Kainen, I suggested what my plan was on the bottom of page 4. I asked for criticism or suggestions and nobody said a word. And I didn't get it from any "points list" from any politicians.

Quote :

"Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics The current president wants higher taxes, more regulation, more spending and loose money. By PETER FERRARA In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Or as administration spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in January, the touchstone is, "What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests." Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology. The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components. The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work. The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power plants. Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy. The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2% in 1982 from 13.2% in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2% in 1983. We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually..."

Reading things like this make me worry about what Pelosi Obama is trying to do. Can someone explain to me why something that worked so well in the past will not work now?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431484726570949.html

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 1:18 PM. Reason : page 6 bitches]

2/11/2009 1:16:58 PM

god dammit, I really wanted that homebuyer tax credit so I could get my condo out from under me

2/11/2009 3:43:03 PM

^^ That's a grossly oversimplified and even misleading view of what Regan did, and what happened and why.

2/11/2009 6:02:09 PM

Well, thank goodness. As the stimulus was just passed, if history is any guide, that means the recession ended a few months ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23bartlett.html

2/11/2009 6:27:37 PM

^
Interesting chart. I take it then that Obama will take credit for the recovery despite the fact that none of his so-called stimulus spending has happened yet?

2/11/2009 7:06:50 PM

well you guys can go ahead and take credit for the recovery right now if you want

2/11/2009 7:42:10 PM

glad to see the two of you have already jumped on the "we're already in recovery" train.

Let's revisit these suppositions in 6 months, like we did with hooksaw's "there won't be a recession - mark my words"

2/11/2009 7:42:27 PM

Quote :

"In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power"

Is this not what Bush did the last 8 years ?!?!?

Quote :

"Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today. In constant dollars, non defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy."

Control gov't spending lol. Reagan was in power during the largest increase of the federal deficit unsurpassed until
George Dubya took over.


At best I'd say Reagan was an average to above-average president. He was like a right-wing Obama. People loved him and liked him
b.c of his charisma, charm, and public speaking ability. When you really dig down his policies were not that outstanding.

Quote :

"We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually...""

Cut me a fucking break. I thought the favorite republican line was the economy works purely in cycles or that economic polices
take years to take effect. Hence why

"CLINTON DID IT"

when republicans try to put blame on the current economic crisis. claiming it took years for his policies in the 90's to reach their full
catastrophic effect (lets not forget he was to blame for the tech cycle also). therefore using the line of thought i'd be
Ford's or Nixon's economic policies that were at fault for the woes of the economy during the Carter administration.

The second favorite conservative line is the economy behaves like a perfect sinusoid oscillating between boom and bust. So how do we now that
the recovery during Reagan administration did not happen naturally independent of Reagan.

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 10:11 PM. Reason : a]

2/11/2009 10:03:03 PM

Quote :

"At best I'd say Reagan was an average to above-average president."

Things like this give away that you're in over your head in TSB.

2/11/2009 11:20:06 PM

if he wasn't "average or above average", where exactly would you place him?
numero uno? ha, surely you jest

2/11/2009 11:40:40 PM

Quote :

"Interesting chart. I take it then that Obama will take credit for the recovery despite the fact that none of his so-called stimulus spending has happened yet?"

See, this is why Obama is in a win-win situation. By doing something, he wins, even if it is a complete failure. It doesn't matter if the stimulus plan works or not, if the economy is better in 4 years he can take credit for it, even if the result of the stimulus plan is just even more massive debt. If the economy continues to be in the drums, he can claim that it would be far worse if his/Dems plan wasn't passed(basically what FDR did).

The Republicans fucked themselves, they can't argue for being fiscal responsiblity since they followed Bush into complete fiscal irresponsibility. As of right now, there is no politcal party that has any sort of sound fiscal policy.

2/12/2009 1:13:18 AM

I think the Libertarians and Greens have sound fiscal policies. Might be why they never win elections.

2/12/2009 2:06:09 AM

Hey guys, is this $825b in addition to the $800b Bush spent? Are we up to $1.6 trillion yet?

