Clinton unveils plan to stimulate economy

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This is another fun thread to watch. I like watching all the Ayn Randian self made men froth about taxes that they seem to have little knowledge about. More taxes for the middle class? Her plan calls for middle class tax cuts.

Don't let me stop the circle jerk though, if only our country had more men like you guys in it... you know the real workers that prop the system up... then things would be ok.

Oh yeah, and lets get rid of all the illegal immigrants too. I'm not sure how they are part of this problem, but lets get em anyway!

Well, when you knowingly put a bunch of leeches on your arm to cure what ails you, and find them sucking more blood than you can replace, you are likely going to die.

That would be a good point if it were even remotely true or applicable to illegal immigrants.

Please, show me the flaw in this guys math.

1) his chart appears to show immigrants outweighing domestics by a 3:1 ratio, but the chart starts at 200m and goes to 400m with immigration compared with 250m domestics (only a 1:1 raito)...very misleading.

2) he goes on to say twice as much would have to be spent on infrastructure...so what? does that mean we can cut our infrastructure costs in half by killing half the people? Of course not, you are getting rid of tax payers. Double the infrastructure and double the tax revenues doesn't seem like a crisis to me. Using that logic, the US cannot afford to have 300m people relative to Canada's 30m people; it's a non-sense argument. If you are indeed a believer in free markets, you must agree with economies of scale where services are more efficient/less expensive when you have a larger local user base.

In actual fact asians have the highest houshold income relative to all other races in the US; immigration is not a problem (this is what the man is denouncing). Illegal immigration on the other hand does have some impact, but not near what the media seems to lead on. Most illegals consume less services than people at their similar income level and most pay all other taxes other than income (small portion of total tax revenues).

A growing population will allow the government to help pay for some of the social programs they have in place that they cannot pay for given the current tax rate. Immigraition will be needed as people retire, you can't tell me that the economy will continue to grow or maintain current levels with a leveling off of population and a growing retirement population. So the gumball example isn't about the 3rd world benefits, but the benefits those people bring to the US.

That video sucked...

I am glad you didn't like it. When you have to add infrastructure for people who have a negative net effect on public coffers Center for immigration studies, who pays for it? The current rate of growth in our (illegal) immigration is not sustainable. You don,t double tax receipts when you double your population by importing poverty. You double your problems.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh yeah, and lets get rid of all the illegal immigrants too. I'm not sure how they are part of this problem, but lets get em anyway!

Yeah, so what if they're costing taxpayers tens of billions in welfare, medical care, tuition, etc. No big deal! :roll:

Yeah, something like that.

Yeah, as a matter of fact it is 10s of billions let alone the 10s of billions sent home in cash, and the 10s of billions set home in drug money.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Fuck you Clinton. Where's my bailout? Here I am trying to save money like a sucker, and you go piss it away to a bunch of morons. Fuck you.

Yeah, much better that XXX times as much has been spent over in Iraq. Fuck Americans first! :roll: This doesn't mean I agree with this plan but ffs sake, let's put this in perspective.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wrong answer, but it certainly highlights why Ron Paul has so little support and less then a snowflakes chance in hell of getting the GOP nod.

Doesn't make the problem go away.

Like Walker said, by 2040 we may have enough money for medicare and social security, but that's it. There would be no more money, not even for a military.

So, if we don't act, and soon, they'd be cut anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Fuck you Clinton. Where's my bailout? Here I am trying to save money like a sucker, and you go piss it away to a bunch of morons. Fuck you.

Yeah, much better that XXX times as much has been spent over in Iraq. Fuck Americans first! :roll: This doesn't mean I agree with this plan but ffs sake, let's put this in perspective.

And the leading Democrats all sound like they're chomping at the bit to rush into Pakistan. Want to re-evaluate that perspective again?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
This time we won't miss.

With any luck, you won't get a chance to hit or miss. :laugh:

This country can't afford Clinton, or her policies.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Link

updated 6:25 p.m. CT, Fri., Jan. 11, 2008
COMMERCE, Calif. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled a $70 billion economic stimulus package Friday aimed at making it easier for millions of people to pay their mortgages and home heating bills.

The five-part plan is designed to help homeowners hurt by the housing foreclosure crisis, help families having trouble paying their energy bills and support people who have lost their jobs, according to a material released by her campaign. Clinton also was urging the government to invest in "green collar jobs" to stimulate the economy and improve the environment, her campaign said.

