Stimulus package??

[GrimJack]

I am interested in a dialogue with people who have strong opinions on the Stimulus Package recently passed by both houses and signed by President Obama. This seems to be a proper forum (if not, please let me know).

Is there anyone here who has both:

1 read the document
2 a strong opinion on it?

I am not particularly interested in name calling or such. If you want to call someone a 'socialist' or 'fascist', please explain how the label is accurate; if you can not support what you say, do not bother to respond.

[adam_c]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

Is there anyone here who has both:

1 read the document
2 a strong opinion on it?

GrimJack, I believe your requirements would exclude 98% of the congressmen and senators who voted for the package.

But I guess to be fair, that would also exclude the ones who voted against it. Personally I have more respect for ones who voted against it.

One question I've been trying to figure out- if it was so important and such a good idea, why did the Democrats insist on having Republicans support it? They had the votes to pass it.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by adam_c

I believe your requirements would exclude 98% of the congressmen and senators who voted for the package.

But I guess to be fair, that would also exclude the ones who voted against it. Personally I have more respect for ones who voted against it.

I'm puzzled by this. If you don't know what's in the bill, and they don't know what's in the bill, how could you have respect for someone voting against (or for) it?

[maat55]

Originally Posted by sweeps

I'm puzzled by this. If you don't know what's in the bill, and they don't know what's in the bill, how could you have respect for someone voting against (or for) it?

I would say because they had to vote on it without time to read it.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by maat55

I would say because they had to vote on it without time to read it.

Touché.

[maat55]

How do you cut taxes for 95% of americans when 40% pay nothing? Redistribution=socialism

National healthcare is the biggest step you can take towards socialism.

Giving 8k to new home buyers. Redistribution=socialism.

Government involvement in private business.(AIG, Citi, GM and others)Socialism. And yes, it was socialism when Bush did it, also.

So far, all I see is tax the rich, spend like there is no tommorrow, add new socialist programs.

Who had the most liberal voting record in the senate? Obama.



Obama was a member of this socialist organization called " The New Party"

Politically Drunk On Power!: Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996

I have every reason to believe Obama is a socialist. That does not make him evil, but I appose his view of our country.

I believe in traditional america, the one the founders established.

[GREENBACK]

I have spoke to a number of people who support the stimulus package but I haven't found anyone who can tell me why they support it other than the "we have to do something" folks. I haven't found anyone who can point out much of anything in it that will do a lot to turn the economy around. It's an 1100 page document that was supposed to be read and voted on in a couple days by everyone. Does that seem deceptive to anyone but me? I think their are probably some dems out there that may have voted against this bill but they didn't have time to read it either and won't admit that now.

Socialism isn't to hard to define. You may agree with it or disagree but the concept isn't mysterious. Redistribution of wealth is classic socialism. Nationalized health care is classic socialism. Controlling banks and buisnesses is classic socialism. Barack Obama is for all of these ideas and has stated such. His orders to banks to limit what CEO's make because of gov't money rec'd were classic examples of socialism even if the distributed money wasn't his idea. It's all about control and the Obamacrats are leading us right down that path. I won't refer to Obama as a Stalanist or call him Hitler like. I don't think he has that sort of brutal mentality but his ideas for the economy are indeed socialistic.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by adam_c

GrimJack, I believe your requirements would exclude 98% of the congressmen and senators who voted for the package.

But I guess to be fair, that would also exclude the ones who voted against it. Personally I have more respect for ones who voted against it.

One question I've been trying to figure out- if it was so important and such a good idea, why did the Democrats insist on having Republicans support it? They had the votes to pass it.

I hear quite a few different %ages quoted about who did and did not read the bill; I am not going to blindly accept that figure w/o some sort of cite and definition of terms (ie read the whole thing when it was first crafted; read it during arbitration, read the final draft, read final printed version). I understand the humor in suggesting that no one read it but voted for/against it but I am also interested in keeping the discussion honest. I will try to document what I can as I go along.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by maat55

How do you cut taxes for 95% of americans when 40% pay nothing? Redistribution=socialism

Nope! redistribution does not equal socialism. Here is the really fun thing about language - words mean things, and you do not get to determine that meaning. Now if you want to have a serious discussion about redistribution, that is fine and if you want to discuss what socialism is that too is a good thing but one is not the other.