2/12/2009 2:11:58 AM

What I posted on the previous page:

Quote :

"I like the idea of a roughly equal combination of focused tax cuts and infrastructure spending as a stimulus to get the economy back on track and people working again. What I don't like is a bloated omnibus bill crafted by Nancy Pelosi that allocates billions to pet projects that have nothing to do with an economic stimulus, such as the $400 billion for habitat restoration and mitigation activities, $140 million for climate data modeling, $2.4 billion to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration tech, $2 billion to create the "Office for the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology", etc. etc. When you realize that this bill is roughly 40% tax cuts and about 10% infrastructure spending, it makes you wonder where the other $400 billion dollars are being spent. And when you start digging, you realize that this is a gigantic, pork-laden spending bill with some stimulus measures tacked on, rather than vice versa."

2/12/2009 3:17:52 AM

can anyone summarize what this bill means to us individuals in terms of tax breaks and such?

2/12/2009 10:42:42 AM

As far as I know, the only thing individual workers will see directly is $400 or $800 for couples in tax breaks and $8,000 tax credit to first time home buyers.

2/12/2009 10:57:12 AM

does that $400 apply to this year's taxes?

2/12/2009 11:12:28 AM

next year buddy... sorry

2/12/2009 11:21:06 AM

ah. should be quite stimulating then.

2/12/2009 11:23:05 AM

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/la-na-stimulus-consumer12-2009feb12,0,214049.story

2/12/2009 2:37:31 PM

The 400 dollars starts as a 13 dollar per check "extra" starting in June. Real fucking stimulating.

2/12/2009 3:37:09 PM

hahah, no worries obama is also looking into subsidizing mortgages... WTF

Im curious to see what the dems on the board think about that.

2/12/2009 6:31:19 PM

Quote :

"can anyone summarize what this bill means to us individuals "

$30 Million for the mouse that lives in Pelosi's district.

$13 for you and me.

2/12/2009 8:11:02 PM

saw that this morning on drudge

you should have seen the golden mansion they built the mouse

bigger than mickey's... and i think they were having gay welfare marriages in front of it to boot

2/12/2009 8:19:09 PM

remember earthdogg, there are NO earmarks.. obama said so.

2/12/2009 9:01:33 PM

^^funny fucking shit. Made me laugh!

LOL is overated.

2/12/2009 9:04:29 PM

how do we get pelosi out of power, honestly

this country would be on the fast-track to a permanent democrat majority if it wasn't for her

2/12/2009 11:16:22 PM

Quote :

"this country would be on the fast-track to a permanent democrat majority if it wasn't for her"

And that's probably the only good reason to keep her around... not defending the republican party at all, but a single-party government would be even worse than the broken pseudo-two-party system we have now.

[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2009 11:57:32 PM

meh

4 years ago we were on the way to a permanent repub majority

thanks bush for crapping the bed

unfortunately, rep pelosi will hold her office till she turns 90

2/13/2009 12:59:24 AM

Quote :

"The credit would also be refundable, which means that even very low-income families who don't make enough to owe income tax would be able to claim it. "

No No No

Why does the gov't keep fucking thinking (even during Bush's Rebate thing) that "very low-income" families who already pay nearly NO tax, receive the most $'s in gov't support (as a cumulative sum of the population not counting the banks being bailed out), and are alraedy benefitting from multiple other provisions in the bailout bill like increase food stamps; need a credit on income tax they do not fucking even pay?????

Quote :

"Break for higher income families: The bill includes a one-year provision to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax"

At least this passed much to Bridget's displeasure.

Can we also stop subsidizing people (espicially poor people) from pumping out babies on the dime of the rest of society.

Quote :

"Temporary expansion of child tax credit: The bill increases eligibility for the child tax credit by lowering the income threshold that must be met for the credit to be refundable. The threshold would be lowered to $3,000 for this year and next. That "

Quote :

"Health insurance help for the jobless: The bill includes provisions to help eligible jobless workers pay for health insurance under Cobra. Cobra coverage allows newly unemployed workers to keep health insurance provided by their former employers for a period of time. "

I AM glad they passed this.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/stimulus_individuals/index.htm

Quote :

"Food stamp payments: The bill includes a provision would increase food stamp payments by 13.6%, so a family of four would see an additional $80 on top of the $588 per month they receive currently."

