ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 01:48 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.389 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/17/2009 02:13 PM ID: 77079 Permalink   

29% Of Americans believe Stimulus plan will hurt America

 

New Rasmussen Polls show that 38% of American's approval of the Stimulus, while 29% believe it will hurt America, along with most of the middle class and 24% think it won't do much at all. 50% of Americans believe it is all new government spending.

It also shows that 35% of Americans are less likely to vote for someone who supported the large bill. This comes as consumer confidence has fell to a all time low, and confidence in banks is also falling fast.

The series of polls show that Republicans have gained ground over Democrats, while 50% of Americans think tax cuts are good for the economy and almost half (48%) believe government spending is bad for the economy.

 
  Source: www.rasmussenreports.com  
    WebReporter: cray0la Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  55 Comments
  
  some more interesting polls  
 
Polling last week showed that 67% of Americans trust their own judgment on economic matters more than the trust the average member of Congress. Forty-nine percent (49%) trust their own judgment more than the president’s.

Although Obama is not planning to sign the stimulus bill into law until Tuesday, Democratic congressional leaders rushed through votes in both the House and Senate on Friday, just hours after a compromise measure had been agreed upon. Members of both parties complained that no members of Congress had a chance to read the mega-stimulus package before the votes, but 58% of U.S. voters predicted several days earlier that most members of Congress will not understand what is in the plan before they vote on it.

By a 2-to-1 margin Americans believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress can make them worse.
 
  by: cray0la     02/17/2009 02:14 PM     
  nice realted article  
 
http://news.yahoo.com/...

bill clinton says bills he signed had nothing to do with today...

i disagree
 
  by: zortona   02/17/2009 02:17 PM     
  @zortona  
 
Yes I highly disagree with him as well especially:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/...


Bill Clinton signed policies into law that allowed banks to offer loans to low income people that in turn helped cause the housing bubble.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/17/2009 02:44 PM     
  percentages...  
 
When Bush left office 78% of Americans disapproved of his job as commander in chief. Many of these are the same retarded denizens that voted his dumb ass in office in the first place. So less than a third of the population thinks the stimulus package may hurt America? So what. Obama just started... aren't you willing to give him 8 years to eff up the country before you try to string him up? At LEAST 29% of Americans are complete friggin' idiots anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. Just go back to listening to Rush - I'm sure he's got it all figured out.
 
  by: spiggy   02/17/2009 02:44 PM     
  @spiggy  
 
The whole purpose of idiots like Rush Limbaugh is to keep Americans convinced that there is somehow some big difference between Democrats and Republicans, while both sides takes turns anally raping everyone.

Idiots like you need to realize that big government/spending is bad when Bill Clinton does it, it's bad when George Bush does it, and it's gonna be just as bad when Obama does it.

The only real alternative is small government/spending, and that is the Ron Paul movement, which exists here:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Have a nice day.


 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   02/17/2009 03:07 PM     
  question about the title  
 
why does it read "29% Of Americans believe Stimulus plan will hurt America" and not "38% of American's approval of the Stimulus"?
 
  by: omegaprimus   02/17/2009 03:15 PM     
  @omega  
 
Because no one is objective.

Also, it should read "an all time low" as opposed to "a all time low."
/grammarnazi
 
  by: juicebox   02/17/2009 04:24 PM     
  Wow  
 
50 percent believe it's all new government spending? They are very uninformed.

The bill is around $800 billion or so, and about $275 billion of that is not money to be spent -- it's tax cuts. (http://online.wsj.com/...
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/17/2009 04:39 PM     
  @monkey  
 
Thanks for saving me a few minutes of typing.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     02/17/2009 04:41 PM     
  @Circuit_Monkey  
 
"Idiots like me" remember when we had a BUDGET SURPLUS under Clinton. BUDGET SURPLUS!!!!?!?!?!? What's so idiotic about that? We also had decent foreign relations and weren't the laughing stock of the entire world. In the one day that we voted Obama into office, our world wide credibility skyrocketed - just from that one act. No difference between the parties? I disagree.

I certainly don't think that the dems are without fail, and to a large extent I agree that both parties are pawns to a larger corrupt system. I would have considered voting for Ron Paul if he had ANY EFFING CHANCE of winning the last election. A vote for Ron Paul in the last election was nothing but a WASTED VOTE, which is prolly why yer still so miffed about it. I wasn't going to waste my vote in a historic election just to prove a point, when there was absolutely NO WAY IN HELL Paul was going to win.

