Alright, then what about the ones right above the poverty line? The ones who are forced to live on minimum wage, and stuggle with a failing economy. They are still subjected to taxes, and I'm sure they can barely survive these days.

The people that pay taxes should get a tax cut, the people that don't shouldn't get a check cause it isn't a tax cut then, it is welfare.


And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control. Oh, and communism and socialism are two totally different things, far too often associated as one and the same.

And if you looked who caused it, you'd see it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of the Democrat party, just the media lied as usual. Republicans were actually trying to get the problem fixed. I had posted about this back before the election.


Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive? That's the problem with socialism.

Next I'm expecting to see an attack on either the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is simple, the Republicans are content to winning an election, the Dems want to win and then destroy all opposition and voices of criticism.

And if you looked who caused it, you'd see it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of the Democrat party, just the media lied as usual. Republicans were actually trying to get the problem fixed. I had posted about this back before the election.There is no point to blame anymore, and that fact that you always seem to blame it one "them" is will get people nowhere.
Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive? That's the problem with socialism.You are describing a purely socialistic economy, which will never happen in the US. The US will always remain a capitalism, what matters is whether the government will institute a policy of supply-side economics as seen during Reagan, which is essentially extremely capitalist, or whether it will institute more of a mixed economy, similar to the UK.
Next I'm expecting to see an attack on either the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is simple, the Republicans are content to winning an election, the Dems want to win and then destroy all opposition and voices of criticism.Just when I thought we were talking about the economy, your blatent, pointless monologue explaining the evils of the Democrats and the liberals pops up yet again. As GO-TO once said, "How droll."

There is no point to blame anymore, and that fact that you always seem to blame it one "them" is will get people nowhere.

There is when they are the ones that lined their pockets from it and are in charge of Government Committees responsible for the oversight.


You are describing a purely socialistic economy, which will never happen in the US. The US will always remain a capitalism, what matters is whether the government will institute a policy of supply-side economics as seen during Reagan, which is essentially extremely capitalist, or whether it will institute more of a mixed economy, similar to the UK.

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.


Just when I thought we were talking about the economy, your blatent, pointless monologue explaining the evils of the Democrats and the liberals pops up yet again. As GO-TO once said, "How droll."

Let's see here, money to go to ACORN, trying to silence conservative commentators, for criticizing the Democrat bill, excuse me but the issue isn't just the economy, it's a free speech issue, among other things.

I was thinking more of a Chicago style Politician, cause there are a few liberals out there that I'm sure are not corrupt.
Yeah because Obama is totally using his mob connections and fake congressmen to get things done. Get a grip.

True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.
You can't give back money to people who never gave you money in the first place.

Just a reminder:
5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.
Per Jae’s reminder the other day and my deletion of someone’s post for this violation, we will be enforcing this rule. I had hoped both incidents made it clear that this rule will be enforced. Continued repeating the same argument will not be tolerated. If someone did not accept the argument the first time, they are not likely to change their minds with it being repeated over and over. Either accept that fact and move on or find different evidence they will accept. However, there is no rule in Kavar or this forum that they have to agree with you.

If you would like to report this rules violation, please include where the argument is repeated from in the remarks.

PastramiX:
Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

Define wealthy, too often higher tax for the wealthy end up being higher tax for those who have two jobs.

And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control.

When regulation (not just deregulation) spirals out of controll, I'd say that re-regulation should be the focus.
While I agree the U.S could use some more socialist policies in general, and even more during a downturn, I'm afraid that the "downturn socialism" end up permanently.

Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

But there is a point where you value the time you "waste" working more than the extra cash gained from working.

GarfieldJL
Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover.

Last time I checked there wasn't much tax raising in the pipe, Yes, that'll probably change when the economy recovers, but that's unlikely to be for a while.

There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.

If you raise the taxes too high (and in the wrong places), then yes, I agree with you. I do however believe there is room for a fair bit more (after the economy recovers). Still, keep in mind the opportunities for the less well off that can be created by increased tax revenues. In my mind people should, as far as possible, be given the same opportunities to be the best they can be, if that is worth sacrificing a few other peoples opportunities is up to each to decide.

The people that pay taxes should get a tax cut, the people that don't shouldn't get a check cause it isn't a tax cut then, it is welfare.

But for stimulus purposes they work exactly the same way, so I don't see the problem here. This of course asumes that most of the extra wellfare spending is only for the recession.

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive?

The incentive is that it's a higher percentage that you loose, you still earn, besides, there are more ways to tax than through income.

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

Or maybe it was because they all knew it would be passed anyway, and decided that they might as well vote against to improve their chances of re-election.

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

I was under the impression that if a Bill passed the majority of people had voted for it? Or maybe that's me being naive.

But there is a point where you value the time you "waste" working more than the extra cash gained from working.

The backwards-bending curve of labor. That's what overtime was invented for, heck, what vacations and days off were invented for.

I was under the impression that if a Bill passed the majority of people had voted for it? Or maybe that's me being naive.

If you study the voting breakdown and the bill, you'd know that not even a single Republican voted for it, Obama is now trying to get a Republican Senator out of the Senate so he can be replaced so the Dems have complete control.

If the bill was a good bill there would have been Republicans voting for it, but it is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's spending spree on Left-Wing agenda.

The backwards-bending curve of labor. That's what overtime was invented for, heck, what vacations and days off were invented for.