National healthcare is the biggest step you can take towards socialism.

Again with the misuse of language. If you want to talk about National Healthcare, we can do that (I do not find anything about national healthcare in the stimulus package which is the topic under discussion). I really think you should define 'socialist' pretty soon so I know what you mean when you use the word - you seem to have a pretty arbitrary/loose grasp of political concepts.

Giving 8k to new home buyers. Redistribution=socialism.

I am going to guess that to prevent the taint of socialism, you refuse to use any of the homeowner's tax breaks. And I do not find any home buyers 'redistribution' in the stimulus package.

Government involvement in private business.(AIG, Citi, GM and others)Socialism. And yes, it was socialism when Bush did it, also.

Again with the socialism - and I do not think that any of those businesses are mentioned in the stimulus package.

So far, all I see is tax the rich, spend like there is no tommorrow, add new socialist programs.

I know, I know - it was socialism when Bush did, when Reagan did it, when the other Bush did it.

Who had the most liberal voting record in the senate? Obama.

Woohoo! You used the L word - Obama is a Democrat, get over it.

Obama was a member of this socialist organization called " The New Party"

Politically Drunk On Power!: Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996

Nope! I love it when you rightwingnuts bring up outright lies

I have every reason to believe Obama is a socialist. That does not make him evil, but I appose his view of our country.

You can believe anything you want but your belief in it does not make true (of course, your belief in it does not make it a lie either)

I believe in traditional america, the one the founders established.

So do I. So does President Obama, as do Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, but that has nothing to do with the discussion.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I have spoke to a number of people who support the stimulus package but I haven't found anyone who can tell me why they support it other than the "we have to do something" folks. I haven't found anyone who can point out much of anything in it that will do a lot to turn the economy around. It's an 1100 page document that was supposed to be read and voted on in a couple days by everyone. Does that seem deceptive to anyone but me? I think their are probably some dems out there that may have voted against this bill but they didn't have time to read it either and won't admit that now.

What is it exactly you want pointed out to you?

Socialism isn't to hard to define. You may agree with it or disagree but the concept isn't mysterious. Redistribution of wealth is classic socialism. Nationalized health care is classic socialism. Controlling banks and buisnesses is classic socialism. Barack Obama is for all of these ideas and has stated such. His orders to banks to limit what CEO's make because of gov't money rec'd were classic examples of socialism even if the distributed money wasn't his idea. It's all about control and the Obamacrats are leading us right down that path. I won't refer to Obama as a Stalanist or call him Hitler like. I don't think he has that sort of brutal mentality but his ideas for the economy are indeed socialistic.

In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others. All political and economic systems facilitate the transfer of wealth, including capitalism, communism and socialism; however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system.

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Liberalism - In modern times, a political philosophy that advocates greater public support, defense, regulation and promotion of the private sector.

Capitalism - An economic system in which private individuals or corporations own and invest in the means of production.

The far right promotes the myth that Liberalism = Socialism = Big Government; attempts to take the center and then claim everything left of them is socialist or communist. I understand that no one has actually asked you for a definition of any of your terms before but really "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it" is not a very nuanced position to take.

I am not sure why you mention Hitler and Stalin other than to imply that is what you mean but are being too kind to bring it up. You keep on about 'classic socialism' and you do not even know what you are talking about. You seem to have some sort of fuzzy, indefinable idea of what you mean but are unable to make it understandable other than 'he is a bad man, socialism is bad, he might be a dictator'.

Then you create your own word 'obamacrat' and pretend that it means something. You seem to string a series logical fallacies together and consider it a serious discussion.

[GREENBACK]

Grimjack
I asked you in a previous thread to show how this stimulus will stimulate anything. Are you ignoring me because you can't come up with an answer?

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama has a very heavy socialistic leaning. Look at your above defenses of the policies of this administration. All you are doing is defending every single thing that they do. You're not saying it isn't socialism, you're just trying to spin it it any way you can which is very socialistic.