Maybe if you guys get your shit together before the next election we'll have something to talk about. Until then, sit back and lets see what Obama has to offer. Maybe he'll be a failure, maybe he'll be one of the best presidents we've ever had. Bush did @$#%-all for 4 years, and then we invited him back for another disastrous 4 more. Obama's been in office for a few weeks and he's actually trying to get some things done. I bet he does more with this money than Bush did by giving it all to defense contractors, waging illegal wars, robbing the poor/middle class while giving cuts to the wealthy, etc, etc.

If the Dems and Repubs are two sides of the same evil coin playing good cop/bad cop - then I'll go with good cop until we actually have some sort of plausible option. Thanks anyway.
 
  by: spiggy   02/17/2009 05:07 PM     
  Woo.  
 
29% of Americans believe the stimulus plan will hurt America -- 29% of Americans want the stimulus plan to hurt America. Our economy has little real value -- it's all speculative. The only thing that will save it is keeping a positive, sun-has-a-smile-on-his-face attitude. Anybody who thinks we're going to actually start producing goods and services of global trade value that will bring us out of this is fooling themselves; we'll have to drag ourselves up again and support ourselves on stilts made up of a bunch of glued together popsicle sticks, just like last time. That's just what you get with an economy based solely on consumer services, like ours is.
 
  by: velger   02/17/2009 06:05 PM     
  @spiggy  
 
So you would rather vote for the guy that is going to win than the guy you think is right for the job? Interesting...
 
  by: teh_epic     02/17/2009 06:44 PM     
  @Circuit_Monkey  
 
To quote Lewis Black:

“Republicans have nothing but bad ideas and Democrats have no ideas.”

“A republican stands up in congress and says 'I GOT A REALLY BAD IDEA!!' and the democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT SHITTIER!!'”
 
  by: Daev     02/17/2009 07:10 PM     
  @spiggy  
 
"...aren't you willing to give him 8 years to eff up the country..."

I think you're being overly optimistic.

If this "spendulus" package doesn't produce the results he's been promising, he'll be lucky to make it to the end of his 1st term with a 5% approval rating and go down in history more dismally than Jimmy Carter.
 
  by: CArnold     02/17/2009 07:16 PM     
  ok ben  
 
Your figure is quite off, intact it's 3.2 trillion.

That's how much it's going to cost in entitlements and cost over runs

Polesis budget office says this "porkulous" will be 13.2% of total GDP, the tax cuts in here are worthless, the tax credits to people not paying taxes aka welfare is worthless.

This whole pork bill is worthless

Like rahm Emmanuel said never let a crisis go to waste.
 
  by: cray0la     02/17/2009 07:23 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
I believe Donald Rumsfeld said that once, too.

The bill contains $275 billion in tax cuts, many of which go to businesses. In the forums I gave you a Wall Street Journal link about the tax cuts in this bill; here it is again: http://online.wsj.com/...

"One break would allow businesses to take larger deductions on capital investments they make this year and next, instead of spreading them over several years. That is intended to encourage companies to speed up capital spending. The break—called "bonus depreciation"—has been tried before, in 2002 and 2008. But a lengthy Federal Reserve study on the 2002 break found that it had "only a very limited impact…on investment spending, if any."

Another proposal would allow companies to use so-called tax losses to offset taxable U.S. profits earned in the past five years. Typically, companies can carry back such losses only two years. Companies that racked up losses last year and this year would be able to use those losses to wipe out tax obligations from the good times and get big refund checks from the Treasury Department. The home-building industry unsuccessfully lobbied for such a break last year."

Once again I repeat my call for people to stop calling one another names and just argue the facts.
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/17/2009 07:41 PM     
  @teh_epic  
 
No... I DID vote for the guy who I thought was right for the job. Your making it sound like I was voting for the popular guy instead of the one I thought was best for the job - and thus have no principles... I said I would have CONSIDERED voting for Paul if he had ANY sort of a chance to win. You think I voted for Obama because I thought he was going to win? Hah. I was half expecting the repubs to steal another election. I was nearly amazed he actually won. When we elected Obama, it was one of the first times I've felt truly patriotic in years. I wasn't going to throw away my vote for a person that I felt IS truly qualified, for someone that (even if I agree with some of his ideas) had ZERO chance of winning the election. If everyone who was even remotely interested in Paul's ideas had voted for him he would still not have stood any chance at all, and all it would have done is hurt Obama and put Sarah Palin's ignorant ass one step closer to the big red button. No... I sir - did the right thing.
 
  by: spiggy   02/17/2009 07:54 PM     
  @spiggy  
 
So what your saying is Ron Paul doesnt deserve consideration because he is neither a Democrat or a Republican. Interesting...