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

Define wealthy, too often higher tax for the wealthy end up being higher tax for those who have two jobs.It can be debatable, but those earning more than $250,000 annually are considered part of the higher-class.
When regulation (not just deregulation) spirals out of controll, I'd say that re-regulation should be the focus.
While I agree the U.S could use some more socialist policies in general, and even more during a downturn, I'm afraid that the "downturn socialism" end up permanently.It's possible, though I heavily doubt it. The US has had its long history of shutting up and crucifying any socialists, so I doubt that there will be any sort of "economic revolution" that will be totally socialistic.

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

If you're making over $250 000 a year, you can live without the fraction of your income derived from overtime. No one, repeat, no one needs that kind of money.

If you study the voting breakdown and the bill, you'd know that not even a single Republican voted for it

Means only that the republicans were being obstinate, nothing more.

Obama is now trying to get a Republican Senator out of the Senate so he can be replaced so the Dems have complete control.


Source please, and stop being sensationalist. To say that they would have complete control would be false and you know it.

_EW_

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

The backward-bending curve of labor only deals with companies and their employees. The concept is that you a person will only work for so long based on their wages and what they're doing. At some point, the extra income that they would make from working more hours is less valuable than the time the worker could be spending doing other things.

So, "overtime" is an incentive to get workers to work more, in a nutshell, making extra hours more valuable to work.

Taxes only affect the workers decision if the income difference is great enough.

If the bill was a good bill there would have been Republicans voting for it, but it is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's spending spree on Left-Wing agenda.

Read the bill, it actually have a fair bit of tax cuts and other conservative godies in it. Add that the reps have nothing to loose by voting against it since they knew they couldn't prevent it from pasing through, and I'm inclined to believe that it was more about being able to vote against an unpopular bill without any risk.

It's possible, though I heavily doubt it. The US has had its long history of shutting up and crucifying any socialists, so I doubt that there will be any sort of "economic revolution" that will be totally socialistic.

Neither do I, but keep in mind that social spending is hard to cut back on, if it goes too far now, I don't envy the politicans faced with the bill at a time where he from an economic point of view should scale back.

If you're making over $250 000 a year, you can live without the fraction of your income derived from overtime. No one, repeat, no one needs that kind of money.

Who are you to tell someone what they need and dont need? Isnt that what we call tyranny? And that's what socialism is based in. Dictating what people are allowed to have. That is not freedom. That is not what our country was founded on.



Source please, and stop being sensationalist. To say that they would have complete control would be false and you know it.

_EW_

Actually, he's right. 1 (or two) more Senators that are democrat, and the democrats *will* have complete control. Because the republicans will not only no longer be capable of fillibustering, but even if every single republican senator votes "no", the bill would still pass. That's generally seen as "Complete Control". Especially with a democrat also in the White House, and the predicted shift in favor of left-wing ideology in the Judicial branch once a few more start retiring.

Please use the "Edit" function if you want to add to a post, please don't double post. If you want to quote multiple people you can use the "multi-quote" found in the bottom right hand corner of each post. -- j7

Who are you to tell someone what they need and dont need? Isnt that what we call tyranny? And that's what socialism is based in. Dictating what people are allowed to have. That is not freedom. That is not what our country was founded on.

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.

Your country (and I stress your, as it is not my country), was founded on the concepts of equal rights and opportunity for all. In times when it simply isn't possible for everyone to have the same chances as everyone else, do the ideals of your nation not demand some form of socialist policy, if only temporarily? When circumstance robs some of the chance to make a living, should not circumstances be purposely altered to shift opportunity back to those being robbed of said chance? Just something to think about.

Also, you seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Before you try labeling me as a tyrannically minded communist, do some research, please. There's a considerable difference.

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.


What if they're taking care of a medically fragile family member with a tremendous amount of medical expenses? What if someone in their family has Alzheimer's and they want to put their loved one into the best facility they can find, which costs a lot of money? What if they have several kids in college at the same time, even if it's in state tuition? What if one of their close family members died and they became the parents of the now-orphaned children? What if they have all these things going on at the same time? I can easily see where someone would need that kind of money for very legitimate reasons, and it would not be frivolous or unnecessary.

I'm going to be in the position of having older parents at the same time as kids going through college. I have no clue how I'm going to afford to afford to help them all and put away sufficient funds for retirement, all at the same time. I sure don't want the gov't telling me how much I can make or not make, or how huge of a cut they're going to take because they think that it's unacceptable to make above a certain amount.

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.
I suppose that depends on what you think a person's "needs" are.

Your country (and I stress your, as it is not my country), was founded on the concepts of equal rights and opportunity for all. In times when it simply isn't possible for everyone to have the same chances as everyone else, do the ideals of your nation not demand some form of socialist policy, if only temporarily? When circumstance robs some of the chance to make a living, should not circumstances be purposely altered to shift opportunity back to those being robbed of said chance? Just something to think about.
No, not really, I think we should help those people achieve, but not by just handing them things. That teaches them nothing and the next time we hit a bump, they'll be right back to where they are now. Job training, college, but honestly, that kind of thing should be for anyone who wants it, not just the poor, I'm pretty middle class, but I have no job, only my family is helping me, and getting a job right now is like squeezing water from a stone.

Also, you seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Before you try labeling me as a tyrannically minded communist, do some research, please. There's a considerable difference.
Personally, if you're going to be tyrannical about it, just do it. Don't pussyfoot about with fancy names and nice words, just wield your iron fist and smash it into the face of everything and everyone that stands in your way. It's much simpler, much more efficient than only being so controlling, to simply be completely controlling.

Actually, he's right. 1 (or two) more Senators that are democrat, and the democrats *will* have complete control. Because the republicans will not only no longer be capable of fillibustering, but even if every single republican senator votes "no", the bill would still pass. That's generally seen as "Complete Control". Especially with a democrat also in the White House, and the predicted shift in favor of left-wing ideology in the Judicial branch once a few more start retiring.


