Another government Stimulas package

[Dphins4me]

I guess you could consider taxes "borrowing," but "borrowing" implies that you intend to repay it.

  I guess we can count on the US Gov to repay. 

What is our national debt now?  When do they plan on actually repaying it?

Is that why Social Security is full of IOUs & why they are telling us SS is about bankrupt?

Doesn't this stimulus plan have a $275B tax relief plan in it?

  Supposedly.

And again, said ATV trails comprise comprise 0.003% (that's three-thousandths of ONE PERCENT) of the package.

The purpose of spending 50 million on them is what?  Its 50 million we do not have to spend. 

When the opponents spend such a large amount of time heavily criticizing less than one percent of the bill, it kind of makes you wonder why they are avoiding the rest of the bill.

  I'm not criticizing the one percent of the bill.  I'm criticizing pretty much the whole dang bill.

Plus its only one percent because the bills size.

Huh?  I'm arguing against the supply-sider libertarian mentality... the one that proposes that we cut taxes to those that are the most well-off in order to benefit everyone else.  This argument predates Obama by many decades.

  This reply has nothing to do with the question(s) quoted.   

I said cut taxes & you go to the wealthy.  No one brought the wealthy into this but you..

Everyone needs a tax cut.  Everyone.

[Dphins4me]

.64% of the $816B making its way into the economy in the first 19 months[/url].

  Its still money we do not have to spend.   Plain & simple.

[Phishfan]

     If you think this stimulus plan is going to put people back to work anytime soon, then do a little research & stop with the little soundbites that do nothing but try to take the topic off on a tangent. 

The package has very little to do with stimulating the economy. 

You are so full of it. Did I say the stimulus package was putting anyone back to work anytime soon? Please find where I said that and point it out to me. How do you figure I am going on a tangent? We get it, you don't like government spending. The problem is no one is going to be doing anything to help the economy without government assistance. The people who are poor need help. The people who aren't ppor are afraid to spend for fear that they will soon be in the poor category. If people with money aren't spending and people without money cannot spend that only leaves one group to spend, the government. Like it or hate it it is going to be done. If it is going to be done we need to hope it works.

[Dphins4me]

Northern Maine - used as one example of one little state - pulls in 300 million dollars to Maine's economy in the SNOWMOBILE SEASON ALONE.  Do you think people randomly go out and cut their own trails?  That isn't how it works.

  Not knocking you Maine, because you are just stating the facts on this.  Thanks BTW.

My question is citizens who do not have jobs will still have the money to go do this?

[Dphins4me]

You are so full of it. Did I say the stimulus package was putting anyone back to work anytime soon? Please find where I said that and point it out to me.

  To be honest I was not sure what you were trying to say.

How do you figure I am going on a tangent?

Just for giggles post ring a bell?   Once you lose your job you technically are No Income so let's split hairs post ring a bell?

What was the point of those post?

We get it, you don't like government spending. The problem is no one is going to be doing anything to help the economy without government assistance. The people who are poor need help. The people who aren't ppor are afraid to spend for fear that they will soon be in the poor category. If people with money aren't spending and people without money cannot spend that only leaves one group to spend, the government. Like it or hate it it is going to be done. If it is going to be done we need to hope it works.

   No, I do not think you get it.   If you did then you would see what path they are taking us down.  Its the wrong path.

  Which is why I said tax cut is the only way to go.  More money in everyone's pocket will increase spending.  Americans spend.  Prove fact. Put more money in their pocket & they will again.

This is why there is so much BS in this package.  Its not to stimulate the economy.  Its to push things they want to do.  Emanuel blatantly said it, but no one seems to care..

[MaineDolFan]

  Not knocking you Maine, because you are just stating the facts on this.  Thanks BTW.

My question is citizens who do not have jobs will still have the money to go do this?

I think that any activity suffers in a down economy, I also think that people that love to do these activities still do them.  Judging by the trailers packed with snowmobiles that pass me on the interstate heading north every weekend, people are still partaking.  I'm sure it suffers, it can't be cheap to do.

