36% Think Porkulus Will Help

The solution to all the world’s problems
should be obvious to any enlightened
observer. Only 2 things are needed. First,
we need Obama to write another book telling us how great he is and second, we need Al Gore to make another movie before the polar bears all freeze to death.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Well, there’s also the possibility that no matter the result, everything bad will be blamed on Bush. Even at the end of an 8 year term, even if all terrible economically, Obama and the Democrats may well receive no blame by the media or most of the public.
[/quote]

Sort of the way everything bad happening economically during Bush years was Clinton’s wrong doing, or at least explained that way on this board. Because ya know as president there was NOTHING he could do. Case in point, nearly every thread on this board, about the collapse of the housing market, mentions that it was clinton’s fault. An 8 year unstoppable force! And everything clinton did had no impact on the economy, it was all Reagan and Bush Sr’s doing.

Take your garbage to the trashcan.

Im not an obama supporter, i did not vote for him, i dont like or agree with what hes doing.

But trying to drag that kind of rhetoric around is childish. Because your party was doing it less than three months ago.

Back to the OP’s point, pretty much every reliable poll will show that the majority of people favor expanding social programs or government spending, but ironically also show people want less governement. So that 36% is not surprising at all, actually seems low but probably because the media has been all over the bill.

But conversely I’d like to add the 2001 EGTRRA tax cuts did nothing to stop the recession at the time, nor the 2003 JGTRRA tax cuts. He didnt even advertise them as a means to fight the recession, instead simply “to give surpluses back to the tax payer.” And the 2003 cuts to take away support from Steve Forbes. Towards 04’ the economy turned around from the “now bitterly hated” housing boom.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We will call it a gerontocracy.

Alright, ya got me. I LOL’d.[/quote]

not very plausible in American cultural politics but imagine what such a state would imply.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We will call it a gerontocracy.

Alright, ya got me. I LOL’d.

not very plausible in American cultural politics but imagine what such a state would imply.

[/quote]

A state with highly sensitive noise violation, mandatory Bingo-Sundays, and strict rules about who can and who cannot “screw 'round on mah lawn.”

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, there’s also the possibility that no matter the result, everything bad will be blamed on Bush. Even at the end of an 8 year term, even if all terrible economically, Obama and the Democrats may well receive no blame by the media or most of the public.

Sort of the way everything bad happening economically during Bush years was Clinton’s wrong doing, or at least explained that way on this board. Because ya know as president there was NOTHING he could do. Case in point, nearly every thread on this board, about the collapse of the housing market, mentions that it was clinton’s fault. An 8 year unstoppable force! And everything clinton did had no impact on the economy, it was all Reagan and Bush Sr’s doing.

Take your garbage to the trashcan.

Im not an obama supporter, i did not vote for him, i dont like or agree with what hes doing.

But trying to drag that kind of rhetoric around is childish. Because your party was doing it less than three months ago.[/quote]

Oh, so you are saying it is impossible that if there are lasting bad economic times in the Obama administration that the media and much of the public might blame Bush?

If you agree it is possible then what, you just can’t stand someone pointing out that that is possible, in response to a post assuming Obama would be blamed?

Second, you miassume in calling me a Republican, and have further faulty thinking in assuming the merits of what I had just said would depend on what party if any I belonged to.

I can’t even call that sloppy thinking: it’s not thinking but some kind of knee-jerk thing. What set it off I don’t know, as it was entirely logical and reasonable that the previous Administration might be blamed. You yourself acknowledged above that that is something that occurs. So how your post makes sense even to yourself, I have no idea.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
During the primaries, I wished (but knew that it would never happen) that Hillary would be asked, just once, "You say repeatedly that your husband ‘grew the economy’ and ‘added millions of jobs’ and that you will do the same.

Now it’s true that Congress limited spending and that has helped control the budget, but he did not do that. What specifically is it that he did that grew the economy and added jobs?"

I would have loved watching her, or any advocate of those claims, come up with attempted explanation of the supposed specific act or acts.

Government doesn’t grow the economy or create jobs. What can be done is to lessen the damage that government does in those regards. Relative to greater damage, such changes grow the economy and create jobs, but only in that sense.

Tax increases don’t grow the economy and create jobs.[/quote]

To be fair, he did sign NAFTA. This certainly created jobs.

He did also do what one should do with a tax surplus. I don’t recall the specifics, but I do remember him catching flack from fellow liberals.

The only two things Clinton did that I can appreciate.

Signing NAFTA more a not-stopping-something-in-progress than actively doing something.

Still, it would have been fun if that was what Hillary had come up with, if the question had ever been asked her. Which it never would have been: it’s just an accepted truth that Clinton grew the economy and created jobs.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

Well, there’s also the possibility that no matter the result, everything bad will be blamed on Bush. Even at the end of an 8 year term, even if all terrible economically, Obama and the Democrats may well receive no blame by the media or most of the public.