I'm aware of what he meant, thanks. It still is sensationalist. And I'd also like to point out that the number of current justices appointed by a GOP president = 7 while the number of justices appointed by a Democrat president = 2. So let's just think a little bit before we start running around screaming 'Complete Control' and 'Iron Fist'.

Thanks in advance.

_EW_

What if they're taking care of a medically fragile family member with a tremendous amount of medical expenses? What if someone in their family has Alzheimer's and they want to put their loved one into the best facility they can find, which costs a lot of money? What if they have several kids in college at the same time, even if it's in state tuition? What if one of their close family members died and they became the parents of the now-orphaned children? What if they have all these things going on at the same time? I can easily see where someone would need that kind of money for very legitimate reasons, and it would not be frivolous or unnecessary.

Socialised economy? Government regulation? Universal/Socialised medicine?

Yeah, pretty sure socialist policy pokes holes in every argument you provided. Besides, you're giving rare cases to justify an argument that applies to most 250k+ earners who just spend all their money on **** they don't need.

I suppose that depends on what you think a person's "needs" are.
No, it doesn't.

No, not really, I think we should help those people achieve, but not by just handing them things. That teaches them nothing and the next time we hit a bump, they'll be right back to where they are now. Job training, college, but honestly, that kind of thing should be for anyone who wants it, not just the poor, I'm pretty middle class, but I have no job, only my family is helping me, and getting a job right now is like squeezing water from a stone.
I don't know if you're aiming for sympathy or what, but please don't patronise me - your story is by no means unique. I'm also jobless in the lower middle class, in a city that relies on factory labour for 80% of the population - there are literally no jobs to be found here at the moment. But I don't really see what that has to do with anything, to be honest.

And what do you expect college and job training will do, really? The core of the problem isn't lack of ability, it's lack of jobs to be trained for. You can train 5000 people to work a Toyota plant; but with no plant to send them to, doing so is less than pointless. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't proposed giving the money he gathers from the 250k tax increase directly into the hands of the lower class. As far as I know he plans on pumping it into public programs and the nationalisation of healthcare, no?

Personally, if you're going to be tyrannical about it, just do it. Don't pussyfoot about with fancy names and nice words, just wield your iron fist and smash it into the face of everything and everyone that stands in your way. It's much simpler, much more efficient than only being so controlling, to simply be completely controlling.
Don't know if you're directing those statements directly at me or not, but if you are, I'm sorry you see me that way. But if standing up and speaking my mind is tyrannical, then I guess you'd be guilty of the same thing, no? Again, there's nothing tyrannical about either my statements or the way they were delivered. If you were speaking about the people my statements were in reference to (ie the above-stated difference between Socialism and Communism), and you're referring to socialists as "pussy-foot communists", then I'm going to have to be quite offended.

As for Jae's comments, Adavardes surmised any response I would have had rather succinctly.

Socialised economy? Government regulation? Universal/Socialised medicine?

Yeah, pretty sure socialist policy pokes holes in every argument you provided. Besides, you're giving rare cases to justify an argument that applies to most 250k+ earners who just spend all their money on **** they don't need.
The Doctor was saying NO one needs 250k per year as an absolute. I was pointing out situations where SOME one might actually require that, and all I had to do with that argument is show that there are cases that do require a high amount of salary to meet basic needs--rarity is irrelevant to disproving that absolute. Even in countries with socialized medicine you still have to pay for some things. Caring for kids and aging parents at the same time at home is not free or subsidized by the government, either--it costs money to feed, house, and clothe everyone, drive them to doctor appointments or assorted other places, and so on. Before you call these cases rare, I would recommend checking out info on the sandwich generation--my generation is called that for good reason, and it is definitely not rare. On top of that, by the time I retire, Social Security, if it isn't bankrupt by then, will be so depleted I'll be lucky if I get a dime a month--finding alternative sources to replace social security is a requirement, not an option anymore. So far, health care in this country is not free, higher education is not free, and retirement funds by the gov't is disappearing at an alarming rate. Socialist programs may be an answer, but how is the gov't going to pay for it?

No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. A hundred years ago, $25k was gobs of money for a year. If you said back then "nobody needs more than $25k", you would now be faced with the harsh reality, that YES, people need more than 25K.

Even so, saying "Oh, No more than $250k" takes nothing of the economy into account. Sure, bread may be 5 dollars a loaf, but what if it was 20? If everything was 5 times more expensive(ie: the dollar was worth 1/5th of it's current value), 250K would not be very much.

As other people have presented arguments, some people need to support extended family, some people have many children. Are you going to say now that because we're not allowed to have $250k a year, we can't have ill family? We can't have large families?


I don't know if you're aiming for sympathy or what, but please don't patronise me - your story is by no means unique. I'm also jobless in the lower middle class, in a city that relies on factory labour for 80% of the population - there are literally no jobs to be found here at the moment. But I don't really see what that has to do with anything, to be honest.
I was stating that the people who's lives totally suck right now are not the only people who need help. Do I need less help? Sure, no argument. Does that change the fact that I need help? No it does not. I need money and I need a job just like everyone else. I cannot in any sense of fairness say that ONLY those who are poor need help.

And what do you expect college and job training will do, really? The core of the problem isn't lack of ability, it's lack of jobs to be trained for. You can train 5000 people to work a Toyota plant; but with no plant to send them to, doing so is less than pointless. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't proposed giving the money he gathers from the 250k tax increase directly into the hands of the lower class. As far as I know he plans on pumping it into public programs and the nationalisation of healthcare, no?
Which in many ways, is the same, sure, it doesn't feel a capitalist powerhouse economy, but it does lighten the burden on people.

