all we here is the recessions over and 3% growth next year. they say employment to come back in 2010 and most of the stimulus money has not been spend yet here obama wants to spend $200 bil more. i just am not udnerstanding why he can't stop spending money he doesn't have. this makes me sicker ever day
Saw this after reading your post. <object height="290" width="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="TBIPlayer"><param value="http://cdn.livestream.com/events/businessinsider/TBIPlayer.swf" name="movie"/><param value="true" name="allowFullScreen"/><param value="transparent" name="wmode"/><param value="channel=tbilive&autoPlay=false&clipID=flv_c4fe5c12-a9a6-4070-a277-f27e24125811" name="flashvars"/> <embed height="290" width="400" wmode="transparent" flashvars="channel=tbilive&autoPlay=false&clipID=flv_c4fe5c12-a9a6-4070-a277-f27e24125811" bgcolor="#ffffff" allowfullscreen="true" name="twitcamPlayer" src="http://cdn.livestream.com/events/businessinsider/TBIPlayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"/></object>
You only know that they spent what they claim to have spent because that is what they told you. We all know that the big boys lie to us day in and day out and yet we believe what they say because it is on TV and the newspapers which just so happen to be controlled by them. With every move they rob you of more of your rights and more of your wealth and then put all the pieces back together again so that they can conjure up the fear and pain required to do it all over again. "...and then put all the pieces back together again..." This too shall end
The problem is these people making these claims are COMPLETELY ignoring the huge debt. So long as the debt goes unpaid these profits and projections of everyone getting out of the recession are a load of bollocks.
Err First, you don't identify what proposal you are talking about, but if it is the jobs initiative, he is going to use already appropriated TARP funds, not adding to the deficit. Second just a question: How did you feel about Republican Administrations, Reagen and Bush I and II siphoning money out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy then putting forward the canard that Social Secrutiy which people pay 6.5% of their income into. (13% if you take into account both sides) is in trouble ?, not that they raided the piggy bank to give people who made over 200K a tax break while increasing the total state, local, SS, Medicare, and federal tax burden on those who make less than 200K? REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY RAIDED SOCIAL SECURITY to pay for tax cuts, wars and crony capitalism. How do you feel about that?
As paranoid as it sounds, I happen to agree. During Reagen Administration McDonnell Douglas was surprised to find out that they were supposed to have gotten something like 250 million for the YF-12 when they had only been paid something like 50 million. The government wanted money back that Douglas had never received. I personally have seen several examples where we were doing all the work listed in the appropriation, and yet were getting less than 1/5th of the money. We all just assumed that there was another project going on somewhere else that was beyond our clearance level. God only know how much has disappeared down the Black Hole. But if you want to see where the Stimulus ie the ARRA is being spent, you can go to http://www.recovery.gov
And Still too little too late. For comparison Reagan's recovery package in 1982 was 1.5 Trillion in current dollars. and this. Tuesday, December 08, 2009 The President's Job's Initiative Doesn't Measure Up Barack Obama is trying once again for balance. On the one hand, he wants enough government spending to offset the timid spending of consumers and businesses. Otherwise, the jobs and wage recession could drag on for years. On the other hand, he doesn't want to set off more alarm bells about the budget deficit. Otherwise, conservative Democrats might join forces with Republicans to block heath care. So what does he do? A little bit more stimulus spending, but stimulus spending that doesn't look like more stimulus because it's not really adding to the deficit. It's coming out of savings from money already authorized to be spent on the bank bailout. Hmmm? No president in modern times walks a tightrope as exquisitely as this one. His balance is a thing of beauty. But when it comes to this economy right now -- an economy fundamentally out of balance -- we need a federal government that moves boldly and swiftly to counter-balance the huge recessionary forces still at large. States and cities, for example, are estimated to be $350 billion hole this year and next. They can't run deficits so they're wildly cutting spending, cutting jobs, cutting contracts, and raising taxes and fees. That's a huge anti-stimulus package roughly as big as the remaining direct spending in the old federal stimulus package. Which means, Obama's "new" stimulus, announced today, is about all we have, and it's not nearly enough. The word in Washington is we're out of the woods. The rate of unemployment dipped from 10.2 percent in September to 10 percent in October. In our nation's capital, a one-month trend marks a turnaround. Don't believe it for a moment. The real story of October was the increasing number of Americans who dropped out of the labor force, too discouraged even to look for work. Main Street is hurting worse than ever. Ten percent unemployment translates into roughly 18 percent of our workforce unemployed or underemployed. Housing markets are in terrible shape: One quarter of homeowners are paying more each month than their houses are worth; the rates of tardy mortgage payments continue to rise. Thirty percent of American households contain someone who has lost a job and can't find another, and yet almost all households are dependent on more than one wage earner in order to make ends meet. A quarter of all American children are now dependent on food stamps. There is no reason to tolerate this degree of misery. We know exactly what to do. The government has the fiscal tools to do it. Start by bailing out state and local governments (if Congress would prefer to call it a loan and require payback over the next five years, fine). Renew unemployment and COBRA benefits. Increase federal spending on infrastructure. If we have to, hire people directly. The package should be $400 billion over two years. We don't know exactly how much the President is proposing to spend, but sources tell me it's in the range of $70 billion, redirected from the $200 billion in TARP savings. The President's small, calibrated attempt to balance a stimulus with deficit reduction will in fact make the deficit worse over the long haul. It postpones the day when we're back to near full employment, when almost all Americans who need a job get paychecks on which they pay taxes. This isn't really balance at all. It prolongs the economic imbalance. posted by Robert Reich | 8:12 AM http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/12/presidents-jobs-initiative-doesnt.html
"There [is a measure] which if not taken we are undone...[It is] to cease borrowing money and to pay off the national debt. If this cannot be done without dismissing the army and putting the ships out of commission, haul them up high and dry and reduce the army to the lowest point at which it was ever established. There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:193 "To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39 "No earthly consideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt as England has by her wars for commerce, to reduce our citizens by taxes to such wretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, they are still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as much oatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body together. And all this to feed the avidity of a few millionary merchants and to keep up one thousand ships of war for the protection of their commercial speculations." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:29 "Our distance from the wars of Europe, and our disposition to take no part in them, will, we hope, enable us to keep clear of the debts which they occasion to other powers." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1790. ME 8:47
Written nearly 200 years ago, and still spot-on, sadly. However, you see, the people in charge currently DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR OUR AMERICAN NATION... they only care about their own short-term greed and agenda... AND ARE WILLING TO DESTROY ALL OF US TO GET WHAT THEY WANT..
Er Have you ANY idea what the unreasonable searches and censures in colonial America were all about?? You HAVE to be talking about Republicans aren't you? The party that goes to war, cuts taxes and takes it out of social security??? Look at the deficits and which party ran them. Then make a graph of the top marginal tax rate vs the growth of the GDP in that year. Funny that years of low marginal tax rates have and are followed by low GDP growth, and years of high marginal tax rates (70% plus) have high GDP growth. Cause the trickle down doesn't. Small and medium size business always has done better under Democrats. Under Carter I had to deal with an EPA clown that said that diesel engines were an inherently evil technology;under Reagen I had to endure a hostile takeover and failure of the savings and loans. I would take the EPA brat any day of the week, cause he had a boss who would listen to an engineering case. R don't care about that, they will just reduce the enforcement standards to so that their buddies don't suffer even if their tech sucks. Like the TARP heist, the Rs are great at rewarding failure. And We have a National Debt, have had it for a while, and we are still here, not that I at all like it that the United States has to borrow money it prints from the Federal Reserve at interest to expand the money supply, so the National Dept is a permanent artifact of this scheme.