@article
It's my belief that an incredible number of American's just don't understand a single thing about economics and how money and inflation work.

I had a co-worker say to me today that he thought the stimulus package would do nothing and... heres the good part... it would be better for the economy if the government just handed everyone $10,000 to use however they want. That way people could avoid foreclosure and start spending again.
 
  by: teh_epic     02/17/2009 08:11 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
You are really being nice if you are going to say his economic record will be comparable to Carter...

I might suggest comparing to Hoover instead. Carter at least was not in the midst of a depression... It however looks like more and more each day that we are in the beginnings of the next Great Depression.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/17/2009 08:17 PM     
  @ teh_epic  
 
I find it interesting that you keep finding all these things I never said or even implied... interesting.

I simply said nothing of the sort. I said that Ron Paul was not worth MY consideration because he had nowhere near the support he needed to actually be in the running. Ideologically... let's say I think the Easter Bunny is the most qualified "person" to run the United States. I don't give a damn what party the Easter Bunny belongs to - it doesn't matter - he has ZERO chance of being elected. I could vote for him, but it would be a wasted vote, and one less vote for the most qualified of the two actually in the running.

So far from my comments, you've extracted that I vote for who's popular instead of who's qualified, and that I don't think anyone that's not involved in the two party system is worth voting for. Show me anything in my comments that eludes to either point? If you Ron Paul supporters had done half the work of the Obama folks and actually got him some where in the ballpark of being an actual contender then I would have seriously considered giving him my vote. I still think Obama was an excellent pick and hope to god that he proves all of you detractors wrong.

I'm sure Obama will make mistakes. Hell, Ron Paul could have destroyed the country for all we know. Obama inherited a horrible situation, and will still have to do really frickin terrible to be anywhere near as bad a pres as W. I stand by my choice.

 
  by: spiggy   02/17/2009 08:31 PM     
  @spiggy  
 
I'm just bustin' bells at this point.

What from my comments makes you think that I am a Ron Paul supporter? I actually did vote for the Easter Bunny, because I felt he was most qualified, regardless of whether I thought it was going to be a wasted vote.

I didn't feel that Obama or McCain were qualified for the position. South Park put it well, all elections are between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. I would rather waste my vote and pick neither. That way, no matter what the result is I can always say "Well, I didn't vote for that guy so I'm not responsible for the mess he made."
 
  by: teh_epic     02/17/2009 09:17 PM     
  71%  
 
of Americans either approve of, or think the Stimulus Plan is good for America. Only 29% believe it will hurt America.
End of story.
 
  by: Blackwidow   02/17/2009 10:20 PM     
  @teh_epic  
 
Ron Paul has been a Republican for over 30 years.
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/17/2009 10:32 PM     
  @Crayola  
 
"The series of polls show that Republicans have gained ground over democrats"

Only in congressional polling.

Would it be better for the economy to spend the money on a new war?
 
  by: jamesmc   02/17/2009 11:05 PM     
  Obama is President  
 
Obama is President,Obama is President,Obama is President,Obama is President,Obama is President,Obama is President,Obama is President.
Get over it Americans.
 
  by: Blackwidow   02/17/2009 11:16 PM     
  @Blackwidow  
 
"71% of Americans either approve of, or think the Stimulus Plan is good for America."

Huh..? Where did you get *that* idea?

If you read the source, it clearly states in the very first sentence of the the article:

"Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion stimulus plan passed by Congress will help the economy."

That's a far cry from 71%.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% believe the plan will hurt and 24% believe it will have little impact."

That's 53% that think it will hurt or do nothing for the economy. Not sure how you can squeeze 71% more people out of an available margin of 47%.