Don't know if you're directing those statements directly at me or not, but if you are, I'm sorry you see me that way. But if standing up and speaking my mind is tyrannical, then I guess you'd be guilty of the same thing, no? Again, there's nothing tyrannical about either my statements or the way they were delivered. If you were speaking about the people my statements were in reference to (ie the above-stated difference between Socialism and Communism), and you're referring to socialists as "pussy-foot communists", then I'm going to have to be quite offended.
If you don't think telling people what they do or do not need, how much they should or should not make, who does or does not deserve help is not tyrannical, then you need a lesson on tyranny. I'm referring to anyone who isn't willing to go the distance as "pussyfooted".

As Yoda says "Do, or do not. There is no try."

Yes, it does. A hundred years ago, $25k was gobs of money for a year. If you said back then "nobody needs more than $25k", you would now be faced with the harsh reality, that YES, people need more than 25K.
A hundred years from now, I'll be sure to retract my statement. Until then, it stands.

Even so, saying "Oh, No more than $250k" takes nothing of the economy into account. Sure, bread may be 5 dollars a loaf, but what if it was 20? If everything was 5 times more expensive(ie: the dollar was worth 1/5th of it's current value), 250K would not be very much.
You're gonna try to use what ifs as a valid argument? Yeah, ok, if prices were five times higher than they are, then sure, $250k wouldn't be as large a sum as it is now. I'll throw another what if at you in response: what if prices were one fifth what they are now (ie the dollar is worth five times its current value), and bread only cost a buck a loaf? Or hell, let's go nuts and say that a loaf of bread costs a nickel, and everything else is similarly reduced as the currency's value increases exponentially? Then $250k would be a massive number, huh?

As other people have presented arguments, some people need to support extended family, some people have many children. Are you going to say now that because we're not allowed to have $250k a year, we can't have ill family? We can't have large families?
And as other other people have presented, socialist programs such as a socialised economy, government regulation, Universal/Socialised medicine, and the like make this argument collapse like a poorly built house of cards.

I was stating that the people who's lives totally suck right now are not the only people who need help. Do I need less help? Sure, no argument. Does that change the fact that I need help? No it does not. I need money and I need a job just like everyone else. I cannot in any sense of fairness say that ONLY those who are poor need help.
You don't think the middle class will benefit from the same programs that the poor will benefit from? It's not like Obama's public healthcare plan will only cover the poor. It will cover everyone (that is, everyone who is an American citizen, one would think). Hence the term "public".

If you don't think telling people what they do or do not need, how much they should or should not make, who does or does not deserve help is not tyrannical, then you need a lesson on tyranny. I'm referring to anyone who isn't willing to go the distance as "pussyfooted".
No one is telling these people how much they're allowed to make. No one is telling them that once they make over $250k, all of that extra money is being taken away. An individual making $260k/year will be taxed at the same rate as someone making $450k/year, and both will still have a healthy reserve for those rare situations that Jae raised earlier - until Obama's public programs are put into action, of course, at which point they'll have an even healthier reserve. A much healthier reserve than someone making minimum wage for 38 hours as week because their boss doesn't have the money to give them 40, at which point they'd qualify for benefits; or a first year teacher making about $25-30k a year, as they and civil servants make next to nothing in the States.

I say again: I am not tyrannical in my thinking any more than you are in yours. Stop trying to paint me as such.

Also, I'd like to use my own situation to debunk the argument presented by Jae, as it would seem you either have Adavardes on your ignore list, or you just missed his post refuting her claims.

My father makes (approximately, for the sake of privacy/discretion), $60k a year - considerably less than the $250k that Obama is targeting. My mother is not currently working. My brother, now almost 18, is beginning University in the fall, ideally (from his standpoint) at a school on the English coast - but until then, they're supporting both myself and my brother for at least the next year, and have supported us quite well for the past 18 years. I'm also beginning a University program soon, which my parents pledged many years ago to pay at least part of. My mother is in a two-year course at the local college, as well, aiming for a CFP designation. Her mother, my elderly Grandmother, lives alone, my Grandfather having passed on three years ago leaving a meager pension behind for her. We've had to assist her with moving bills (as she couldn't bear to live in the house where her soul mate suffered and died - a process we had to pay to see at home instead of at a hospital, by the way), maintenance bills on the new house, and even a portion of her new car, after her old POS from the middle ages died (making its kind officially extinct :xp:). They have their own personal debt as well, particularly after all the work that had to be done on the house to make it livable during the Canadian winter - new furnace, complete change in the layout of the piping for said furnace, removal of the old baseboard heating system and reparation of the subsequent drywall wholes, new flooring (as the old had to be removed to access the piping which needed to be moved), and the like.

The point is, my parents are still financially comfortable enough to be planning a remodeling of my brother's soon-to-be-vacated room, with prospects of an August vacation to the Dominican on the horizon. I say again: no one needs more than $250k a year to make it by comfortably. Particularly after the socialised programs Obama has spoken of implementing are put into action.

So far, health care in this country is not free, higher education is not free, and retirement funds by the gov't is disappearing at an alarming rate. Socialist programs may be an answer, but how is the gov't going to pay for it?

... With all that money made from further taxation of individuals with incomes at or above 250K?