oh shit i missed the absolute most assnine part of the bill. We must be trying to indirectly bail out Budweiser, the beef industry, and the Orange Soda factories. I knew food stamp families got a lot of money but $588 for a family of four. Jesus Christ

IF you can not feed a family of four on $116 a week than you have some severe budgeting/laziness issues. I seriously would like to see an itemized list of everything purchased off this $116. T-bone steaks, ice cream, shrimp, pre-packaged sandwiches, cases of cola, etc

I remember having to go grocery shopping w/ my mom growing up. We had a family of four and a $100 grocery bill for the week was like "WHOA" moms spending a lot of money.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 8:20 AM. Reason : a]

2/13/2009 8:10:31 AM

Quote :

"Why does the gov't keep fucking thinking (even during Bush's Rebate thing) that "very low-income" families who already pay nearly NO tax, receive the most $'s in gov't support (as a cumulative sum of the population not counting the banks being bailed out), and are alraedy benefitting from multiple other provisions in the bailout bill like increase food stamps; need a credit on income tax they do not fucking even pay?????"

fuckin A right.

give the Dems credit. they are looking ahead. they want to consolidate their power in future elections. this is no different than Tammany handing out soup to the immigrants stepping off the boat at Ellis Island.

2/13/2009 9:03:01 AM

for real...they should just feed the poor more distrust and paranoia of other classes and cultures

it's much cheaper

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:46 AM. Reason : mas]

2/13/2009 9:36:40 AM

your post is tongue in cheek but that is exactly what they are doing. create a me vs. them attitude between the haves and have nots. wealth envy and player-hating by the left is alive and well.

2/13/2009 9:58:33 AM

i'm not being tongue in cheek

it's an ancient technique

and you don't have to pump any money into it

2/13/2009 10:02:41 AM

And I believe a cushy, middle-class college student on the internet is well positioned to comment on class differences DaBird.

2/13/2009 11:24:18 AM

i love that dabird is basically espousing a "Me vs Them" attitude while criticizing "Me vs Them" attitudes

and i think i'm going to apply for food stamps

2/13/2009 11:42:23 AM

Hell, I'm gonna look into seeing if I'm eligible for food stamps. Might as well.

2/13/2009 12:16:31 PM

What are the requirements? Can you get food stamps without children?

2/13/2009 12:23:31 PM

Of course you can. You just have to have a reported income that falls near or below the poverty line, and fill out an application at your local assistance office. Don't roll up there in a lexus.

I was on food stamps for about 11 months.

2/13/2009 12:34:49 PM

DaBird, given your politics, you should not use the terms "haves" and "have-nots."

Just a heads up.

^^You gotta be working or training for work at least 20 hours a week. You must also be earning less than $1127/month gross. And you have to have less than $2000 in savings, investments, extra cars, etc...

http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/foodstamp/index.htm#income

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

2/13/2009 12:45:26 PM

I like how Bridget is teh expert about foodstamps

go figure....

I wis they went back to the old Food Stamps method where you get actual "paper" stamps or maybe a card with a big "FOOD ASSISTANCE" written in a large font.

If you really are in need in foodstamps than you will not mind putting your pride aside to get the esstentials. I heard they created the "EBT" card thing to eliminate the "embarrasment" of being on food stamps. The only embarrasment is if you are on food stamps year in and year out which shows your lack of motivation to improve your life situation.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM. Reason : a]

2/13/2009 12:50:45 PM

^There are tons of extremely hard-working, very proud people who needlessly suffer because they are too proud to accept help. At best, they get into debt just buying the basics. At worst, they freeze to death in their beds:

Quote :

"In an Alabama study, almost half of the hypothermia-related deaths occurred indoors (5). With rising energy costs, public service announcements advising persons to maintain thermostats at >60ºF might become increasingly important to prevent cases of indoor hypothermia."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5510a5.htm

If you try to attach a ton of shame to assistance programs, the only thing you'll be doing is discouraging people who really need help from getting it. The people who don't really need help will have no problems continuing to collect--you can't shame them.

2/13/2009 2:08:15 PM

People freezing to death in Alabama OMG!!

How did people ever manage to survive in the 1000's of years before centralized heating was invented during the winters of places and a friendly gov't to pay the electric bill.
a hell of a lot more cold than Alabama liek Norway, Siberia, Nepal, etc.

