El Guapo 10 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 What would you do if you had a vote on this proposed bill.Mods, please leave here for a bit and then go ahead and move it to the politics forum. Link to post Share on other sites
LadyGrey 8 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I would vote no because it is full of stupid junk that is unrelated to the economy, and it probably won't make any difference just like the first bailout. Link to post Share on other sites
Nikki_N 17 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm all for no bailing out. Let the companies go bankrupt. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,768 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I would vote no because it is full of stupid junk that is unrelated to the economy, and it probably won't make any difference just like the first bailout.How does a snobby pinko liberal English WOMAN understand this, but not our elected democrat leaders?My brain has a stomach ache. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 How does a snobby pinko liberal English WOMAN understand this, but not our elected democrat leaders?My brain has a stomach ache.her and I have a lot of political discussions.although it might help my financials-heavy portfolio if it passes. DING! Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,741 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 How does a snobby pinko liberal English WOMAN understand this, but not our elected democrat leaders?My brain has a stomach ache.they've been spoon fed for to long. cant think for themselves anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,768 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 her and I have a lot of political discussions.although it might help my financials-heavy portfolio if it passes. DING!Oh, that makes sense. I was really confused by that. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Where is the "Playing with my penis" option? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Okay, I orginally intended to post the following list (from Wikipedia), write "Things I like in the bill" and remove the parts that I didn't like. But I couldn't find any. So, there. If you're really concerned over a few hundred million here or there, you're crazy. And if you cite the $50 million for the endowment of the arts as a knock against the bill, you're very crazy. * Tax cuts ($275 billion): o Payroll tax cuts ($500 for each individual, $1000 for couples) o $2500 tax credit for higher education o $7500 non-repayable tax credit for first-time home buyers (for houses bought until July 1) * Education investments ($141.6 billion): o $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services, including $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas, $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures, and $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education o $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion) o $15.6 billion to increase the Pell Grant by $500 o $6 billion for higher education modernization * Health care investments ($112.1 billion): o $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate for the states o $20 billion for health information technology, including electronic medical records to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies o $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments. * Welfare/unemployment ($102 billion): o $43 billion for unemployment benefits and job training o $39 billion for short-term Medicaid insurance and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) subsidy o $20 billion for the Food Stamp Program * Infrastructure investments ($90 billion): o $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long-term energy cost savings o $30 billion for highway construction o $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments o $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption * Energy investments ($58 billion): o $32 billion funding for an electric smart grid o $20 billion for renewable energy tax cuts o $6 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes Link to post Share on other sites
WageSlave 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I didn't vote because I haven't looked at anything comprehensive about the proposal (you may want to include a link or something Guaps). I haven't gone much out of my way to read this because I figure pass or fail the middle class gets screwed.Also, I second Merc's motion. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,768 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Okay, I orginally intended to post the following list (from Wikipedia), write "Things I like in the bill" and remove the parts that I didn't like. But I couldn't find any. So, there. If you're really concerned over a few hundred million here or there, you're crazy. And if you cite the $50 million for the endowment of the arts as a knock against the bill, you're very crazy.Well, we know that one of us is crazy. It's either you or me. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,741 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 the physicist or the dairy queen owner. hmmmmm, i wonder. Link to post Share on other sites
CindyLou 11 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 the physicist or the dairy queen owner. hmmmmm, i wonder.Could be rephrased as, "the guy who works in theories vs. the guy who owns a business in reality." Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 oh snap.as for the bill, I'm all for it. I mean, that's a lot of money that will do a lot of good in the economy. my only real question is this: why haven't we done this before? I mean, it's so great, shouldn't we be doing this pretty frequently? hell, why not just spend a trillion dollars every month! we'll be the most awesomely rich country in the world! Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,741 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Could be rephrased as, "the guy who works in theories vs. the guy who owns a business in reality."quiet down, hunny. the men folk are talking here. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I like the bill...I don't know if it will help the economy, but I also think that nobody who posts here is qualified to truly have an idea as to how this economy can be improved as fast as possible. Seriously, nobel fucking laureates can't agree on this shit, and most of them admit that the best they can do is guess...there are way too many variables on such a huge scale to make sweeping generalizations about what will work and what won't. We can all make somewhat educated guesses (which invariably line up with our own interests), but that's about it. I wonder how often the phrase "nobel fucking laureates" is thrown around. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,741 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I wonder how often the phrase "nobel fucking laureates" is thrown around.i dont even know what it means and i love it. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well, we know that one of us is crazy. It's either you or me.What I mean to say is:If you support everything in the bill except for several hundred million worth of programs, then, for all intents and purposes, you support the bill. If your only gripe is with about a billion or so worth of programs, that's really nothing in comparison to the rest of the bill.To be against the bill, it means you would prefer to radically change the nature of the package, not to argue over trivial details like STD research that are almost certainly for the better anyway.If you would double the amount that goes into infrastructure, or you would eliminate any money going to welfare, or you would eliminate the education parts, then you can say you're against the bill. Otherwise, don't waste my time.I don't like the government wasting money. Fighting tooth and nail over .001% of this package isn't the way to win that war. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 the physicist or the dairy queen owner. hmmmmm, i wonder.lol at people thinking I have any idea of what I'm talking about. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 10 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 I like the bill...I don't know if it will help the economy, but I also think that nobody who posts here is qualified to truly have an idea as to how this economy can be improved as fast as possible. Seriously, nobel fucking laureates can't agree on this shit, and most of them admit that the best they can do is guess...there are way too many variables on such a huge scale to make sweeping generalizations about what will work and what won't. We can all make somewhat educated guesses (which invariably line up with our own interests), but that's about it. I wonder how often the phrase "nobel fucking laureates" is thrown around.Well I can guarantee giving 300 billion to Welfare, Education and Medicaid will not stimulate the economy at all. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,741 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 lol at people thinking I have any idea of what I'm talking about.could you just back me up here, im trying to make brvhrt look bad. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 could you just back me up here, im trying to make brvhrt look bad.Why would I want to do that, I like BraveHeart. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,741 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Why would I want to do that, I like BraveHeart.goddammit, smart guy. just help me out here. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 354 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Infrastructure plan: woefully unambitious. More. Less welfare, less education programs, less pet projects, less everything, more infrastructure. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well I can guarantee giving 300 billion to Welfare, Education and Medicaid will not stimulate the economy at all.Investing in education is certainly something that helps the economy in the long term. But, just as importantly, this package is also meant to ensure that shit doesn't fall apart during the weak economy. We can't just let schools cut essential programs and fall apart physically.As for Medicaid, what's the alternative? There are a ton of people who need it with the shit going on, and realistically it's not an option to try and revamp the entire system at the moment. Unless you're looking for a Darwinistic "let the poor people die" approach, I'm not sure what we can do. Hospitals have to treat emergent patients...having them not get paid and putting people in debt for the rest of their lives certainly doesn't stimulate the economy either.Now Welfare...you don't think we need to increase the money put into it now that a ton of blue collar workers are jobless? A large chunk of it is for job training, that's not a good thing? Some short term insurance is obviously needed, and yeah, food stamps are necessary too. We're not just talking about bums who keep having kids to up their welfare checks, now we have to deal with more and more people that have just been screwed by the state of affairs around here. So, you're right, some of it won't stimulate the economy...but that doesn't mean it isn't a necessary part of the overall package. If you want to argue semantics, then yeah, they should probably call it the "keep us from imploding" package. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now