Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
He might just be able to pull the country out of the abyss, but it is going to be a close call. I am surprised how few people understand how serious the mess is that previous presidents, specially Bush, left for him to clean up. The worst part is that the republicans don't seem to be wanting to help in cleaning it up, they want to create an even bigger mess.
Disagreeing about how to clean up the mess is not the same as not wanting to clean it up. Most of the problems Bush created were created by his Progressive policies, not Republican policies. People assume that he followed Republican ideals, but he did not.
[1 point]165 days ago by JWBrothersReplyEdited 165 days ago by JWBrothers
Well, they might disagree on how to clean u the mess, but I have not seen any credible proposal on how "they" would do it differently. Remember even Bush started with stimulus packages and bailouts.
Hey, I never knocked Bush for wanting to bail out companies either. But it is hypocritical when Obama wants to bail out the banks and companies, he is labeled anti American. Having said that, they are still looking for the money that Bush handed out and his plan consisted of just three pages. Then again I can understand the urgency at the time, some believe it was a matter of hours before the banking industry was going to collapse.
But at the moment the Republicans are just loudmouths with no plan, maybe the right people in the party are not speaking, or being interviewed?
RE: Doing it differently (From the Republican Whip)
Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:
Rather than a refundable credit based on payroll taxes, House Republicans propose reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $500 in tax relief from the drop in the 10% bracket and $1,200 for the drop in the 15% bracket. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.
Help for America’s Small Businesses:
Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans, yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. House Republicans propose to allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.
No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:
The stimulus proposal pending in Congress includes record levels of government spending that will substantially increase the current deficit. House Republicans are concerned that this level of spending will result in some proposing near-term tax increases on American families. House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.
Assistance for the Unemployed:
Incredibly, the Federal Government actually imposes income taxes on an individual receiving unemployment benefits. House Republicans propose to make unemployment benefits tax free so that those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.
Stabilizing Home Values:
The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall even further. This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, House Republicans propose a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.
And I'll add my personal favorites...
Increased domestic drilling. A study has shown that 735,000 jobs could be created in ANWR drilling alone.
Update laws on Nuclear power to allow fast tracking of new plants.
Allow any lender to sell off any loan after two years. This would stop banks and mortgage companies from flipping loans and strengthen smaller operations.
Require an economic statement for all new regulations. This would be presented to congress before any regulation could be implemented.
Yes tax cuts do boost the economy, there is no doubt about that, however infrastructure spending is about twice as effective.
"Infrastructure spending, not tax cuts, is a more effective way to create jobs and boost economic growth, according to an economic report released on the eve of the release of Canada's federal budget.
The infrastructure economic “multiplier” is significant, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce economist Benjamin Tal said. He estimated every $10-billion of spending on infrastructure can potentially create about 115,000 Canadian jobs and lift economic growth by almost 1.5 percentage points.
That's “well above the stimulus effect of a tax cut of a similar size,” he said. Personal tax cuts of a comparable $10-billion would create half the number of jobs – 57,000 – and boost GDP by just 0.8 percentage points." --
At first it would seem that is silly to tax unemployment benefits, but unemployment benefits are a form of income and should be combined with the total income a person receives, some one who invest in the stock market and makes millions should not be getting an employment benefit in the first place, but when they do I want that income to be added to their taxable income. Making more tax loopholes rather the fewer does not reduce the size of the form you have to fill in each year.
So even though the proposals the Republicans put up are valid they are not near as effective (or are already done) as what the current administration is doing or has proposed. You might not like the spending on infrastructure or health or education for various reasons, that is quite ok. But even the Bush economist understood the need to bail out the banks, something you have not yet disputed here.
RE: ...jobs created by drilling in the ANWR region
Admittedly, I grew up in an oil producing state and am biased against both Democrat and Republican ideas on energy but I feel those 700,000+ jobs are correct. The estimates range from 10s of thousands to 10 million (when you add drilling on the continental shelf) We could trade expert opinions all day, but my original point about creating a huge amount of jobs without any direct cost to the taxpayers is still valid. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/10-million-jobs-the-high-cost-of-saving-anwr/
There is no mention of 700,000+ jobs in that article :( It just makes some wild speculations. Would be nice to get some accurate number rather then the wild ranges mentioned.
RE: The infrastructure economic “multiplier” is significant.
This is one of the best reasons for infrastructure spending. If done properly, infrastructure spending improves transportation, waste management, energy production and the environment.
But the US stimulus package is mostly about "quality of life" spending. (not infrastructure) Everybody is in favor of a better quality of life, but everybody defines it differently. My quality of life would improve if I didn't have 22 traffic lights between me and anything else in this town. I find overhead wires ugly and unnecessary. But others in my town and around the country would hit the ceiling if I suggested spending billions to correct these problems.