An old saying goes "one can only help those that are willing to help themselves."

As mean as it sound there is not cure for stupidity.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 2:48 PM. Reason : a]

2/13/2009 2:41:38 PM

^The freezing to death thing was my attempt to give you an example of just how proud people can be.

Anyway, let me get this straight:

If they accept help, you think they need to be shamed with conspicuous food stamp cards.

If they don't accept help, you think they are stupid.



The point I made was a good one. You don't always have to disagree with me. If you insist on disagreeing with me all the time, you're occasionally going to end up looking like an idiot or a douche bag...because occasionally I'm right.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

2/13/2009 2:55:57 PM

Quote :

"That's a grossly oversimplified and even misleading view of what Regan did, and what happened and why."

so is saying that Obama will save us all. what's your point here?

2/13/2009 3:25:58 PM

Quote :

"And I believe a cushy, middle-class college student on the internet is well positioned to comment on class differences DaBird. "

1. not in college anymore, but when I was, I put myself through it with 2 jobs.
2. I grew up in a household, until i was about 15, with an uneducated single mother and 3 siblings. far from "cushy." amazing...we never used a food stamp because my mom busted her ass and handled her business. she didnt need a handout. most people dont. they except them because its the easy thing to do.

Quote :

"i love that dabird is basically espousing a "Me vs Them" attitude while criticizing "Me vs Them" attitudes"

you misunderstand me. I am for the individual bettering their situation through hard work. I am for government programs that train people with job skills and help them get on their feet along the way. I am not for the mindless, blind distribution of taxpayer money, with zero accountability, to the masses who are not willing to work and who are happy to sit home and shit out a kid every 9
months.

Quote :

"DaBird, given your politics, you should not use the terms "haves" and "have-nots.""

"haves" and "have-nots" refer to two things.

1. there has been a significant movement in the past couple of years to demonize those who are wealthy. the latest example of this is the statement by Barney Frank indicating he is not opposed to limiting salaries of all people on the high end of the spectrum. this is obviously to galvanize those who dont against the uber-successful.

2. when I say "have-not" I dont mean an income level. I mean a person who is a leech...a parasite on our society. someone who contributes nothing but takes everything they can. I should have been clearer about that.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 3:43:42 PM

Quote :

"If they accept help, you think they need to be shamed with conspicuous food stamp cards. If they don't accept help, you think they are stupid."

Well, I would accept the first sentence as reasonable for American culture. However, I suspect most people that die in unheated houses did so unaware they were in danger. People fall into norms of behavior without recognizing the danger of changing conditions. In effect, "I was fine yesterday when the heat was not working, I should be fine today." Had anyone walked up and asserted that was bullshit and that they should go stay with a neighbor or in a shelter, they would have done it.

2/13/2009 3:47:46 PM

^Sure, if someone came to you and said, "I have seen the future, and you will die if you don't go to a shelter tonight," everybody would run off to a shelter.

But life doesn't work that way. Nobody sees the future.

A lot of the people who die of hypothermia are often prouder than they are stupid and uninformed.

Of course, some of them are just drunks...aha.

Quote :

"DaBird: I am for the individual bettering their situation through hard work. I am for government programs that train people with job skills and help them get on their feet along the way."

Almost everybody is for this.

Quote :

"DaBird: I am not for the mindless, blind distribution of taxpayer money, with zero accountability, to the masses who are not willing to work and who are happy to sit home and shit out a kid every 9 months."

Almost everybody is against this.

Also, I read your explanation, and you are still using the terms "haves" and "have-nots" improperly. I'm telling you...don't use them.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ]

2/13/2009 3:54:54 PM

why not? I am referencing people who "have" a lot and people who dont.

2/13/2009 3:59:09 PM

Quote :

"You gotta be working or training for work at least 20 hours a week. You must also be earning less than $1127/month gross. And you have to have less than $2000 in savings, investments, extra cars, etc..."

Well damn I won't qualify then

Do you guys remember that much publicized death of an elderly man in Michigan who froze to death b/c the power company restricted his energy use b/c he owned them $1000? Well turns out he left $600,000 to a local church or something like that. Guess he fits under the category of "not that smart"

2/13/2009 4:38:13 PM