"End of story."
What story are you reading? :-P
 
  by: CArnold     02/17/2009 11:33 PM     
  nice spin...silly republicans  
 
its amazing how

"38% Say Stimulus Plan Will Help Economy

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion stimulus plan passed by Congress will help the economy."

then became:

"29% Of Americans believe Stimulus plan will hurt America
New Rasmussen Polls show that, 38% of American's approval of the Stimulus, while 29% believe it will hurt America, Along with most of the middle class and 24% think it wont do much at all. 50% of American's believe it is all new government spending."


@carnold

"That's 53% that think it will hurt or do nothing for the economy. Not sure how you can squeeze 71% more people out of an available margin of 47%."

well her lets spin it the other way too if were going to spin it and just say, 62% of americans it the stimulas will either help or not have a a negative effect.

see, if both sides spin it, the poll still favors the stimulas.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/18/2009 12:36 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
Spin?
Just read the article. Some say it will hurt, some say it will help, some say it won’t do squat, and some don’t have an opinion.

What’s the purpose of the “spendulus” package? I thought Obama’s purpose for this massive spending was to *help* the economy.

Split it down the lines of “Do you think it will help, or not?”

People that don’t think it will achieve anything couldn’t logically be put onto the side of “it will help”. They don’t think it would hurt, but they don’t think it would help, either. And if it doesn’t help, then Obama hasn’t convinced them that he’s taking appropriate action to address the economy; in their minds, he’s just spinning his wheels and going nowhere. It’s that simple.

It’s logic and math. Not spin.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2009 12:45 AM     
  @Carnold  
 
I think Havoc was simply using a looser definition of "spin," akin to saying the glass is half empty vs. half full, etc.
 
  by: ben_reilly     02/18/2009 01:05 AM     
  Who cares  
 
anyway. Obama is El Presidente and you have a stimulus package. I havent seen any Americans rioting in the streets, so they cant care too much. Again, do something, or cry in your soup for 4 years.
 
  by: Blackwidow   02/18/2009 01:27 AM     
  @carnold  
 
indeed as ben said to elaborate, it facts were true but they were present with a spin, usually when presenting a poll you don't prsent the minority of of the poll, and nor did the source...

i have no complaints about the article as the spin is factual to the article, but it is clearly intentionally spun to reflect the minority figure 28% disapproval, which is of lesser signifigance than the 38% approval of the bill thats sort of like having an article (source) about obama being elected with the title and first paragraph of the summary emphansizing not obama winning but rather mccain losing, while its still factual it would be spun from the article just the same. but evidenlty crayola thinks the 29% are more signifigantly the article than the the 38%.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/18/2009 01:58 AM     
  well the title of the source  
 
was the 38%, was i to copy the exact title? thats against the rules, so i used another number in the source.

would you have liked it if i posted a number that represented your side a little better? im sure you would have and wouldnt have much to say about it.
 
  by: cray0la     02/18/2009 02:02 AM     
  @blackwidow  
 
its not a stimulus, its a spendulous.

and because obama is the president should that mean that me and CA should drop everything and bow down and pray??

thats what you guys did when bush won right??

lol
 
  by: cray0la     02/18/2009 02:05 AM     
  Our tax system is retardedly complex.  
 
I think a good portion of our problem in America is the ridiculous tax system. We need a flat tax if we are going to have a tax. Right now we've got a lot of stupid crap that really makes the system a giant vat of bureaucratic excrement. If you buy a house on a Tuesday between 6 and 9 PM EST during the 3rd fiscal quarter of the year, and your last name starts with a vowel, you get a tax credit of 500-5000 depending on how many children you have and what letter the state you live in begins with. Generally, all tax credit/exemption laws read like that. We've made the system so stupid that we can never actually figure out exactly how much tax we owe. We go with out best guess, and this is after we've spent more money on tax preparers or tax preparation software. My estimate from experience is that the average small business will end up filing at least 5 different forms a year, and upwards of 30 forms total depending on how often the IRS decides you need to deposit your income tax withholding for employees. The way some of these forms are organized makes it all but impossible to correctly fill them out without a tax professional getting paid to do it for you. This is even with the hundred page manuals the IRS provides.

Our crappy tax system has created tons of jobs that basically send our money down the crapper. Tax professionals, although possibly necessary for the big guys, really shouldn't ever have to be needed by the average household or small business if the tax code is sane. Paying to have your taxes done is throwing money away, and it all comes down to being congress' fault for letting the tax code get more bloated and unreasonable year after year. Additionally, a good portion of the tax is never returned to you in any beneficial way. It's spent on the extraneous personnel and software needed to oversee our ever expanding and out of control tax laws, and of course also spent on enforcing our incredibly shameful government approved theft.