If the economy continues to worsen, Congress should provide an additional $40 billion in direct tax rebates to working and middle class families, Clinton said.


The proposal, Clinton's campaign said, would provide 37 million Americans with energy assistance. Hundreds of thousands more families would get help to avoid foreclosure, according to the proposal.

According to the campaign, the plan includes:

Establishing a $30 billion housing crisis fund to help states and localities deal with the fallout of foreclosures. The federal money could be used to ease the effects of vacant properties with anti-blight programs and helping local housing authorities buy and rent out vacant properties.
Setting a 90-day moratorium on subprime mortgages of at least five years, or until housing lenders have converted mortgages into loans families can afford. The proposal also would increase the portfolio caps at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Providing $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing rising heating bills. While 37 million families are eligible for energy assistance, only 5.6 million, or 16 percent, are slated to receive any aid this winter, the campaign said. She is proposing immediate grants to all 37 million eligible families.
Providing $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance for those struggling to find work while supporting families.


Providing $5 billion in energy efficiency by doing such things as giving tax credits to encourage purchases of low emission vehicles and efficient appliances windows and other clean technologies. She also proposes funds to train and put to work people making public buildings more energy efficient.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You suppose the republicans can come up with a better one?

~I have a better plan. We put 200,000 legal citizens to work securing our borders, rounding up illegal citizens (7-20 million depending on your source) and deport them. Huge and immediate economic stimulus and recession instantly over.

I wonder how many legal citizens will be willing to fill in regular immigrant worker jobs for the same wage?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...01-09-immigcover_N.htm


Besides that, Hillary's plan is horrid. It sends the message that if people overextend themselves the government will happily bail then out of their stupidity. It's further erosion of personal responsibility.

Funny though some people have no problems bailing out what most would consider to be failed corporations using government funds.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Fuck you Clinton. Where's my bailout? Here I am trying to save money like a sucker, and you go piss it away to a bunch of morons. Fuck you.

Yeah, much better that XXX times as much has been spent over in Iraq. Fuck Americans first! :roll: This doesn't mean I agree with this plan but ffs sake, let's put this in perspective.

And the leading Democrats all sound like they're chomping at the bit to rush into Pakistan. Want to re-evaluate that perspective again?

Considering that is where the guy who order the hit that killed 3,000 Americans is hiding I see no problem with it at all. Obviously you failed to grasp that Iraq was and is a giant waste of time and money that should of never of happened.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Fuck you Clinton. Where's my bailout? Here I am trying to save money like a sucker, and you go piss it away to a bunch of morons. Fuck you.

Yeah, much better that XXX times as much has been spent over in Iraq. Fuck Americans first! :roll: This doesn't mean I agree with this plan but ffs sake, let's put this in perspective.

And the leading Democrats all sound like they're chomping at the bit to rush into Pakistan. Want to re-evaluate that perspective again?

Considering that is where the guy who order the hit that killed 3,000 Americans is hiding I see no problem with it at all. Obviously you failed to grasp that Iraq was and is a giant waste of time and money that should of never of happened.

Suuuuure he is. (Assuming he's even alive of course.) And I'm sure he'll just sit there waiting patiently for us, and not move somewhere else that hates the US and will harbor him happily. Instead we'll start lobbing missiles into YAMC* and when they prove ineffective we'll send in the Army and be sucked into YAPW**. But Democrats will back this pointless war wholeheartedly, because most Democrats are as stupid as most Republicans, so as long the war was started by their team they'll support it.

*Yet Another Muslim Country
**Yet Another Pointless War

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This is another fun thread to watch. I like watching all the Ayn Randian self made men froth about taxes that they seem to have little knowledge about. More taxes for the middle class? Her plan calls for middle class tax cuts.

Don't let me stop the circle jerk though, if only our country had more men like you guys in it... you know the real workers that prop the system up... then things would be ok.

Oh yeah, and lets get rid of all the illegal immigrants too. I'm not sure how they are part of this problem, but lets get em anyway!

Well, when you knowingly put a bunch of leeches on your arm to cure what ails you, and find them sucking more blood than you can replace, you are likely going to die.

That would be a good point if it were even remotely true or applicable to illegal immigrants.

Please, show me the flaw in this guys math.

1) his chart appears to show immigrants outweighing domestics by a 3:1 ratio, but the chart starts at 200m and goes to 400m with immigration compared with 250m domestics (only a 1:1 raito)...very misleading.

