Will Obama's budget benefit, or bankrupt U.S.?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robby Slaughter on March 23, 2009 at 9:31am

Although this budget and stimulus package is tremendously huge and will impact millions of Americans, I don't believe it will be significant. Responding to economic challenges with government investment is 20th century thinking, and American's global importance continues to wane. Before commenting on future trends, everyone should watch this video:

Did You Know 3.0

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robby Slaughter on March 23, 2009 at 9:53am

Chris,

My point is that the scale of the budget is trivial compared to the scale of other tremendous cultural and social changes affecting the entire world. This is interesting because we've been told that the stimulus package will "save the economy" and that we facing the biggest crisis since the "Great Depression."

Personally, I think other trends are far more interesting. It's tough for many people in America right now, but the changes that are coming are far greater than we can imagine.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robby Slaughter on March 23, 2009 at 10:01am

I don't think there's anything the government can do to ensure America will be a major part of the future global economy. I believe much more in individuals with ideas than I do in the government's ability to enact change.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken Martlage on March 23, 2009 at 9:33am

I think he is trying to do too much too fast. It would seem more prudent to put together JUST things that will fix the banking industry, get that going and then try to "fix" some of the social issues. He is mixing up too much in the name of economic crisis. As has been reported by his administration, "a good crisis can't be wasted". Wrong message. Let the nation address each of the "fixes" individually so that the debate, true feelings of the American public, and the true aspects of each program can be assessed rather than lumping and shoving them all down our throats. My kids can't afford the deficit.

Also, instead of loading up the messages to congress from just his supporters (email) why not publicize the need from EVERYONE to give their thoughts.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben McCann on March 23, 2009 at 6:49pm

I have this to offer to the debate:

1. GOVERNMENT MONEY: The governement has NO MONEY, in order to finance or fund an agenda or initiative, it has 3 ways to get money 1. Raise Taxes 2. Borrow Money 3. Print Money ( thus creating inflation and devaluing the dollar) like a casino issues chips...

BEFORE MONEY: Monarchs would take a portion of your product, labor, or whatever you had. i.e. if you were a brick layer, you would work for the "monarch" a few weeks out of the year or a few days a month.

THE USE OF MONEY: Money made it easier to conduct commerce and pay taxes, it is nothing more than a representation of WEALTH.. Just like the CHIPS of a casino... the casinos are not wealth, nor is our money, it is a reperesentation of WEALTH that was PRODUCED or GENERATED outside of the casino before it was traded for CHIPS.

2. MONEY LIKE GAMBLING CHIPS REPRESENT WEALTH THAT WAS CREATED SOMEWHERE ELSE
3. Neither the Government, nor the casino CREATE any wealth: they redistribute wealth that was created elsewhere.
4. Before money came into use, the government would take a portion of each citizens actual GOODS or SERVICES produced as payment of taxes.
5. Before Money came into use, people bought things and paid taxes by barter. It was inconvenient to spend half a cow, so we wound up with money.
6. When government provides benefits to citizens, it must pay for them by TAXING, BORROWING, or PRINTING more money.
7. When government prints too much money, it causes INFLATION.
8. When government prints too much money, everything you buy costs MORE. That is morally wrong.
9. When an INDIVIDUAL borrows money, that individual is expected to pay the money back.
10. When a COMPANY borrows money, that company is expected to pay the money back. (usually a company purchases an ASSET that can help them PRODUCE more and pay back the money or be sold to pay back the DEBT. )
11. Only GOVERNMENT can borrow money and require somebody else to pay it back... THAT IS MORALLY WRONG!!!!
12. To take property from your neighbors family when he dies is not biblical, the DEATH TAX is morally wrong.

ADAM SMITH ( FATHER OF MODERN ECONOMICS.. wrote the book WEALTH OF NATIONS ):
Adam said this... " Anyone who produces more than they consume makes a nation wealthier, anyone who consumes more than he produces makes a nation poorer."

my comment: Our nation needs more producers, unfortunately we are a nation primarily of CONSUMERS and YOU CAN'T BUILD AN ECONOMY BASED ON CONSUMPTION.

"You cannot borrow your way out of debt"

CONSIDER THIS:
- In 1900 the ratio of Producers to Consumers were 95:5 ( Agricultural Age )
between 1900 and 2000 we had shift in our society through the ( Industrial Age)
- In 2000 the ratio of Producers to Consumers was 3:97 (Information Age )

Since 2000 we have become and INFORMATION BASED SOCIETY.

BAILOUTS: Reward failure and punish success

The problem with government is that it always makes political decisions, not economic decisions; you don't want banks run by politics...