Here's the jist of why things cost so much. In a purely free-market, capitalist economy, there's no restraint on competing corporations to monopolize and compete, meaning they can make twice as much stuff at half the quality for twice the money, and still sell loads of it merely because they have almost total control over their particular niche. And, oh yes, they do, because corporations are heartless and greedy and care nothing for bleeding the people dry of every cent they have. Because the production prices are going up for consumers, prices for services also go up so they can pay for the overly-expensive corporate products they need to live. This, in turn, raises incomes to ungodly levels just so we can adhere to the price-gouging of multi-million dollar establishments.

Now, let's see what socialism does to remedy that.

It takes taxation, hard-line taxation, from the greedy companies and the individuals who simply have too much money - I'm sorry, but some individuals just have too much money - and applies that tax money to government regulation of the economy. This makes sure that prices go down considerably, and that corporate monopolies and competition (otherwise known as coporate leech behaviour) are removed from the equation so that fairness and equality can resume. Prices for products go down, and so the individuals can afford to lower the costs of their services. Most will eventually be forced down by the deflated economy, but some, medical services in particular, may still be too expensive.

What do you do then? Take more money from the corporations and rich upper-class (they have plenty to spare, trust me on this) and socialise medicine. Doctors no longer need their hefty salaries, and aren't getting them anymore either. There are similar programs for education and the like, programs that only require large funds, used properly, during their implimentation, amounts I believe can be easily found in the coffers of mister moneybags over there. If the programs are set in place by a capable man, such as Obama, I think that there won't be a need to continually fund them with exuberant amounts. The then balanced and controlled economy will make sure of that.

Add to these improvements that wealth gaps would be bridged, health would improve, education, given the right influence, would excell in quality: all things this country desperately needs. I'm sorry, but again, your argument gets holes poked in it left and right by socialist policy.

A couple of questions:

Where would be the incentive to design and produce better, more cost-efffective products without competition? Wouldn't quality decrease and prices increase?

Without a large salary, where would be the incentive to go through pre-med, med school, residency and internship and incur all of that school debt (as in $100k+) which then could not be paid off? Why would anyone want to become a physician under such circumstances?

As a matter of fact, why would anyone want to achieve at all if what you say comes to pass? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I suppose?

Just wondering.

A couple of questions:

Where would be the incentive to design and produce better, more cost-efffective products without competition? Wouldn't quality decrease and prices increase?

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth. If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

Without a large salary, where would be the incentive to go through pre-med, med school, residency and internship and incur all of that school debt (as in $100k+) which then could not be paid off? Why would anyone want to become a physician under such circumstances?

Call me crazy, but perhaps doctors should do it because they love helping people and saving lives? And, again, there are programs in socialist policy to make tuition a non-issue. You bring up costs but ignore the plans to alleviate them. Again.

As a matter of fact, why would anyone want to achieve at all if what you say comes to pass? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I suppose?

Just wondering.

Because it's what they want to do? Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work? Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society. I mean, look where it got us.

Here's the jist of why things cost so much. In a purely free-market, capitalist economy, there's no restraint on competing corporations to monopolize and compete, meaning they can make twice as much stuff at half the quality for twice the money, and still sell loads of it merely because they have almost total control over their particular niche.

Monopolize and compeete? The whole point of monopolizing is to not need to compeete, which raises prices, lowers production, and stffles inovation. Competition on the other hand does the opposite of this.

And, oh yes, they do, because corporations are heartless and greedy and care nothing for bleeding the people dry of every cent they have.

Well, that's sorta why they exist, if you are a shareholder in a company, do you want them to not try to earn as much as possible? It is this greed that fuels competition, and with all the benefits it bring, I don't mind if greed is the motivator.

It takes taxation, hard-line taxation, from the greedy companies and the individuals who simply have too much money - I'm sorry, but some individuals just have too much money - and applies that tax money to government regulation of the economy.

Good that we both agree that regulation is needed, though we probably disagree on what kind. Just out of curiosity, who decides if someone have too much money? And what if their money is earned by expanding/starting new companies that employ hordes of people? Would you take away their incentive to create new jobs just because they have too much money?

This makes sure that prices go down considerably, and that corporate monopolies and competition (otherwise known as coporate leech behaviour) are removed from the equation so that fairness and equality can resume.

I'm not sure how one would remove both monopolies and competition, they are polar opposites, unless you mean the state should organize business like a cartell (which is ilegal now, for good reason). Untill you clarify this, I can't comment on the "prices will go down part".

What do you do then? Take more money from the corporations and rich upper-class (they have plenty to spare, trust me on this) and socialise medicine. Doctors no longer need their hefty salaries, and aren't getting them anymore either.

Another thing we agree on, health care for everyone. However, I wonder how you intend to push down doctor wages, without A: significantly reducing the number of people educating themselves as such, and B: Making the doctors who do the education head for greener pastures in other countries.

There are similar programs for education and the like, programs that only require large funds, used properly, during their implimentation,

And you believe the government would use them properly? Why would they bother?

amounts I believe can be easily found in the coffers of mister moneybags over there.

Unless you are using a far broader definition of rich than what is common, then no, they don't have that much, in adition, expect them to abandon ship(country) if you squeese them too hard.

If the programs are set in place by a capable man, such as Obama, I think that there won't be a need to continually fund them with exuberant amounts.

Obama is not the one I doubt is capable, the ones under him who actually is going to implement things I would be fare more concerned about.

The then balanced and controlled economy will make sure of that.

Care to cite any examples of a working, balanced and cotrolled economy?

Add to these improvements that wealth gaps would be bridged, health would improve, education, given the right influence, would excell in quality: all things this country desperately needs. I'm sorry, but again, your argument gets holes poked in it left and right by socialist policy.