My brother in Texas loves to fish and loves the millions of acres of man made lakes in North Texas and Southern Oklahoma. But it is extremely unlikely that his quality of life will improve in this regard because radical environmentalists have stopped anything that effects a change in the environment by arguing that any change at all is detrimental.
A huge amount is being spent on studies designed to prove somebody's point. (no stimulus there) Another huge amount is being spent on retaining outmoded or unneeded military bases. (pork, temporary stimulus) Much of the rest goes to liberal community organizations and specifically excludes church run food banks or homeless shelters.
To most Conservatives, (at worst) the US stimulus package looks like a Liberal pork barrel dream come true with a few jobs thrown in, and (at best) it looks like a wildly expensive way to do a job that needs doing.
I am sorry to say you are running out of arguments. There is a need for meaningful opposition to Obama, sadly you guys are pushed so far to the right, you have no wiggle room left.
RE: But even the Bush economist understood the need to bail out the banks, something you have not yet disputed here.
The only thing I have a problem with is the timid way the Bush administration sounded the alarm about the impending collapse and the way the Democrat House denied there was a problem by being knee-jerk anti-Bush.
Nope Democrats acknowledged there was a problem, it was bush who said the economy is doing well only a couple of weeks before. That is why Bush got a hard time.
On Sept. 16, 2008, McCain said, "Two years ago, I warned the administration and the Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed to be fixed. It turns out, the problem was even bigger. They waited too long, and now we have a housing crisis, three bailouts with taxpayers' money, and a financial crisis." McCain acted as the Republican spokesman. Barney Frank prevented any regulatory overhaul from getting out of committee. Bush was not the problem except he forgot he was a Republican President with a responsibility to lead the Republican party. He let McCain lead that fight and McCain lost that one too.
Sir, please explain why you would write something about your president not having and athority on my island. That was not even hinted at in the question. You americans change topics soo quickly, I need a flow chart to follow along.
Iceland
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/06/08/obama-promises-stimulus-jobs/
Why is an Icelandic so concerned with American Politics? Are you lying about where you are from? If so, how much else are you lying about?
The country couldn't have gone any further into the ground.
Yeah Iceland got hit pretty hard by the crisis compared to other countries.
Why would he run Iceland into the ground, Jon?
whose Jon?
is there any ground left after Bush?
Of course not. How silly.
*KISS*!!
There you are little sheep! A big kiss for you!
EEEEEEEE! *runs off happily!*
He might just be able to pull the country out of the abyss, but it is going to be a close call. I am surprised how few people understand how serious the mess is that previous presidents, specially Bush, left for him to clean up. The worst part is that the republicans don't seem to be wanting to help in cleaning it up, they want to create an even bigger mess.
Disagreeing about how to clean up the mess is not the same as not wanting to clean it up. Most of the problems Bush created were created by his Progressive policies, not Republican policies. People assume that he followed Republican ideals, but he did not.
Well, they might disagree on how to clean u the mess, but I have not seen any credible proposal on how "they" would do it differently. Remember even Bush started with stimulus packages and bailouts.
RE: Bush started with stimulus packages and bailouts.
That's some of the Progressive (not Republican) policies that I was talking about.
Hey, I never knocked Bush for wanting to bail out companies either. But it is hypocritical when Obama wants to bail out the banks and companies, he is labeled anti American. Having said that, they are still looking for the money that Bush handed out and his plan consisted of just three pages. Then again I can understand the urgency at the time, some believe it was a matter of hours before the banking industry was going to collapse.
But at the moment the Republicans are just loudmouths with no plan, maybe the right people in the party are not speaking, or being interviewed?
RE: Doing it differently (From the Republican Whip)
Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:
Rather than a refundable credit based on payroll taxes, House Republicans propose reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $500 in tax relief from the drop in the 10% bracket and $1,200 for the drop in the 15% bracket. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.
Help for America’s Small Businesses:
Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans, yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. House Republicans propose to allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.
No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:
The stimulus proposal pending in Congress includes record levels of government spending that will substantially increase the current deficit. House Republicans are concerned that this level of spending will result in some proposing near-term tax increases on American families. House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.
Assistance for the Unemployed:
Incredibly, the Federal Government actually imposes income taxes on an individual receiving unemployment benefits. House Republicans propose to make unemployment benefits tax free so that those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.
Stabilizing Home Values:
The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall even further. This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, House Republicans propose a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.
And I'll add my personal favorites...
Increased domestic drilling. A study has shown that 735,000 jobs could be created in ANWR drilling alone.
Update laws on Nuclear power to allow fast tracking of new plants.
Allow any lender to sell off any loan after two years. This would stop banks and mortgage companies from flipping loans and strengthen smaller operations.
Require an economic statement for all new regulations. This would be presented to congress before any regulation could be implemented.
Yes tax cuts do boost the economy, there is no doubt about that, however infrastructure spending is about twice as effective.
"Infrastructure spending, not tax cuts, is a more effective way to create jobs and boost economic growth, according to an economic report released on the eve of the release of Canada's federal budget.
