Obama's new plan

[timesjoke]

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama unveiled an economic stimulus plan sunday that he said would provide tax relief for middle income families and help jump start an economy he said was showing signs of slowing.The plan, which would immediately inject $75 billion into the economy and retain $45 billion in reserve to be used over the next three months if necessary, was presented Sunday by Obama advisers Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, former Clinton Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, and economic adviser Austan Goolsbee.

 

The plan, they said, is one Obama would not only enact if elected, but one he is asking Congress and the president to pass now.

 

Obama?s plan would provide immediate tax relief and help offset a coming economic slowdown being signaled, he believes, by the recent .3 percent jump in unemployment rates, advisers to the campaign said Sunday.

 

Obama supporter Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia said the plan addresses both long-term growth and immediate concerns, and shows Obama understands the importance of education, technology, and a thriving small business sector.

 

The main difference between Obama?s plan and that being offered by his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is that Clinton?s plan would not be able to kick in immediately.

 

Obama?s stimulus plan has four components to prevent recession:

 

1.Cut $250 checks for some 150 million low and middle income workers and send them out. If needed, send out an additional $250 per worker, totaling $500 for these workers

 

2.Likewise, send $250 to seniors earning under $50,000 as a Social Security supplement, and and prepared to send out a second $250 payment

 

3.Establish a $10 billion fund to help ?responsible? families avoid foreclosure. The money would be given to homeowners who did not lie about their incomes and were ?mindful of personal responsibility.?

 

4.Provides money to state and local governments hardest hit by housing crisis to prevent them from slashing infrastructure and other important state spending

 

5. Expand unemployment insurance

 

Asked how Obama would pay for the package, Goolsbee said the point was to get the money immediately into the economy, and that while it could increase the deficit in the immediate term, macro macro economic experts agreed it would prevent a costly recession in the long-term.

 

The advisers said the $45 billion reserve could be used to offset the possible effects high oil prices could have on the proposed breaks.

 

This just kills me.

 

How do you make things better by sending everyone $500?

 

Will $500 make or break any families budget?

 

No.

 

So why tell the voters that he is going to send all the poor people a $500 check for free?

 

To buy votes, that's why.

 

Why is it the liberals are always talking about what they are going to give away for free and never have a real answer for how they are going to pay for what they promise??

[hugo]

This just kills me.

 

 

Why is it the liberals are always talking about what they are going to give away for free and never have a real answer for how they are going to pay for what they promise??

 

Why is it conservatives never cut spending and increase deficits? What happened to Barry Goldwater type conservatism?

[timesjoke]

Why is it conservatives never cut spending and increase deficits? What happened to Barry Goldwater type conservatism?

 

 

Most of the time they do but once in awile things come along that even the most fiscally wise person is forced to spend more then he wanted to.

 

After 9/11 and the following changes that America faced, we would have very increased spending no matter who was the President.

 

 

The problem I am pointing out is one a conservative would never do.

 

Clearly there are degrees to anything, and clearly a Presidential hopeful promising to cut $500 checks for the poor is intended only to get votes, nothing else. He is saying, hey, if you vote for me I will give you free money to pay you for your vote.

 

Hillary is doing the same thing, she has promised a $5,000 savings bond to every new baby born in America, to include illegal aliens who come here to have their baby. Why do both of the frontrunners for the most powerful political possition in America both feel they have to buy votes?

 

Surely you can see that looks bad

 

 

What ever happened to Liberals like John F. Kennedy?

 

Quotes:

 

--A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.

 

--And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

 

--As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.

 

--The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.

 

--The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

 

(Interesting that both of the frontrunners for the democratic nomination both promise to heavily tax capital gains, too bad the lessons of John F. Kennedy is lost on them.)

 

.

[snafu]

It sounds like a half ass plan to me. Who dose he consider low and middle income people? Dose the president have the authority to dole out money like that without Senate approval? And sure it will stimulate the economy for a short time but how is it gonna prevent a long term rescission? Am I missing something?

 

Hugo (teach), can you explain this to us. Your wisdom would be appreciated.

[ImWithStupid]

And sure it will stimulate the economy for a short time but how is it gonna prevent a long term rescission?

 

It isn't intended to. This is the same old playbook used by liberals for decades. Buying the votes of the poor by promising to give them free money or stuff.

[hugo]

The major "accomplishments" of the Bush era extending the federal government's involvement in health and education.

[timesjoke]

The major "accomplishments" of the Bush era extending the federal government's involvement in health and education.

 

And this has what to do with Obama and Clinton buying votes with taxpayer money?

 

 

Liberal game plan:

Promise to increase taxes on the rich and give part of it to the "poor".

 

 

Otherwise known as the Robin Hood strategy.