Economy is like Swiss cheese, there are holes everywhere, though your particular chunk seems holier than Jaes chunk:xp:

Edit

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.

What is a product worth then if it is not what people are willing to pay for it?

If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

Where is the incentive in making good products, make production more eficent, develop new tech etc if you are paid the exact same amount no matter what, and don't risk seeing your company bankrupt? Ever seen the products of state controlled economies?

Because it's what they want to do?
Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work?

But if I enjoy working as a mechanic, and studdying law, what do you think I'll choose if the wages are the same?

Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society. I mean, look where it got us.

Technological development at the speed of light, standards of living our forefathers could only dream about, need I continue?

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.
And here I thought outsourcing did that. :p But seriously, products like that do have their niche, but they can't dominate because there is a large part of the market that is willing to pay for quality.
If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway.
With price-fixing, yes, they will be cheaper, but without competition the quality will suck because there will be no reason to improve it.
What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?
What incentive is there to make quality products if there is no extra profit? :D
Call me crazy, but perhaps doctors should do it because they love helping people and saving lives?
They should, yes, and a lot do. The fact of the matter is that without the fat paycheck we're going to have a lot fewer doctors.
And, again, there are programs in socialist policy to make tuition a non-issue.
With what? Higher taxes? Where is all of this tax money going to come from? The percentage of the population whose income you've destroyed by eliminating competition, perhaps? :doh:
You bring up costs but ignore the plans to alleviate them. Again.
And you're ignoring reality. Again.

:iceburn:
Because it's what they want to do? Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work?
Not me. I enjoy the paycheck, not the work. That's why it's called work.
Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society.
You're right: it should be, but it isn't. People are more greedy than altruistic. Sad fact.
I mean, look where it got us.
If you're referring to our present financial woes, most if not all of them can be traced back to a single cause: our extremely corrupt government, more of which is hardly the answer. ;)

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth. I get what you are trying to say, but I disagree. This goes against everything I’ve seen in academia and the real world. If you are unable to compete on price with your competition one effective alternative is product differentiation. So if your product is superior in quality or application you could use that as a selling point over price.

Without completion there are no incentives in quantity, quality or innovations.
If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. Without competition, what incentives are there to make better or cheaper products? Now if I don’t like the toilet paper I’m using I can choice from numerous other toilet paper brands. However, if you limited it to one, then no matter the cost or the quality, I’m going to buy that brand because the alternative is unacceptable to me.

A person making over $250k a year employs people.

He might buy a new car every year. If it's a foreign(made) make, it at least gives money to the dealership in the US, as well as to the sales person. If it's a domestic(made), the benefits are obvious.

If he buys a new house, that means construction jobs. Lots of them.

Rich tend to not want to clean up their houses, but like to have a clean house. They would rather pay someone. That's a maid's position.

They like art. That's an artist getting paid(or an auction house).

If you're talking about strictly need. Our economy is based around buying things that we don't really need.

I'm a doctor. I'm never going to be a filthy rich plastic surgeon and make 900 zillion bucks a year. Fine. I work where I do because I like what I do, even though I could make 3 times more working in a number of places far away from family. My choice. However, why should I put off 11 years of earning wages to go to school, working my butt off in a way that only a small percentage of the population can (being a doctor isn't a job everyone can learn to do or wants to do), to take a crap wage no better than the burger-flipping job I had during college? Furthermore, do you have any idea what malpractice insurance costs every year? I'm lucky that I don't have to pay nearly as much as some of my colleagues. Neurosurgeons and OB/GYNs have to pay 100,000 dollars a year _just_ for malpractice insurance because of the higher risk of lawsuits (someone has in imperfect baby, it of course is the doctor's fault, not their own if they smoked and did drugs while pregnant). Are you planning on doctor immunity to lawsuits along with giving them the crap wage?

I'm not asking to make an obscene wage, but my skills, knowledge, and yes, work, because doing that job is definitely NOT effortless, are worth a hell of a lot more in salary than the housecleaning job I did at a hotel when I was a student. If the gov't comes in and says "Oh, your salary is capped at x" and my taxes increase dramatically, I don't care how much I love seeing my patients, I'm out of there. It's not worth the cost of driving to and from work, daycare expenses, keeping up my license and malpractic insurance, the cost of required continuing education (which is NOT cheap), and the increased taxes at the higher end of the tax bracket. I don't work for free. If I wanted a mindless burger-flipping salary, I'd go work at McDonald's again where I wouldn't have responsibility for people's sight and sometimes even their lives. If I'm going to spend time and money maintaining a high level of expertise for my patients via journals/continuing ed classes/etc., and deal with the work involved in seeing patients--some of whom are nice, some of whom are complete a-holes, have a high level of responsibility (if I make a mistake flipping a burger, big deal, I get another out of the freezer. I make a mistake in diagnosis? Someone can go blind.), then I expect to be paid in accordance with those increased skills, knowledge, and level of responsibility. Otherwise, I'd just as soon stay home and have fun with my kids.

Doctors work very hard, and get a salary that is indicative of the intelligence and dedication that is needed to become one. If you lower the amount paid you may well lower the standard of care you receive, I for one would rather receive the best health care I can get, and as such that means Doctors being rewarded for their work.

Now things maybe different in the U.S. but my dad is a doctor; he is a GP (family doctor) and the government gets away with making him work illegal hours (i.e. 13 hour days) because he's technically self employed; so he deserves his money. Furthermore if we are going to moan about wages, why don't we moan about the wages professional sports men and woman get; who in reality don't do anything important, where as doctors save lives; fact.