I don't have a problem paying taxes. I do have a problem when the amount of the tax is completely disproportionate to what is being provided in return to the average taxpaying American.
 
  by: tsume   02/18/2009 02:14 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
I know what you were saying. I just question if you do.

I’m not trying to be rude or abrasive; just brutally honest.
For example:

“well her lets spin it the other way too if were going to spin it and just say, 62% of americans it the stimulas will either help or not have a a negative effect.”

Fair enough. If you wanted to say that 62% of Americans don’t believe it would worsen our situation then you’re absolutely correct. But in presenting this, you’re saying that spending $1-trillion to maintain status-quo is acceptable. “It didn’t help, but it didn’t hurt anything either. Yay! We’ve just blown $1-trillion just to end back up at square-one.”

Looking at it from that perspective, can you honestly say that the percentage of Americans who don’t expect this bill to produce improvements could be considered anything but discontent?
“Thanks, Obama. You just blew $1-trillion for nothing. I’m still without a job, I’m still going to lose my house, and I don’t know how I’m going to prevent my car from being repossessed. But, hey, at least things didn’t get any worse! [Big smile!] I’m not mad at all.”

The 24% with little faith aren't as interchangeable as you think they are. I assure you.

If this package doesn't put sunshine back into some of those people's lives soon, you can bet that Obama will be driven from office.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2009 02:34 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
i think you need the package because all the other nations are following similar plans.

so if you sit back and do the little spend or no spend you will be overtaken by other economies and really that is what this economic downfall has really been about is that American banks lend at over 3000% of their capital. thats lending $30 for every $1 they actually have.
the system has only lasted so long because of the high levels of 'faith' in the US system and the government internationally. the last 8 years has smashed that 'faith' for alot of countries. which brings our own banks into question because they think they are holding $30X value in US dollars but really value if everyone in America tried to get the money out of the bank is only $1X in value.

although a big part is Bill's fault he didn't stop them lending at 30 times the amount they had (tradionally banks lent at 3-7 times the amount they had)
and then encouraged them to lend to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.
 
  by: veya_victaous     02/18/2009 02:38 AM     
  @crayola  
 
"was the 38%, was i to copy the exact title? thats against the rules, so i used another number in the source."

i guess rewording it was beyond your abilities.

"...im sure you would have and wouldnt have much to say about it."

and why would i have it would have been as accurate ar possible

"its not a stimulus, its a spendulous."

so how do you stimulate an economy without a resurgance of spending... infact the entire economy is held together by continous spending... by the way in this sense tax cut are also spending, but not focused in any direction, aside from in the aftermath in which is can clearly be discerned who tax cuts benifit, and it certianly isn't the people who need it that receive the bulk of the tax cuts (spending of government revenue) but rather the rich people that are hording the majorityof money out of the economy that are part of the problem, hence republican style tax cut CANNOT work because they are continually giving government revenue back to the wrong people, rather than the people struggling or the people most likely to stimulate the economy most relative to their income/wealth.

"thats what you guys did when bush won right??"

i guess you simply dont remember the election... he was voted in by the supreme court, bush's presidency was a legitiment source controversy (and for good reason if you can recall his "election" and "relection"), and if you recall, republicans fully supported the controversy as it put their man in office at the expense of democracy (even if it is a largely illusionary democracy), its not as if anything from day one of bush's presidency was free of great deal of controversy, nor were almost any on his decision supported my the country aside from immediately after 9/11 and the following year and a half when everyone was running on emotion and fuel by deceit from the government and media.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/18/2009 02:39 AM     
  @veya  
 
"although a big part is Bill's fault he didn't stop them lending at 30 times the amount they had (tradionally banks lent at 3-7 times the amount they had)
and then encouraged them to lend to people who couldn't afford to pay it back."

yup alittle, clinton's regulation was widely republican supported (they just have short term memory and can't remember ( http://www.wsws.org/... )... except it was actually working then... bush continued it even further even after he sent the economy of the cliff.

all presidents at least as far back as reagan are directly resonsible for this economic meltdown, barring obama who inhereited it, clinton was of the least concern because at the time it was good for the country because the economy was not only stable but growing, and people could afford it... but when the economy starts grinding to a halt and the cost of living increasing signifigantly things change including whether or not you can afford things like your own house or vehicle.

america too heavily relies on credit rather than actual capital.

any single person who holds continous debt or hordes excessive amounts of money out of the economic circulation (especially overseas) or any business or consumer that buys foreign when they could buy local are all part of the porblem for different reasons.