2) he goes on to say twice as much would have to be spent on infrastructure...so what? does that mean we can cut our infrastructure costs in half by killing half the people? Of course not, you are getting rid of tax payers. Double the infrastructure and double the tax revenues doesn't seem like a crisis to me. Using that logic, the US cannot afford to have 300m people relative to Canada's 30m people; it's a non-sense argument. If you are indeed a believer in free markets, you must agree with economies of scale where services are more efficient/less expensive when you have a larger local user base.

In actual fact asians have the highest houshold income relative to all other races in the US; immigration is not a problem (this is what the man is denouncing). Illegal immigration on the other hand does have some impact, but not near what the media seems to lead on. Most illegals consume less services than people at their similar income level and most pay all other taxes other than income (small portion of total tax revenues).

A growing population will allow the government to help pay for some of the social programs they have in place that they cannot pay for given the current tax rate. Immigraition will be needed as people retire, you can't tell me that the economy will continue to grow or maintain current levels with a leveling off of population and a growing retirement population. So the gumball example isn't about the 3rd world benefits, but the benefits those people bring to the US.

That video sucked...

I am glad you didn't like it. When you have to add infrastructure for people who have a negative net effect on public coffers Center for immigration studies, who pays for it? The current rate of growth in our (illegal) immigration is not sustainable. You don,t double tax receipts when you double your population by importing poverty. You double your problems.

Your link clearly advocated net immigration of zero. (replacing only the number of people who leave the country with immigrants). I'm saying that concept would absolutely ruin the American economy. You are trying to somehow bring this into a debate of illegal immigration when your video was focused on ALL immigration; and made a lot of false and misleading assumptions.
I'm not debating the above comments because they have little to do with my comments and the content of the video you posted.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I'm not sure what's so different about what she proposed and what BushCo was proposing a day or two before that. Both are advocating giving bulk tax checks back at the expense of the debt.

More tax money back to me at the expense of the debt?

Where can I sign up!!!

Originally posted by: CPA
Rebates, eh......wasn't the reaction from the left complete outrage when Bush did this several years ago?

You're right. They preach the fiscally conservative bullshit and then offer it themselves. Of course, Bush is also looking at doing something along those same lines.

Again, piss on it. Where can I sign up. I may vote for who gives me the most! :Q

Yep, more bribe some voters bullshit, is what this plan amounts too

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh yeah, and lets get rid of all the illegal immigrants too. I'm not sure how they are part of this problem, but lets get em anyway!

Yeah, so what if they're costing taxpayers tens of billions in welfare, medical care, tuition, etc. No big deal! :roll:

Yeah, something like that.

Yeah, as a matter of fact it is 10s of billions let alone the 10s of billions sent home in cash, and the 10s of billions set home in drug money.

Lets be clear about where that info comes from... the CIS is a pretty heavily anti-immigrant ofshoot of FAIR. (which is rabidly anti-immigrant) While I think there is certainly tons of room for debate about the effects of illegal immigration on our country, largely depending on how deeply into our economy you take the analysis, linking to arguments from groups with an obvious agenda isn't a very good way to do that.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
This time we won't miss.

With any luck, you won't get a chance to hit or miss. :laugh:

This country can't afford Clinton, or her policies.

Yes it can. What it can't afford is another 4 years of a Republican in the White House.

 

[Cattlegod]

i'd rather spend 70b to buy bombs and blow the hell out of terrorists than spend 70b to bail out scum bags that can't make their bills.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
i'd rather spend 70b to buy bombs and blow the hell out of terrorists than spend 70b to bail out scum bags that can't make their bills.

Nice to know that people who can't make their bils are scumbags now. Only in America.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
i'd rather spend 70b to buy bombs and blow the hell out of terrorists than spend 70b to bail out scum bags that can't make their bills.

Nice to know that people who can't make their bils are scumbags now. Only in America.

Well, when you buy a house you can't afford because you are:

A- too stupid to read the fine print
B- too lazy to read the fine print
C- don't calculate the payment and the taxes and insurance that goes with it.
C- All of the above

AND then continue your out of control spending by taking the excess money from the purchase of that home and dump it into a new car, boat, plasma tv, HD/Blue-Ray player high end appliances or any other toys you want.