Sportsmen does something important, they make a lot of money for their owners. Money which they make because we are willing to pay, directly or indirectly to watch them. If they make ridicolus amounts of money, it is only because we let them. Is it fair to the doctors, and others who do more "worthy" things? No, but the only ones who can change it is us, as consumers.

Obama will fail at the whole wage caping. Why? Bilderberg will deal with him. The executive branch of the US government is no longer the top dog, and it hasn't been that way for years. Obama can make threats; however, he will face a very powerful set of individuals. I'm talking about bottomless pockets of influence and resources. This is where Obama's inexperiences will ruin him. I call them the modernday Bilderberg; however, they could have many other names. Bilderberg, Aluminarty, Skull and Bones, etc... It doesn't matter what they are called. They are very powerful men and women. Obama is a small fish playing in a shark pool.

Why would he fail at passing a law capping wages? It's a popular measure especially with democrats but also many republicans. It's a wonderfull bill to support, popular with the people, and it won't have any effect in practice. Besides, from what I know it would only apply to firms bailed out in the future, so don't see why anyone would want to fight a bill they aren't afected by.

I must have crossed lines here. Regulating companies who benefit from a bailout is good; however, Bernie Mac and the Secretary of Treasury also made another comment. They feel it may be important to regulate and place a salary cap on all US companies.

Still, it's not as if they won't weasel around any laws, my points still stand.

What did people make of the recent marriage of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae?

Obama will fail at the whole wage caping. Why? Bilderberg will deal with him. The executive branch of the US government is no longer the top dog, and it hasn't been that way for years. Obama can make threats; however, he will face a very powerful set of individuals. I'm talking about bottomless pockets of influence and resources. This is where Obama's inexperiences will ruin him. I call them the modernday Bilderberg; however, they could have many other names. Bilderberg, Aluminarty, Skull and Bones, etc... It doesn't matter what they are called. They are very powerful men and women. Obama is a small fish playing in a shark pool.It's Illuminati, get your evil secret societies with plans of world domination straight or no one's gonna take you seriously.

http://illuminati-icons.blogspot.com/)

Bernie Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mac) was an incredibly talented comedien who sadly died of complications from pneumonia and sarcoidosis last August. I doubt he had a lot to say in September when the banking meltdown happened.

Bernie Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mac) was an incredibly talented comedien who sadly died of complications from pneumonia and sarcoidosis last August. I doubt he had a lot to say in September when the banking meltdown happened.
I made such a mistake. :D I need to look up the articles again. Sorry. :lol:

MSNBC Article - Obama: No rights for Bagram prisoners (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29308012/)
Sides with Bush, says detainees can't challenge detention in U.S. courts

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.


Embracing Bush policy
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

OH? Well I cannot exactly say that I am surprised it turned out like this. This war is too big. I had the feeling it would end up taking a turn like this. I seriously hate when I'm right.

OK, I just can't help it. I gotta point out some ironies......wait ironies? No no no. Wait.........Nah, this isn't credible. YAR! You've been rousting racoons again! Haven't you?! Where did you come up with this....thisss.....this dreg?!
:swear:


WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

If it is any consolation, hope is a dirty word because you can be let down.
Sorry he did not make your expectations.

I guess the Obama administration changed its mind??? Maybe???
...Nah, he's just going with the flow like every president has done. :shades2: Gotta play it cool. Right? Gotta...

...Wait, I thought he promised that his administration wasn't going to do the politics and BS like all the administrations before it? :confused:
He did. Big surprise there. The world is not as rosy as we've painted it. He's only human. This is politics.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

No ****? So you mean they may actually know legitimate things about the combatants that the average American doesn't?
[mimicks Anakin/Vader's voice] LIAR!

Embracing Bush policy
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.
A whole month to deliberate? He promised on the campaign trail that he'd close 'em all down immediately once in office.

Such a shame isn't it? ...NO? They actually needed that month because this is such a delicate matter? Well okay then. Maybe it is a necessity to have these prisons. Maybe a month just isn't enough time to decide? Just a reminder: It is lives we are talking about here after all. Also, torture is an atrocity is it not?

Seriously. BTW, remember, we also promised to be better in our decision making process than George Bush's regime, like not taking too long.

Not that this is any big deal. Don't sweat the small stuff. Be cool, now. Be cool. :shades2:

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

Hmm. From the ACLU, huh? Now that's saying something.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action.
Hmm. Maybe I'm off my hinges, but does any this sound the least bit familiar at all? :confused:
The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
:dozey: No. Seriously, now. Where have I heard something like this before? I could swear I'm having a Deja-Vu right now.
It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. This early on in the administration? Let us hope he will seriously live up to his promises to at least review the policies, then. Eventually.....

So...Trust his judgement. ......Just like we trusted all of our idol presidents.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

Now why would they need to have that? Seriously? Why would they do that? Wait a minute. Why didn't we hear about this as it hppened just like on the campaign trail? 'Cuz, oh no, the media would never favor anyone. It's totally objective despite the fact it is a corporate business run by humans--people with their own opinions and agendas.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

Wait he approved it? Maybe there actually is a legitimate need for it, then. Well, that or he is just as corrupt as anyone else in politics.

...Boeing? Funny. Wasn't that company sorta contributing to Obama's campaign??? Funny how they disguised their company name's font to be like Bose to seem more family friendly, isn't it? Ironic. He talks of closing one prison for its attrocities while keeping the other open. Also ironic.

No no no--he never took any money form them. It's a lie! They are a military corporation!