[wez]

The major "accomplishments" of the Bush era extending the federal government's involvement in health and education.

 

 

Don't forget, he used this as well, the "tax rebate" sometime between the 00' and 04' election.. I got a check for 300$ as did everyone.. Some got more maybe.

 

Summer right before the attack, I believe.. 01'..

[hugo]

Don't forget, he used this as well, the "tax rebate" sometime between the 00' and 04' election.. I got a check for 300$ as did everyone.. Some got more maybe.

 

Summer right before the attack, I believe.. 01'..

 

Exactly, it was 2001 when Bush enacted a plan similar to Obama's.

[eddo]

Exactly, it was 2001 when Bush enacted a plan similar to Obama's.

 

you mean, right after he took office?

 

isn't that a bit different than doing it before you take office?

[ImWithStupid]

Exactly, it was 2001 when Bush enacted a plan similar to Obama's.

 

That wouldn't be for votes at that time though. Not saying that I'm a big W fan or anything, but if you do it in the first year of your four year term it isn't a bribe, it's a thank you.

[timesjoke]

Exactly, it was 2001 when Bush enacted a plan similar to Obama's.

 

The differance between what "Bush did and what both the lead liberals are doing is quite simple.

 

Bush gave people their own money back, some of that money was given quickly to be true, but it was still "their" tax return, "their" money. Bush had a complete tax cut "plan", the details were well defined.

 

 

 

What the liberals are promising is to take money out of thin air, and just write checks without any plan to pay for the checks other than to promise increased taxes on the rich.

 

Great plan right?

 

Like I said, Robin Hood.

[Anna Perenna]

Why is it conservatives never cut spending and increase deficits? What happened to Barry Goldwater type conservatism?

 

This is a great question, I actually think we should start a thread about it.

 

In the meantime, I suppose that's why today's conservatives are called neo-cons - because they aren't abiding by the original 'guidelines'.

[Anna Perenna]

That wouldn't be for votes at that time though. Not saying that I'm a big W fan or anything, but if you do it in the first year of your four year term it isn't a bribe, it's a thank you.

 

I think Hugo and Wez were pointing out that this kind of plan is not a typical 'liberal' thing - as a couple of people have claimed in this thread.

[ImWithStupid]

I think Hugo and Wez were pointing out that this kind of plan is not a typical 'liberal' thing - as a couple of people have claimed in this thread.

I was pointing out that there is a difference in what W did and what the liberals always do. Every election year the liberals promise to give the poor free stuff and take it out of the wealthy peoples taxes. It's a way to buy votes, using someone else's money. There's a lot more poor people than rich people, and their votes count the same in a primary election. When W did it, he had three more years before the next election, so it wasn't likely an attempt to buy votes.

 

TJ already did a good job of saying this but I know you can't see his post.

[snafu]

Bush gave a tax cut. McCain's stance is to leave this in place. I'm pretty sure the democratic nominees want to abolish the tax break.

[timesjoke]

Bush gave a tax cut. McCain's stance is to leave this in place. I'm pretty sure the democratic nominees want to abolish the tax break.

 

 

Both Clinton and Obama promise to remove the tax breaks and increase taxes on things like capital gains.

[Anna Perenna]

I was pointing out that there is a difference in what W did and what the liberals always do. Every election year the liberals promise to give the poor free stuff and take it out of the wealthy peoples taxes. It's a way to buy votes, using someone else's money. There's a lot more poor people than rich people, and their votes count the same in a primary election. When W did it, he had three more years before the next election, so it wasn't likely an attempt to buy votes.

 

TJ already did a good job of saying this but I know you can't see his post.

 

Actually, I can read his posts when I am not logged in. I did check his posts in this thread, because he started it. All I read was the same old fruitless and pointless liberal bashing that I read all the time from him. Yawn.

 

As for the distinction between buying votes and thanking the masses - why does the motive really matter? The result is the same - economic mismanagement disguised as a token gift.

 

On that note, my issue with this isn't that Obama wants to buy votes - it's that $250 isn't going to help anyone in the long run. How degrading. Also, how boring.

 

I'm much more interested in Ron Paul calling to abolish the Federal Reserve. Now, there's a debate topic.

 

Bush gave a tax cut. McCain's stance is to leave this in place. I'm pretty sure the democratic nominees want to abolish the tax break.

 

Following that line of thought....

 

Hillary Clinton (a liberal democrat) wants to 'lower taxes on middle class families' but along with that, she wants to:

 

Return to fiscal responsibility. After six and a half year of President Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, Hillary wants America to regain control of its destiny. She will move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses. Hillary believes that we should develop a set of budget rules similar to those we had in the 90s which required us to fund new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas.