But I also know that something that brings 300 million into a state can't be ignored - and that is just Maine.  And that's just for the snowmobile season which is basically from January to March.  That's huge.  I think about states that are more populated and have winter based activites and imagine that if Maine has that infusion based on these trails, what about Michigan?  Ohio?  States that border Canada?

A lot of people and resources are needed to keep the trails up, which means money needs to come in.  In a lot of cases riders do things themselves out of pocket for the love of their sport.  It's spending money to make money.  In this case it's not a "throw away" what so ever. 

I remember a couple years ago when Maine had a freak winter - barely any snow (literally).  The northern part of the state went into a two year recession based on that one winter that they just started to dig out of last year.  A couple towns in northern Maine rely on good winters to fund their entire town budgets.

Basically my long winded rant is this:  I think rather than pointing at something like ATV Trail funding, laughing and saying "this isn't real" think about the real life implications that things like that have to states.  It's the act locally, think globally approach. 

[Spider-Dan]

Which is why I said tax cut is the only way to go.  More money in everyone's pocket will increase spending.

And how will "more money in everyone's pocket" increase spending more than taking money out of their pocket and spending it?

You're trying to throw up a smokescreen here.  If the issue was really getting more dollars into the economy, why are you complaining about an bill that's creating $820B in spending?  The only logical complaint you should have is that it's not spending fast enough.

We've already been over this in another thread.  You need to divorce your opposition to taxes from your stated objective of creating spending.  They are not linked.

[Phishfan]

   Just for giggles post ring a bell?   Once you lose your job you technically are No Income so let's split hairs post ring a bell?

What was the point of those post?
   

To respond to your dribble.

[Dphins4me]

And how will "more money in everyone's pocket" increase spending more than taking money out of their pocket and spending it?

  For one, its money already earned.  This money is from the future.  Its basically more credit, more debt.   Take a look around we are already in debt up to our eyes & about to go further.   As I pointed out earlier.  China would not buy are debt.  That is bad.

Why is not allowing the citizen who earn the money the right to spend it? Because they are the ones that worked for it.  Not Bush.  Not Obama.  Not anyone but yourself & people like you. You take $100 away from someone then they not only do not have that $100 to spend, but then will cut back more on discretionary spending to make up for the $100 lost in taxes.

You're trying to throw up a smokescreen here.  If the issue was really getting more dollars into the economy, why are you complaining about an bill that's creating $820B in spending?  The only logical complaint you should have is that it's not spending fast enough.

  The only smokescreen is what is coming out of Wash.  I'm complaining about the bill because all it does in spend even more money the country does not have & increase the arm of Gov. 

For the people, its all the wrong things they should want, but at least American Idol is being watched.

We've already been over this in another thread.  You need to divorce your opposition to taxes from your stated objective of creating spending.  They are not linked.

  Yes, they are linked.    I've already admit that some taxes will create a job, but only takes away form a private sector job. 

Why not just give all our money to the Gov & let them decide where it needs to be spent & give us what they think we need if you think the Gov knows more on how to spend your money then you do. 

You would be in the poor house, if you ran your house like the way the Gov. runs the country.  Spend, spend, spend with total disregard.  We have spent our way into this & by golly we can spend ourselves out of it.

[Dphins4me]

To respond to your dribble.

So basically you just admitted all you had was the attempt to take this topic off on a tangent.  Nice, but yet you acted all upset when I pointed it out. 

Now go watch American Idol since you obviously do not understand the depth of this.

[Phishfan]

I said no such thing. If a response to you is taking something on a tangent then no one can have a discussion with you that stays on topic.

[Spider-Dan]

For one, its money already earned.  This money is from the future.

And yet it spends just as well.  Funny, that.

Why is not allowing the citizen who earn the money the right to spend it? Because they are the ones that worked for it.

