(03-11-2009 01:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 05:34 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 12:49 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Sorry, that was a joke. You guys have made your distaste for Obama abundantly clear over the last 18+ months.

I believe that folks on this board are opposed to current policies not because the policies are Obama's, but because the policies appear to be destructively stupid.

The fact that not even the proponents are arguing that the policies will actually work is telling.

It is telling, although where's the hopelessness in such argument? In the policies, or in the audience of this thread?

Yes, I agree with his tax policy. Confiscation and redistribution? Brother, you'd think we were seizing the farms of white families and giving them to welfare queens, instead of instituting a modest uptick of taxes to levels the country somehow managed to survive and prosper through under Clinton.

Many things have changed since Clinton was President. Global corporate income taxes are lower today than they were, but ours aren't. We are by definition less competitive at the same rates than we were under Clinton. Further, the internet continues to blur global lines and CHina has embraced a form of capitalism (certainly of industry) since Clinton. To make your same argument... things worked pretty well before we had income taxes at all.. so why not return to that?

Quote:More regulation a disaster? Aren't we in large part where we are because of the lack of regulation? Lenders putting people in houses they can't afford. The lack of regulation or transparency with CDS's? The speculation driven 5$ gasoline? Yes, I believe we should absolutely put in protections to keep us from facing similar disasters in the future.

No we are not... and the only people trying to convince you of that is the regulators (the government).

If I asked you to tell me how much money you would earn this year, you can probably tell me to a degree of certainty. If I asked you to tell me what your taxable income after adjustments etc. was going to be, I'd bet you couldn't. The first is a lack of regulation... the second is regulation. The first contains no smoke or missors... the second contains a myriad of them.

Quote:The stimulus plan is not going to end our crisis, but yes, I think America investing in itself-- infrastructure, energy, training, education, and by helping the middle class weather through their hardship-- tax cuts, extension of unemployment benefits/food stamps/medicaid, is in the best interest of our nation short and long term.

Take a look at the bill, and then listen to RATIONAL opponents of it. First, much of the bill does not involve the issues you speak about. Second, even some of the spending on what you DO speak of has nothing to do with emergency stimulus... but is merely "off-budget" financing of priorities.
Finally, some of the spending is obviously inefficient, and other comes with unwanted, unhelpful and unnecessary strings.

Why should the State of Louisiana or the City of Houston have to change its laws to qualify for emergency relief? Why should a relatively stable institution have to change its business practices to qualify for relief when barring the collapse of the FAILED banks, they would be just fine? Why is having the government spend $250mm to replace 100,000 late model cars in generally good repair at the lowest possible profit to the fewest number of auto related companies better than a proposal that involves adding private and corporate (especially bank) funds (loans) to spend a multiple of that $250mm without adding a single dime to the taxpayer cost to take older cars off the roads and to provide stimulus to many more auto related companies. In other words... If we're having a credit crunch and trying to encourage banks to lend... rather than have the government buy a stripped down Impala for $25,000 to replace a stripped down 2004 Malibu... (in the simplest of examples) we have the government offer a $25,000 "credit" to people with cars older than 2000 if they buy a $30,000 car. The banks would happily make a $5,000 loan to a moderate/low income person on a $30,000 car... the auto companies would make more money... as would the auto accessory companies when people buy chrome wheels and GPS that the government wouldn't have bought... plus the local dealership rather than the wholesaler in Detroit... I suspect many of the new car buyers could save their $5,000 in fuel efficiency/repairs.

My point being... "a" plan is not necessarily a GOOD plan jsut because it includes words like education, healthcare and infrastructure.