THEN when that runs out start jacking up your credit cards to cover your monthly bills that you also never took into account when you bought your shiny new home THEN start blaming the banks for "tricking" you into a payment you cannot afford because you are an idiot and THEN looking to the government and the taxpayers to bail you out OR just walk away from your home taking all your toys with you, letting it deteriorate and bringing down property values of those around you that are responsible enough to pay their bills and not get in over their heads......yeah, you're a scumbag.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes it can. What it can't afford is another 4 years of a Republican in the White House.

I have a win-win situation for you...a Democrat President, just not Hillary...Obama or Edwards are both acceptable alternatives.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh yeah, and lets get rid of all the illegal immigrants too. I'm not sure how they are part of this problem, but lets get em anyway!

Yeah, so what if they're costing taxpayers tens of billions in welfare, medical care, tuition, etc. No big deal! :roll:

Yeah, something like that.

Yeah, as a matter of fact it is 10s of billions let alone the 10s of billions sent home in cash, and the 10s of billions set home in drug money.

Lets be clear about where that info comes from... the CIS is a pretty heavily anti-immigrant ofshoot of FAIR.

WTF???

CIS is pro-immigration and yes the do have an agenda. To have a reasonable and sustainable immigration policy.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
i'd rather spend 70b to buy bombs and blow the hell out of terrorists than spend 70b to bail out scum bags that can't make their bills.

Nice to know that people who can't make their bils are scumbags now. Only in America.

You know, there are a lot of people that choose to spend their money on other worldly pleasures, and put their financial responsibilities behind those things. I must agree though, that not all people that can't make their bills are scumbags.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
i'd rather spend 70b to buy bombs and blow the hell out of terrorists than spend 70b to bail out scum bags that can't make their bills.

Nice to know that people who can't make their bils are scumbags now. Only in America.

Well, when you buy a house you can't afford because you are:

A- too stupid to read the fine print
B- too lazy to read the fine print
C- don't calculate the payment and the taxes and insurance that goes with it.
C- All of the above

AND then continue your out of control spending by taking the excess money from the purchase of that home and dump it into a new car, boat, plasma tv, HD/Blue-Ray player high end appliances or any other toys you want.

THEN when that runs out start jacking up your credit cards to cover your monthly bills that you also never took into account when you bought your shiny new home THEN start blaming the banks for "tricking" you into a payment you cannot afford because you are an idiot and THEN looking to the government and the taxpayers to bail you out OR just walk away from your home taking all your toys with you, letting it deteriorate and bringing down property values of those around you that are responsible enough to pay their bills and not get in over their heads......yeah, you're a scumbag.

All I was trying to point out to the guy I replied to was he is tarring with a very big brush. Not everyone who is facing the loss of their home right now is the scumbag you defined above. Personally, I don't know anyone facing foreclosure who followed your steps to failure. But I agree, if I knew someone who did what you are describing above, I would think they are a lot of things, including scumbag I guess.

 

[Moonbeam]

Clinton has a 70 billion dollar plan to stimulate right winged psychopathology.

 

[Wheezer]

unfortunately though, this is how a vast majority of people who are in this situation got there.

Foreclosures are not a new thing, they have been going on for a long time.....every week for the past 20 years there have been 3-4 houses up for auctions at the sheriffs sales held every other week in my town...probably the same all over.

But, now that number is significantly higher than what it has been. why?

Because no matter the situation of the economy people still want to spend money they don't have. They don't plan, they don't take into consideration that there maybe some catastrophic event that they will have to somehow finance.

It's a microwave mentality, as long as they get something here and now, they'll worry about tomorrow....next week.

If the man across the table is telling me I can afford it now...even though I couldn't last year or the year before...well hell, he must know something I don't and well I won't do my own research to see if I can actually afford it or not.....I'll just take his word for it...after all I'm entitled to a new home...everyone else is doing it.

 

[Toasthead]

SO Once again I am punished for being responsible and playing by the rules? GREAT!!!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Why are these campaigns all about the poor and minorities? Since when did they get so powerful? How can politicians ignore the middle class for so long?

Those who save, who are responsible, who think logically all get screwed by Uncle Sam.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

The biggest problem I have with all of the recent (last ~4 years) proposed and implemented economic stimulus packages is that most of them are cash-based. That is to say that they provide direct payments or subsidies. At the same time the agencies that already exist to promote economic and (more importantly) workforce development have had their budgets steadily reduced. So in this example we pay to help people with their energy bills but do nothing to help them get into better paying jobs/careers. All of these "solutions" are short-term and offer NOTHING long-term.