Once again: you are trying to confuse the discussion.  Your belief that taxation is inherently unjust has nothing to do with whether or not the stimulus package will work.  Smokescreen.

You take $100 away from someone then they not only do not have that $100 to spend, but then will cut back more on discretionary spending to make up for the $100 lost in taxes.

So essentially, you are saying that (for example) the citizen with the $1000 paycheck will spend $200 (leaving $800 remaining), but the man with the $900 paycheck will only spend, say, $50 (leaving $850 remaining)?

Setting aside the seeming absurdity of this statement, why isn't this a good thing?  Aren't you complaining about the spend-spend-spend mentality as we speak?  Is it not a good idea for him to be saving/investing $850 instead of $800?

[Dphins4me]

And yet it spends just as well.  Funny, that.

  Tongue in cheek I know, but at some point the bill comes due.  Its why we are in the position we are in, because robbing Peter to pay Paul only works for so long.

Once again: you are trying to confuse the discussion.  Your belief that taxation is inherently unjust has nothing to do with whether or not the stimulus package will work.  Smokescreen.

  Once again.  No where in any conversation have I ever said or implied taxation was unjust.  The form of taxation I can give that, but not taxation in itself.

This is why politicians do what they do.  You are more concerned with my beliefs than what is going on.  Focus on them & what they are doing, not I.

So essentially, you are saying that (for example) the citizen with the $1000 paycheck will spend $200 (leaving $800 remaining), but the man with the $900 paycheck will only spend, say, $50 (leaving $850 remaining)?

Setting aside the seeming absurdity of this statement, why isn't this a good thing?  Aren't you complaining about the spend-spend-spend mentality as we speak?  Is it not a good idea for him to be saving/investing $850 instead of $800?

  So we are back to you would rather the Gov. determine where your money goes instead of you.  You work ( I believe ) but yet you would rather someone else decide where that money is spent.  Removing money out of your household, your local economy for items such as The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which in turns provides money for transgenders beauty pageant in San Fran..


Sir that is the most asinine thing one could ever say, that the Gov knows what is best for them..  However, it is what they are wanting.  Citizens to turn all glassy eyed & wait for them to tell them how to live.

You truly have no clue or no desire to know about how they are spending your money & toying with your life.  Our life is only as good as our economy.  One would think it would be important to everyone. 

[Spider-Dan]

Nice try, there... I almost got baited into making a response about whether or not gov't is a good thing.  Almost.

Let me see if I can summarize your position.  Citizen who:

1) does not support taxpayer funding of anything but the barest essentials
2) is philosophically against gov't expansion on general principle

...is against a bill containing a wide-ranging gov't expansion, funded by taxes.  Color me shocked.

Why are you arguing over details like ATV trails and STD prevention when you are fundamentally opposed to the core concepts of the stimulus package to begin with?  This is like a vegan arguing over bacon vs. steak.

[Dphins4me]

Nice try, there... I almost got baited into making a response about whether or not gov't is a good thing.  Almost.

Let me see if I can summarize your position.  Citizen who:

1) does not support taxpayer funding of anything but the barest essentials
2) is philosophically against gov't expansion on general principle

...is against a bill containing a wide-ranging gov't expansion, funded by taxes.

Why are you arguing over details like ATV trails and STD prevention when you are fundamentally opposed to the core concepts of the stimulus package to begin with?  This is like a vegan arguing over bacon vs. steak.

  So you know.  There was no bait in my reply.  I'm not playing games here. Why am I voicing a concern.  Its takes the masses to get Wash. to move.  Not just one person, but if I can enlighten someone enough that they take an interest & research some of this stuff for themselves, to see I'm not blowing smoke on what is being pulled over on us. 

IMO the Fed. Gov has its hands in to many things.  More should be done on the local & state level where your voice carries more weight.

1) Not 100% against it, but against the magnitude of it.  I think our spending has gotten out of hand ( Big time ) Bush was horrible on spending.
2)  Yes. The Fed. Gov is to large.