Again I'll say, show me how throwing billions of dollars to entities that have nothing to do with saving our ailing economy will help anything. I guess you're calling me a right wing nut for the way I think but at least I do think before making decisions which is something the liberals and apparently most people have abandoned long ago.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

What is it exactly you want pointed out to you? In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others. All political and economic systems facilitate the transfer of wealth, including capitalism, communism and socialism; however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system.

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Liberalism - In modern times, a political philosophy that advocates greater public support, defense, regulation and promotion of the private sector.

Capitalism - An economic system in which private individuals or corporations own and invest in the means of production.

The far right promotes the myth that Liberalism = Socialism = Big Government; attempts to take the center and then claim everything left of them is socialist or communist. I understand that no one has actually asked you for a definition of any of your terms before but really "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it" is not a very nuanced position to take.

I am not sure why you mention Hitler and Stalin other than to imply that is what you mean but are being too kind to bring it up. You keep on about 'classic socialism' and you do not even know what you are talking about. You seem to have some sort of fuzzy, indefinable idea of what you mean but are unable to make it understandable other than 'he is a bad man, socialism is bad, he might be a dictator'.

Then you create your own word 'obamacrat' and pretend that it means something. You seem to string a series logical fallacies together and consider it a serious discussion.

I know the definition of socialism. Hitler,Stalin,Castro,musselini....etc. were socialists and look how things turned out under their leadership. Socialism is about govermental control. It really doesn't need a strict definition as we're going to witness it first hand in the next few years. Socialism is bad, or perhaps you can demonstrate how it's good. There is nothing " fuzzy" about anything I'm saying. What is fuzzy is that you haven't told everyone here how Obama's stimulus package is going to save us.

[GrimJack]

@GreenBack - The previous thread was closed and I was unable to respond - sorry but whining about my ignoring you is classic mis-direction.

I do not care that you have not doubts. You can not define any of the terms that you throw around so this is not surprise.

I have not yet even started to defend anybody or anything - I am waiting for you to define your terms so that I know how to talk to you. Your idea of 'socialism' is so completely undefined that you are able to see socialism in everything, everywhere.

Prove to me that you think; define your terms. In order for me to be able to explain something to you, you first have to open to the explanation. Just as in science - a theory, hypothesis, central thesis has to be falsifiable, if there is nothing that I can say that will convince you of anything, why should I waste my time?

Tell me what you think a liberal is
Tell me what you think a conservative is
Tell me what you think a socialist is
Tell me what you think you are.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

@GreenBack - The previous thread was closed and I was unable to respond - sorry but whining about my ignoring you is classic mis-direction.

I do not care that you have not doubts. You can not define any of the terms that you throw around so this is not surprise.

I have not yet even started to defend anybody or anything - I am waiting for you to define your terms so that I know how to talk to you. Your idea of 'socialism' is so completely undefined that you are able to see socialism in everything, everywhere.

Prove to me that you think; define your terms. In order for me to be able to explain something to you, you first have to open to the explanation. Just as in science - a theory, hypothesis, central thesis has to be falsifiable, if there is nothing that I can say that will convince you of anything, why should I waste my time?
Tell me what you think a liberal is
Tell me what you think a conservative is
Tell me what you think a socialist is
Tell me what you think you are.

A socialist is for gov't control. I am the complete opposite of this. What else do you need to know. I'll ask again since you started this thread; What is in the stimulus package that is going to get the economy going again?

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I know the definition of socialism. Hitler,Stalin,Castro,musselini....etc. we're socialists and look how things turned out under their leadership. Socialism is about govermental control. It really doesn't need a strict definition as we're going to witness it first hand in the next few years. Socialism is bad, or perhaps you can demonstrate how it's good. There is nothing " fuzzy" about anything I'm saying. What is fuzzy is that you haven't told everyone here how Obama's stimulus package is going to save us.

Ah, now I see why they closed the last thread!

You are completely incoherent - you have a minimal grasp concepts. Wow, you can't define one single concept in your tight little world and think there is nothing fuzzy about what you say.

You do not need strict definitions because you have no idea how to use them.
I am aghast!
I have never run into anyone who is so completely unable to string 2 thoughts together into a coherent whole.

You do not even know the differences between Hitler, Stalin, Castro, musselini.