 

That sound fairly conservative to me.

[ImWithStupid]

Actually, I can read his posts when I am not logged in. I did check his posts in this thread, because he started it. All I read was the same old fruitless and pointless liberal bashing that I read all the time from him. Yawn.

 

As for the distinction between buying votes and thanking the masses - why does the motive really matter? The result is the same - economic mismanagement disguised as a token gift.

 

The difference is one is an attempt to buy votes to get elected on false pretenses, the other is a misguided attempt to pump up the economy. The effect on the economy was nil. As for anyone in this country remembering three years later that they got a tax break from anyone, it's not likely. Most of the people in this country have very short term memories. If they didn't, Hillary, the schemer, would never have been elected Senator of New York, let alone a legitimate candidate for President.

 

She did more underhanded tactics against anyone who opposed them under her husbands office, than any First Lady (and I use that term lightly) in history.

[Anna Perenna]

The difference is one is an attempt to buy votes to get elected on false pretenses, the other is a misguided attempt to pump up the economy.

 

But what are the false pretences here?

 

Besides, it could be argued that every political campaign in history was conducted under false pretences.

 

I suppose I just don't understand the outrage brought about by this - as you just pointed out, harmless - political ploy.

 

Is anyone interested in debating Ron Paul's suggestion to abolish the Federal Reserve?

[ImWithStupid]

But what are the false pretences here?

 

Besides, it could be argued that every political campaign in history was conducted under false pretences.

 

I suppose I just don't understand the outrage brought about by this - as you just pointed out, harmless - political ploy.

 

Is anyone interested in debating Ron Paul's suggestion to abolish the Federal Reserve?

 

First of all, Ron Paul is a complete moron. As for the false pretenses, the liberals might as well be standing outside the polling stations handing out $100 bills if they vote for them.

[timesjoke]

The difference is one is an attempt to buy votes to get elected on false pretenses, the other is a misguided attempt to pump up the economy. The effect on the economy was nil. As for anyone in this country remembering three years later that they got a tax break from anyone, it's not likely. Most of the people in this country have very short term memories. If they didn't, Hillary, the schemer, would never have been elected Senator of New York, let alone a legitimate candidate for President.

 

She did more underhanded tactics against anyone who opposed them under her husbands office, than any First Lady (and I use that term lightly) in history.

 

Put simply, liberals feel any misrepresentation is perfectly fine, the ends justifies the means.

 

Clearly, telling voters ahead of time that if they vote for them they will get a check is buying votes and giving money "back" to voters after an election is not.

 

 

Anna is a prime example of how liberals pretend to not know what we are talking about so they don't hve to face the issue, too bad too because consider how much we could accomplish if we stopped hiding behind feigned lack of understanding.

 

 

Do all politicians play games during elections? They sure do. But, only the liberals are openly, and proudly buying their votes.

 

 

I think it is funny she attacks me saying I am still messing with Wez (I wasn't, I only made one goodby comment) but she has made several personal attacks on me, two faced?

[Anna Perenna]

First of all, Ron Paul is a complete moron.

 

LOL!

 

Ok. I don't actually have an argument either way - I'm still reading up on the subject and trying to figure out whether or not he's a) even serious and b) crazy

 

As for the false pretenses, the liberals might as well be standing outside the polling stations handing out $100 bills if they vote for them.

 

Ok, how about instead of saying "the liberals", you simply say "Obama". It would be a more accurate statement.

 

And the action you described is a ploy, not a pretense. That was kind of my point.

[wez]

Hahahaha.. I don't think Ron paul is a moron at all.. Might even be the best guy out there. He has no chance though. People are afraid to change.

[ImWithStupid]

Put simply, liberals feel any misrepresentation is perfectly fine, the ends justifies the means.

 

Clearly, telling voters ahead of time that if they vote for them they will get a check is buying votes and giving money "back" to voters after an election is not.

 

 

Anna is a prime example of how liberals pretend to not know what we are talking about so they don't hve to face the issue, too bad too because consider how much we could accomplish if we stopped hiding behind feigned lack of understanding.

 

One problem is when we use the term "liberal". From what I have learned from discussions with both Anna and Builder on GF, in Australia these terms mean completely different things.

Do all politicians play games during elections? They sure do. But, only the liberals are openly, and proudly buying their votes.

 

 

I think it is funny she attacks me saying I am still messing with Wez (I wasn't, I only made one goodby comment) but she has made several personal attacks on me, two faced?

 

Can we all please just let the whole you vs. wez thing go. Both Anna and wez have blocked you. I also know both read all the post by looking around here as guests. (I've seen both their IP addresses under guests) Let's just let it go and move on.

 

This isn't against just you, TJ, as I know both Anna and wez will see this.