Stimulus Bill: Explained

[ExRoadie]

I stayed away from this thread while it was a hot topic since everyone was doing such a wonderful job of entertaining me and I didn't want to ruin anyone's fun.

 

Way back on November 6th, 2008, I made a series of three predictions.

http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.p...t&p=1601053

 

Let's see what I've gotten right and wrong in my prediction only two months into the new Administration.

 

One has already come true as evidenced by the media coverage of the so called Stimulus Package.

 

If you aren't completely behind the President and "Stimulus Package" you're considered an obstructionist and being cast about as a crazy in the media as well as by the Internet crazies just as I predicted. If it had been a "true" stimulus package much more than only $30 Billion would have gone to infrastructure and most of it would have been spent in the next two years. Some of the funds won't come available until just before the next presidential election. Go figure!

 

On another point I was only partially right. The Democrats didn't change the rules but used their position to stifle debate on one of the most important pieces of Legislation since the Patriot Act.

 

Can anyone tell me why the House of Representatives had such a short period of time to vote on the "Stimulus Package"? It wasn't that the President had to sign the Bill into law immediately since he waited four days before taking action. It was because Nancy Pelosi had to leave for her European trip. The biggest spending Bill in U.S. history and we had to pass it in 24 hours because a member of the House was going on vacation. Remarkable!

 

And last but not least the "Fairness Doctrine". Well, that certainly didn't take long. The Speaker of the House has publicly stated that she's for the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" in multiple media reports. Senator Dick Durbin and John Kerry have stated their support for the return along with Jeff Bingaman, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin. Even former President Bill Clinton has chimed in with his support for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine".

 

Let's not forget what suchuwato said in his reply to my post...

http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.p...t&p=1601054

 

Sometimes it sucks to be so right.

[Kingfisher]

Well ok you are right but I'd rather you had been wrong and things would look better for our near future.

 

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading that tirade, especially about how the government should pay our way through college. I can just see Universities filled with people like hojin walking around with no respect for anything because it was all given to them. Nice.

[LoArmistead]

Sometimes it sucks to be so right.

 

 

It does, doesn't it? Funny how the very people who suppoted these folks were coming up saying these things would never happen. They are happening, and they will continue to happen. But, you get what you vote for. We're getting it, and I'm just happily along for the ride; we are the ones who get to have the luxury of being right as we circle the drain. The other folks who had no clue what they were voting for will be the ones crying, "What the hell happened, and why isn't the government here to stop it!? "

 

WHERE IT DUH GUB'MENT!??!?

 

On the flipside, how much different would it be right now if McCain had won? The social agenda might be off by a little, but we probably wouldn't be in a much better position economically. The supermajority leftist congress would never extend the Bush tax cuts or cut us from the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. So, no matter which way the election went, we're screwed, but at least we get screwed faster under Obama rather than dragging the process out under McCain.

Edited March 11, 2009 by LoArmistead

[LoArmistead]

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading that tirade, especially about how the government should pay our way through college. I can just see Universities filled with people like hojin walking around with no respect for anything because it was all given to them. Nice.

 

Pride of ownership isn't just an economic phenomenon. It's real. No one, no one spends a man's money better than he spends his own.

 

We as a society also need to come to the realization that everyone isn't meant to go to college. Some people just aren't made for it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but we can't be enticing people to go to school when they shouldn't be. The fastest way to lower "the rising cost of education" is to streamline the market for it, e.g. put less public money into it. It's simple supply and demand, and the inefficiencies created by government intrusion in a perfectly competitive market artificially inflate the price of education. It's foolish to think that putting more public funds, transferring more money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven't, will reduce real costs in any way. The only way it is possible to lower costs using that method is to, like a nationalized health care system, place the burden of the costs onto other people, in this case the wealthy. They are being forced to invest their hard earned money into the educational future of an individual who may very well be worthless. The federal government is forcing a person to make an investment into an entity that he may not wish to risk putting his own money into. What's the college dropout rate? I know a few years ago is was almost 45% - that's like the government coming up to you, and under threat of incarceration, forcing you to underwrite the adjustable rate, subprime mortgages of minorities looking to buy a house... oh wait they've already done that! If that isn't inefficient I don't know what is.

Edited March 11, 2009 by LoArmistead