All in all, though, I saw this coming. I was right to be cynical. Promises to close these facilities down wile in the middle of a war, even if it is being dragged out, are most likely false. Though, I won't dock anyone points for having hope: Admittedly, there were many who had hoped George Bush was going to start doing things to stabilize the economy and to make it competitive again. Didn't pan out there now, did it?

It was nice to cling to the belief and all, but now that reality has kicked in, it's time to get real.

For some this is affirmation that the threat was real; for others this may be confirmation that you can't trust politicians because, well, they lie. Whoops. Guess America really stepped in it this time.

Either way, I saw incoming this for miles out. :dozey:

:rofl:
Hope, Change, and Obama will save your soul! Testify!

What a joke.
:rofl:

I kind of thought Obama would have to embrace some of Bush Doctrine. Wait! Didn't he run and win an election taking a stance against Bush's policies? :lol:

I agree with most of the Bush Doctrine. Why? We are dealing with a foreign threat, and it is getting bigger day by day. We need these facilities open; however, I hope the prisoners get a fair trial for credibility sake.

Did you people know some of the stimulus package will hit its peak in 2014?

Newsweek Article - Obama's Stimulus: A Colossal Waste? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_stunted_economic_stimul.html)

Look at the numbers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about $200 billion will be spent in 2011 or later -- after it would do the most good. For starters, there's $8 billion for high-speed rail. "Everyone is saying this is (for) high-speed rail between Los Angeles and Las Vegas -- I don't know," says Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. Whatever's done, the design and construction will occupy many years. It's not a quick stimulus.

Then there's $20.8 billion for improved health information technology -- more electronic records and the like. Probably most people regard this as desirable, but here, too, changes occur slowly. The CBO expects only 3 percent of the money ($595 million) to be spent in fiscal 2009 and 2010. The peak year of projected spending is 2014 at $14.2 billion.

Big projects take time. They're included in the stimulus because Obama and Democratic congressional leaders are using the legislation to advance many political priorities instead of just spurring the economy. At his news conference, Obama argued (inaccurately) that the two goals don't conflict. Consider, he said, the retrofitting of federal buildings to make them more energy efficient. "We're creating jobs immediately," he said.

Yes -- but not many. The stimulus package includes $5.5 billion for overhauling federal buildings. The CBO estimates that only 23 percent of that would be spent in 2009 and 2010.

Worse, the economic impact of the stimulus is already smaller than advertised. The package includes an obscure tax provision: a "patch" for the alternative minimum tax (AMT). This protects many middle-class Americans against higher taxes and, on paper, adds $85 billion of "stimulus" in 2009 and 2010. One problem: "It's not stimulus," says Len Burman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "(Congress was) going to do it anyway. They do it every year." Strip out the AMT patch, and the stimulus drops to about $700 billion, with almost 30 percent spent after 2010.

The purpose of the stimulus is to minimize declines in one part of the economy from dragging other sectors down. The next big vulnerable sector seems to be state and local governments. Weakening tax payments create massive budget shortfalls. From now until the end of fiscal 2011, these may total $350 billion, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal advocacy group. Required to balance their budgets, states face huge pressures to cut spending and jobs or to raise taxes. All would worsen the recession and deepen pessimism.
My question is simple - How do you expand government when there is no money, and it is already short on funding its current programs? People are out of jobs, so the weakening tax payments are going to happen. No job, no money, no buying luxury products.

Thanks for moving the thread Jae.

Political threads need to go in the Hot topics forum. Thanks.

Okay, this is my last thread in this section for the day. I want others to share their articles, so I'm going to hold back on adding more today. I think this article is a good read; thus, I wanted to share it with you. This is not a Obama bashing thread in anyway. I'm looking at where he currently measures up compared to other presidents. Things will change as we move forward, but it is interesting to see he is at the same level as George W. Bush.

Article - Obama's Approval Ratings in Context (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/what_happened_to_the_hopemonge.html)

Here's a fact that will probably shock you: Americans today have the same level of confidence in President Obama as they had in George W. Bush after his first month in office. According to Gallup, Obama’'s public approval rating currently stands at 63 percent, only a point above George W. Bush in late February 2001.

Few modern presidents have been greeted with such lofty expectations as Obama. That Obama now stands where Bush did eight years ago, on the eve of his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, serves as a reminder of how quickly the demands of the presidency can sober even the most talented politicians.

It's long been said that presidents are only as powerful as their public perception. Already, President Obama has lost a measure of his hopefulness at the moment he most requires it. The public seems to have noticed. And there are some in Washington who speculate that Obama's standing could still worsen.

"Obama is in a much weaker position than his poll numbers suggest and I think that the whole thing could collapse on him sooner rather than later," Doug Schoen, one of Bill Clinton's former pollsters, said.

That remains to be seen. But even at this early stage, Obama has already assumed a good deal of risk. With his first major legislative accomplishment, a $787 billion dollar economic stimulus bill, he has taken ownership of an economy that could quickly worsen.


President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 63.2
Disapprove 28.6
Spread +34.6

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 33.4
Disapprove 60.0
Spread -26.6

Direction of Country
RCP Average
Right Direction 32.3
Wrong Track 59.3
Spread -27.0

Yes, the stimulus contains a lot of things which give the wrong incentives, not work, and not work at the right time. However, with the current situation being as bad as it is, the economy is still likely to need the boost once it hits, even if it happens later. In adition, getting the damned thing through the house and senate meant that compromises had to be made.

My question is simple - How do you expand government when there is no money, and it is already short on funding its current programs?

By runing a defecit.

By runing a defecit.
I'm completely ignorant at this point. How does running a defecit cure the economy?