CONSIDER THIS ANALOGY:
Our COUNTRY is a FOOTBALL GAME: Here are the ROLES...
GOVERNMENT: role as a referee, who didn't come to play, they just watch closely the moves of the players and throw flags and assign penalties to those who break the rules
BUSINESSES: are the competing teams, owners, Coaches etc... they compete against one another on a FAIR playing field.
CONSUMERS: the fans in the stands

The GOVERNMENT has failed its role as REFEREE, examples are G.S.E's ( government sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae) these organizations are basically like the referee who carries the ball for their favorite team... the refs aren't supposed to play, they are supposed to call 'em like they see 'em..

Government FAILURES have created the current financial mess and the socialists in power want you to believe that the more government is the solution.

QUESTION: If the S.E.C. cannot prevent Madoff scandal after multiple warnings & requests, why will a bigger government do a better job.

--- Comment: Perfect has never been on the ballot, but we do have choices. ( although one commentator when asked what he thought of politicians and corruption and the lack of good choices on the ballot " you can't get clean water from a muddy stream" ... thus we cannot get good leaders and politicians from our talent pool of people because we have become a MORALLY BANKRUPT Society.

FREDDIE MAC & FANNIE MAE: they are not Private companies and they are not Government owned... they are G.S.E. ( Government Sponsored Enterprises ) thus they were corrupted and given special and preferential treatment to do as they with on the "PLAYING FIELD"... referee ( government ) carried the ball for them ( sponsored enterprises ) the rules didn't apply to them, since they weren't entirely public and weren't really government owned, they had little to no regulation on how to play ball... fueling a CONSUMER DRIVEN economy in the HOUSING and FINANCING WORLD.

The Fat cats on wall street never thought in a million years that GOVERNMENT would let their BABY fall flat on their face, they assumed if they needed help from issuing all these risky loans that they would be BAILED OUT. they weren't and we saw the crumble as a result of it... now the government is trying to FIX it... too bad there is too much paper trail pointing at them.

THE 17th AMENDMENT: took away the balance between power of States and Federal Government... now all the officials are eleceted by the MASSES ( people ) and we have 2 warring sides ( MOB RULE and SNOB RULE ) The U.S. Senate was designed to represent the States and provide a balance of power, the House Of Representatives represents the people... since the 17th Amendment, it made both House and Senate Directly elected by the people and thus threw off the balance of power.

All FEDERAL SPENDING bills must originate in the U.Sh. House of Representatives. Many Presidential Executive orders are borderline and some clearly violate the CONSTITUTION. If any branch of Government exceeds it's Constitutional Authority, it is up to either or both the remaining branches to reign it in.

We now have Judges Legislating from the Bench instead of Interpreting Laws. We have Executives Passing Laws instead of enforcing them, and our Legislators are out lining their own pockets and looking out for what is in their individual best interest and not the interest of the people and the entire nation.

Someone once said when Iraq was drafting their CONSTITUTION... they could use ours since we weren't using it anymore.

Our nation is totally watching our Liberties being taken away and our GOD GIVEN freedom being taken away by Socialist Minded Communists who want to either OWN or CONTROL our Property and our spending habits.

When it was proposed that if we were going to give out stimulus money, why not give it directly to the people, the response from the eleceted representative in the COMMITTEE MEETING was " If we did that, we couldn't control how they spend it".

If we took the BAILOUT and spread it out equally over every registered voter over the age of 18 who paid taxes in this country, it would equal $500,000 per person...

Yeah... I could use that more than AIG or the Squanderous Banks.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ryan Wilcox on March 23, 2009 at 9:44am

The biggest problem with the stimulus is that people don't understand it and pick up on minutiae to try and exploit people fears. It's all conjecture at this point, and your response will probably coincide with your own political leanings.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on March 23, 2009 at 9:51am

I'm not sure it's a matter of understanding it, it's more a matter of having faith that the same 'watchdogs' that put us here are now telling us how they're going to turn it around. I have zero faith in Government's ability to 'stimulate' anything outside of their own wallets.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Henry Kurkowski on March 23, 2009 at 7:13pm

if the government stopped spending our money you would be guarding the door with a shotgun and afraid to leave your home.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chip McComb on March 23, 2009 at 9:51am

I feel like Obama is making short term decisions that will have a drastic effect upon the long term viability of our country. No one would argue that this is a turning point for the nation that calls for drastic measures, but I'd like to see a budget that takes into account the long term impact of borrowing so much money. We're mortgaging our future and that of our children while putting America on track for bankruptcy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark Apple on March 23, 2009 at 9:59am

It appears to me, that my grandchildren who are not yet conceived, will be born legally bankrupt!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben McCann on March 23, 2009 at 7:37pm

Yep... and that is Morally wrong for the governement to borrow money and expect our Children and grandchildren to repay it. Individuals and Companies can't do this, why should we let Government do it?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Henry Kurkowski on March 23, 2009 at 7:43pm

for how many decades has each administration been doing this?

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last