"American banks lend at over 3000% of their capital. thats lending $30 for every $1 they actually have."

i though the ratio was 9 or 10 to 1 rather than 30:1, but also i think the stopped issuing the reports of such technical economic figure back in the 70's or early 80's... i had heard that if economists actually knew how much money was actually floating around (printed and digital) it would cause an economic crash from panic alone.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/18/2009 03:05 AM     
  @tsume  
 
Good point. You might find it interesting that an overwhelming majority of CPAs are very much in favor of a much less complicated tax system. CPAs earn their money by helping a business account for it's money, not by filling out tax reports. Hence the name, Certified Public ACCOUNTANT, rather than Certified Public TAX FORM EXPERT. ;)
You might find this website interesting as well:
http://www.fairtax.org/...

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     02/18/2009 04:10 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
“clinton's regulation was widely republican supported”

No, it wasn’t regulation. It was DEregulation. Look at your link, again.

“…republican supported (they just have short term memory and can't remember…”
You posted a link and you act like it’s some smoking gun that implicates Repubs in some sort of wrong doing. So… what is the significance of this article? That Repubs and Clinton agreed on something? I’m confused why this article is a point of contention with you or why you felt you could use it against anyone. Please explain.


“any single person who holds continous debt or hordes excessive amounts of money out of the economic circulation (especially overseas) or any business or consumer that buys foreign when they could buy local are all part of the porblem for different reasons.”

So… how do you propose we handle this? Make debt illegal? Force people to spend their money? Dictate where they can keep their money? This is the USA --- not the USSR. That’s not going to happen.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2009 04:30 AM     
  @carnold  
 
"No, it wasn’t regulation. It was DEregulation. Look at your link, again."

ok, ok you got me i forgot to letters you should have known what i was talking about by the link i posted.

"So… what is the significance of this article? That Repubs and Clinton agreed on something? I’m confused why this article is a point of contention with you or why you felt you could use it against anyone. Please explain."

no the signifigance lies in everyone blaming clinton, for it while republicans supported it.. you also never hear about reagan era deregulation, and republicans seem completely ignorgant of any deregulation in the last 8 years, yet because FOX and rush tell them its all clinton's fault and so to them it is.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/18/2009 05:06 AM     
  Tax cuts *are* government spending  
 
Just done in a shiftier way.
 
  by: Mister crank     02/18/2009 05:19 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
“the signifigance lies in everyone blaming clinton, for it while republicans supported it…”

I don’t think you’re following Republican principles and where we stand in terms of regulations. We’re fine with regulations when the government is required to lay down mutually amicable rules to ensure fair play and prevent abuse. Trade rules regarding unfair trade and monopolies would be a couple of examples.

However, sometimes government can become a bit overzealous and want to butt in where they’re not needed or wanted. This is when government begins to *over regulate*.

Republicans believe in minimal government intervention in the free market. As history has shown numerable times, the capitalist market suffers every time government begins to add their own spice to the free-market recipe in the form of market regulations.

Bush’s attempt at protectionism with the steel industry is a recent example. Bill Clinton’s Community Reinvestment Act is another great example. They both went beyond simply setting rules and began to tinker and tamper with the capitalist market and offset the balance of it as a result.

So, to answer your question… Of course the Repubs agreed with Clinton when he wanted to deregulate the financial industry. Per your article:

“The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933…”

To my knowledge, this deregulation hasn’t had a detrimental affect on the economy.

Let the market govern itself. It’s only when the government begins to think it knows more than economist and consumers that we begin finding our butts in a sling. Just look at what Clinton’s pressure on the banks to overlook common business-sense has done to us.

Government is *not* the solution. The sooner Obama realizes this, the sooner Americans can begin to feel more optimistic and secure about their future.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2009 05:37 AM     
  @crank  
 
The Democrats have redefined “tax cuts”. Obama has coined two new definitions for the word.