Hey, mod -- when you get tired of this, go ahead and close it. - I am not going to respond to this whack job any more, and if no one else is interested this discussion, well - no loss.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

Ah, now I see why they closed the last thread!

You are completely incoherent - you have a minimal grasp concepts. Wow, you can't define one single concept in your tight little world and think there is nothing fuzzy about what you say.

You do not need strict definitions because you have no idea how to use them.
I am aghast!
I have never run into anyone who is so completely unable to string 2 thoughts together into a coherent whole.

You do not even know the differences between Hitler, Stalin, Castro, musselini.

Hey, mod -- when you get tired of this, go ahead and close it. - I am not going to respond to this whack job any more, and if no one else is interested this discussion, well - no loss.

You must be on dope.

[adam_c]

Originally Posted by sweeps

I'm puzzled by this. If you don't know what's in the bill, and they don't know what's in the bill, how could you have respect for someone voting against (or for) it?

If a young man you had never met came to your door and asked to marry your daughter, would it seem more prudent to say yes or no based on your lack of knowledge?

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by adam_c

If a young man you had never met came to your door and asked to marry your daughter, would it seem more prudent to say yes or no based on your lack of knowledge?

That was a ridiculous analogy.

Back to the OP -- I don't have respect for people who choose political motive over national success. Certain members of Congress who are under the leadership of a certain radio talk show host are doing everything they can to try to make this president (and ultimately this country) fail. That is dishonorable.

[adam_c]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

What is it exactly you want pointed out to you? In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others. All political and economic systems facilitate the transfer of wealth, including capitalism, communism and socialism; however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system.

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Liberalism - In modern times, a political philosophy that advocates greater public support, defense, regulation and promotion of the private sector.

Capitalism - An economic system in which private individuals or corporations own and invest in the means of production.

The far right promotes the myth that Liberalism = Socialism = Big Government; attempts to take the center and then claim everything left of them is socialist or communist. I understand that no one has actually asked you for a definition of any of your terms before but really "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it" is not a very nuanced position to take.

I am not sure why you mention Hitler and Stalin other than to imply that is what you mean but are being too kind to bring it up. You keep on about 'classic socialism' and you do not even know what you are talking about. You seem to have some sort of fuzzy, indefinable idea of what you mean but are unable to make it understandable other than 'he is a bad man, socialism is bad, he might be a dictator'.

Then you create your own word 'obamacrat' and pretend that it means something. You seem to string a series logical fallacies together and consider it a serious discussion.

GreenJack, I'll be happy to have this conversation with you, but since it will most likely end up a political debate rather than a financial one, we may be in the wrong place.

A little more humor before we begin;
From "Cows and Politics"

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.


I have a couple of question for you. I'm curious about something. You use the terms transfer of wealth and redistribution as if they are interchangeable. Is that your position? Is forced confiscation of my tax dollars morally equivalent of my choosing to invest in the stock market?

You use the term "far right". Could you define that for me please? Also, could you define the term "far left". Feel free to reference specific individuals if necessary.

We can discuss this as long as you want if we can keep it on a financial level, otherwise, I would feel like we are out of place here.

Thanks,
Adam C

ps. Have you read the full bill?

[adam_c]

Originally Posted by sweeps

That was a ridiculous analogy.

Back to the OP -- I don't have respect for people who choose political motive over national success. Certain members of Congress who are under the leadership of a certain radio talk show host are doing everything they can to try to make this president (and ultimately this country) fail. That is dishonorable.

I don't think it is a ridiculous analogy at all. You asked why I would respect someone who voted no on something they didn't understand. I default to the premise of "if in doubt, don't". Especially when it comes to government and our tax dollars.

You have an interesting opinion. I'm very much aware of "a certain radio talk show host" and after watching the previous 8 years of Republic control of the government and the last election cycle, I can find very little evidence that he holds any sway over Republican members of congress.

Side note. Why do the Democrats need Republicans to vote for this if they have enough votes to pass it?

As for dishonorable, when the stock market has dropped nearly 40% in the last six months, it is bordering on dishonorable for the new president to say, "You can't look at the stock market as a barometer of the success or failure of our economic policy". But if that statement made you feel encouraged about the future, I would very sincerely like to here why.