the Recession would be over by summer yet the claimed that the Stimulus needed to be passed and passed quickly. They lied to us Brain. I'm not surprised because that's what politicians do but I would hope that as Americans, you and I and even Rat would come to that conclusion and realize that this is not the way our Government should treat us.

That's really what I'm saying I guess.

[TheRat]

.

"Economic historians have not agreed on the causes [1] (http://www1.pickens.k12.sc.us/dhsteachers/instructional_staff/hylkemaj/ushistory/newdeal/Notes/ndreces37.htm), but many of the causes show that because the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) involved spending money from the Federal budget, President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) had to end New Deal spending, and thus programs, as a result. In addition to lowering spending, Roosevelt raised taxes in order to balance the budget.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937
Are you trying to prove my point? It is basic Keynes that you shouldn't balance the budget during a recession.

[ScipioCowboy]

Are you trying to prove my point? It is basic Keynes that you shouldn't balance the budget during a recession.

I have no idea what your point is.

I was simply expounding upon someone else's claim that Roosevelt prolonged the Depression.

Furthermore, it's basic Supply-Side that one shouldn't raise taxes during an economic downturn.

[TheRat]

I have no idea what your point is.

I was simply expounding upon someone else's claim that Roosevelt prolonged the Depression.

Furthermore, it's basic Supply-Side that one shouldn't raise taxes during an economic downturn.
Roosevelt did some stupid things no doubt, like try to balance the budget in '37. But the New Deal itself didn't lead to the downturn in '37.