The “old school” definition of “tax cuts” meant that you paid fewer taxes. That has since changed.

1) What was conventionally known as “welfare” has become “tax cuts” in Dem lingo.

2) What was once known as “wealth redistribution” is now also known as “tax cuts”.


40% of Americans don’t pay income tax. However, under Obama’s plan, the same 40% that don’t pay anything will now get a welfare check (“tax refund”), compliments of the other 60% that go to work and pay taxes.

Shiftier, alright. Shifting from my pocket into someone elses.

Sigh… What an Obamanation.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2009 05:43 AM     
  @Mr. Crank  
 
You have aroused my interest, please elaborate.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     02/18/2009 05:54 AM     
  Can we all at least agree on one thing?  
 
That Ron Paul supporters are the political versions of Scientologists and that it seems everyone knows they are wrong but them.

...maybe we can give them their own island or something, just a thought.
 
  by: Manic_Panic     02/18/2009 06:37 AM     
  @Manic  
 
Thanks for your generous offer, but I prefer to buy my own island. That way, once it becomes a success, the Democrats won't be able to make me share it with everyone else and the Republicans won't be able to make me build churches on it.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     02/18/2009 07:25 AM     
  @bb  
 
Don't feed the trolls.
 
  by: Rayn     02/18/2009 07:37 AM     
  What happens when you ....  
 
Flood the world with trillions of american dollars????

devalued currency
 
  by: flash1259   02/18/2009 07:24 PM     
  @Manic_Panic  
 
Food for the troll: If the Ron Paul supporters are "all wrong" then what do you call your current system of failures? Perhaps you dont consider this new great depression to be a failure? Perhaps our foreign policy is not a failure either? Or perhaps our constantly devaluing currency system is not a failure either....

Oh wait that's right, all those things are failing or have already failed...

It might just be me or maybe Im crazy but supporting failure isnt something I would assume most people (exception: you) are not fans of!

@bb - Love the churches part LOL!
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/18/2009 07:56 PM     
  Give me the island.  
 
There's one called Navassa near Haiti that is owned by America and controlled by the Department of the Interior. Give me give me give me as reparations for your idiotic political parties ruining what little democracy America had.
 
  by: promontorium   02/20/2009 12:16 AM     
  @promontorium  
 
"Give me give me give me"

Thanks for being a part of the problem.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     02/20/2009 05:59 AM     
  Heres some news  
 
Obama has a better approval rating in Canada then he does in the US. You elected this guy, let him work dammit.
 
  by: MrSpike   02/20/2009 01:51 PM     
  To The Folks That See No Differance In The Party's  
 


if George and the republicans had lost the election eight years ago we would not have gone into Iraq. hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today that have been killed, Children of military families that have lost their moms and dads would be whole.


The banking industry would not have been invited to have their lobbyists write banking legislation and deliver it to be ratified (verbatim) into law by their congressional flunkies.

Spend a little time with history before mouthing slogans.
 
  by: ichi     02/20/2009 10:57 PM     
  @ichi  
 
"The banking industry would not have been invited to have their lobbyists write banking legislation and deliver it to be ratified (verbatim) into law by their congressional flunkies."

Actually a good chunk of the legislation that got us into this economic disaster was written under Clinton's regime.

"f George and the republicans had lost the election eight years ago we would not have gone into Iraq. hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today that have been killed, Children of military families that have lost their moms and dads would be whole."

Probably not Iraq but more than likely we would have gone into Pakistan or some other country. We definitely would have still gone into Afghanistan.

However you are right in one respect. Bush and Co was slightly different than regular republicans. Bush and Co are born Neocons. While a majority of Republicans were just to dumb to figure out the difference and went along simply because he and his cohorts had a "-R" at the end of their names...

So far though we are only a month into Obama's regime and he has yet to repeal any of Bush's policies regarding secret prisons, monetary policy, etc. Very few things have actually be changed. Now it is still very early so he may do some of these things. But I somehow doubt it...

The same policy of taxing Americans with hidden taxes (fiat money is a tax through devaluation), Giving out Americans money to big corporations, Iraq, Secret Prisons, etc. So far these policies appear identical to the Bush regime.

I am not expecting any "Change". Well Amerika, you have been bamboozled once again by smooth talking thieves... Fool me once shame on you. Fool me... I lost track of how many times...
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/20/2009 11:09 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com