Sort of the way everything bad happening economically during Bush years was Clinton’s wrong doing, or at least explained that way on this board. Because ya know as president there was NOTHING he could do. Case in point, nearly every thread on this board, about the collapse of the housing market, mentions that it was clinton’s fault. An 8 year unstoppable force! And everything clinton did had no impact on the economy, it was all Reagan and Bush Sr’s doing.
[/quote]
Don’t you think we would need to look at specific policies and economic consequences? To say that all presidents are responsible for all economic ill or prosperity is silly. But some presidents are certainly responsible for some economic ill or prosperity.

You are missing a few things here.

How do you know the tax cuts did nothing stop the recession at the time? Also, what did they do to tax revenue collected.

Secondly, do you think the housing boom was the only prosperity experienced since the telecom bubble? I am in telecom and it bounced back pretty nicely. I am sure others did quite well outside the housing bubble. To say the economy turned around becuase of the housing bubble, is just silly.

I really don’t give two shits about intent. Results are all that matter. GWB is an idiot and I really don’t care why he cut taxes, cutting taxes created results.

Now let’s contrast this with the resent decisions by republicans and democrats alike. I don’t give a shit if their intentions are good. The current policy is not going to provide long term results. If they pass the “Let’s Fuck Dan Hickey Bill” and it ends up putting more of my money in my pocket, I won’t hold it against them regardless of their original intension.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Signing NAFTA more a not-stopping-something-in-progress than actively doing something.
[/quote]
Agree. He still signed it. I don’t care if he was holding his nose while signing. I don’t care if he hated every word of the treaty. He still signed it. For that, I give him credit.

[quote]
Still, it would have been fun if that was what Hillary had come up with, if the question had ever been asked her. Which it never would have been: it’s just an accepted truth that Clinton grew the economy and created jobs.[/quote]

agreed.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A state with highly sensitive noise violation, mandatory Bingo-Sundays, and strict rules about who can and who cannot “screw 'round on mah lawn.”[/quote]

If you had enough zeal for the elderly that you would give them all the power you probably would already respect their lawn. :slight_smile:

We would have to be a culture that has a high regard for the elderly for this to happen.

The stimulus bill may place monies in your pocket today (emphasis on may) but it WILL take monies out of your pocket tomorrow. This bill needs to be paid for some how, and where do you think that money will come from?

[quote]Dr_Razor wrote:
The stimulus bill may place monies in your pocket today (emphasis on may) but it WILL take monies out of your pocket tomorrow. This bill needs to be paid for some how, and where do you think that money will come from?[/quote]

The money tree in the backyard???

[quote]Dr_Razor wrote:
The stimulus bill may place monies in your pocket today (emphasis on may) but it WILL take monies out of your pocket tomorrow. This bill needs to be paid for some how, and where do you think that money will come from?[/quote]

The steady growth of the American economy?

The rich?

The chinese?

[quote]Dr_Razor wrote:
The stimulus bill may place monies in your pocket today (emphasis on may) but it WILL take monies out of your pocket tomorrow. This bill needs to be paid for some how, and where do you think that money will come from?[/quote]

Economic Growth. (kind of the point of the “stimulus”)

[quote]100meters wrote:
Dr_Razor wrote:
The stimulus bill may place monies in your pocket today (emphasis on may) but it WILL take monies out of your pocket tomorrow. This bill needs to be paid for some how, and where do you think that money will come from?

Economic Growth. (kind of the point of the “stimulus”)[/quote]

Basically, you believe in free money. :smiley:

I don’t think you realize what kind of ridiculous growth would be necessary to pay this all back.

Sadly no he does not. He is a part of the ‘Democratic elite’ who think that the redistribution of your money is good for everyone. He thinks that you should work harder so that someone else does not have to work at all. He thinks that money does grow on trees. He is likely one of the folks who voted for our lovely Gov. Patrick (who wants to increase our gas tax to the highest in the country).

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
During the primaries, I wished (but knew that it would never happen) that Hillary would be asked, just once, "You say repeatedly that your husband ‘grew the economy’ and ‘added millions of jobs’ and that you will do the same.

Now it’s true that Congress limited spending and that has helped control the budget, but he did not do that. What specifically is it that he did that grew the economy and added jobs?"

I would have loved watching her, or any advocate of those claims, come up with attempted explanation of the supposed specific act or acts.

Government doesn’t grow the economy or create jobs. What can be done is to lessen the damage that government does in those regards. Relative to greater damage, such changes grow the economy and create jobs, but only in that sense.

Tax increases don’t grow the economy and create jobs.

To be fair, he did sign NAFTA. This certainly created jobs.

He did also do what one should do with a tax surplus. I don’t recall the specifics, but I do remember him catching flack from fellow liberals.

The only two things Clinton did that I can appreciate.
[/quote]

Hell! I’d swap what we’ve got now for Bill Clinton in an instant! Give me eight more years of Bill Clinton if it ensures we will not have to suffer through four years of Obamanomics.

Can’t fight fate…

PC - Billy C is partly responsible for this huge mess. His administration loosened the lending laws and then ‘encouraged’ banks to lend to those people who could not really pay it back (a partial reason for all of those bizarre mortgages).

[quote]Dr_Razor wrote:
PC - Billy C is partly responsible for this huge mess. His administration loosened the lending laws and then ‘encouraged’ banks to lend to those people who could not really pay it back (a partial reason for all of those bizarre mortgages).[/quote]

x2