The infrastructure economic “multiplier” is significant, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce economist Benjamin Tal said. He estimated every $10-billion of spending on infrastructure can potentially create about 115,000 Canadian jobs and lift economic growth by almost 1.5 percentage points.
That's “well above the stimulus effect of a tax cut of a similar size,” he said. Personal tax cuts of a comparable $10-billion would create half the number of jobs – 57,000 – and boost GDP by just 0.8 percentage points." --
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090126.winfrajobs26/BNStory/Business/home
The "home-buyers credit" is already in place (it is 8000 dollars not 7500) --
http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/index.html
At first it would seem that is silly to tax unemployment benefits, but unemployment benefits are a form of income and should be combined with the total income a person receives, some one who invest in the stock market and makes millions should not be getting an employment benefit in the first place, but when they do I want that income to be added to their taxable income. Making more tax loopholes rather the fewer does not reduce the size of the form you have to fill in each year.
As for the claim of the jobs created by drilling in the ANWR region, here is an article on that from 2001 debunking the job numbers as well as some of the other claims -- http://www.time.com/time/columnist/waller/article/0,9565,170983,00.html
So even though the proposals the Republicans put up are valid they are not near as effective (or are already done) as what the current administration is doing or has proposed. You might not like the spending on infrastructure or health or education for various reasons, that is quite ok. But even the Bush economist understood the need to bail out the banks, something you have not yet disputed here.
RE: ...jobs created by drilling in the ANWR region
Admittedly, I grew up in an oil producing state and am biased against both Democrat and Republican ideas on energy but I feel those 700,000+ jobs are correct. The estimates range from 10s of thousands to 10 million (when you add drilling on the continental shelf) We could trade expert opinions all day, but my original point about creating a huge amount of jobs without any direct cost to the taxpayers is still valid. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/10-million-jobs-the-high-cost-of-saving-anwr/
There is no mention of 700,000+ jobs in that article :( It just makes some wild speculations. Would be nice to get some accurate number rather then the wild ranges mentioned.
RE: The infrastructure economic “multiplier” is significant.
This is one of the best reasons for infrastructure spending. If done properly, infrastructure spending improves transportation, waste management, energy production and the environment.
But the US stimulus package is mostly about "quality of life" spending. (not infrastructure) Everybody is in favor of a better quality of life, but everybody defines it differently. My quality of life would improve if I didn't have 22 traffic lights between me and anything else in this town. I find overhead wires ugly and unnecessary. But others in my town and around the country would hit the ceiling if I suggested spending billions to correct these problems.
My brother in Texas loves to fish and loves the millions of acres of man made lakes in North Texas and Southern Oklahoma. But it is extremely unlikely that his quality of life will improve in this regard because radical environmentalists have stopped anything that effects a change in the environment by arguing that any change at all is detrimental.
A huge amount is being spent on studies designed to prove somebody's point. (no stimulus there) Another huge amount is being spent on retaining outmoded or unneeded military bases. (pork, temporary stimulus) Much of the rest goes to liberal community organizations and specifically excludes church run food banks or homeless shelters.
To most Conservatives, (at worst) the US stimulus package looks like a Liberal pork barrel dream come true with a few jobs thrown in, and (at best) it looks like a wildly expensive way to do a job that needs doing.
I am sorry to say you are running out of arguments. There is a need for meaningful opposition to Obama, sadly you guys are pushed so far to the right, you have no wiggle room left.
Don't mistake Obama doing some things right for no wiggle room. B^)
LOL
RE: But even the Bush economist understood the need to bail out the banks, something you have not yet disputed here.
The only thing I have a problem with is the timid way the Bush administration sounded the alarm about the impending collapse and the way the Democrat House denied there was a problem by being knee-jerk anti-Bush.
Nope Democrats acknowledged there was a problem, it was bush who said the economy is doing well only a couple of weeks before. That is why Bush got a hard time.
On Sept. 16, 2008, McCain said, "Two years ago, I warned the administration and the Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed to be fixed. It turns out, the problem was even bigger. They waited too long, and now we have a housing crisis, three bailouts with taxpayers' money, and a financial crisis." McCain acted as the Republican spokesman. Barney Frank prevented any regulatory overhaul from getting out of committee. Bush was not the problem except he forgot he was a Republican President with a responsibility to lead the Republican party. He let McCain lead that fight and McCain lost that one too.
Obama has no authority in Iceland.
Sir, please explain why you would write something about your president not having and athority on my island. That was not even hinted at in the question. You americans change topics soo quickly, I need a flow chart to follow along.
"Is Obama gonna run this country into the ground?"
submitted by a member with an Icelandic flag next to their name, WiseOne.
And now we know that you and lilynoh are the same person, JonPrilOne
Lol, apparently you change avatars so quickly you can no longer keep track. Do you run flow charts for that, too?
Oops!
haha so awesome...