Thread: History and the stimulus package.

What do you think they think they are "owed?"

Certainly not the freedom from worrying about their mortgage payments or putting gas in their car. Or more recently not a house of their own.

They are "owed' the free chance at life, liberty ant the pursuit of happiness without government interference. The same thing we are all owed, by the circumstance of simply being human. Inherent in that is the freedom to make bad decisions and fail, possibly paying for those decisions with our house, car, savings and even life. As soon as you begin to protect people from the consequences of their actions you begin to limit their very potential. We have some great examples of what happens when you limit potential this way in every ghetto, and trailer park in the country.

Okay. Now to the original question, what do you think THEY THINK they are owed? I am looking for the root reason they voted for a guy because he shares a "superficial trait" with them. I am starting to doubt I will get an actual response to this question.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Certainly not the freedom from worrying about their mortgage payments or putting gas in their car. Or more recently not a house of their own.

They are "owed' the free chance at life, liberty ant the pursuit of happiness without government interference. The same thing we are all owed, by the circumstance of simply being human. Inherent in that is the freedom to make bad decisions and fail, possibly paying for those decisions with our house, car, savings and even life. As soon as you begin to protect people from the consequences of their actions you begin to limit their very potential. We have some great examples of what happens when you limit potential this way in every ghetto, and trailer park in the country.

i haven't taken the time to read everyone's point of view because, well, none of us work in congress. but for what it's worth:
the government had two choices
bail out these huge companies that had crappy management and hope for the best or...
say, "this is a capitalist country and the government will not interfere with a free market for good or bad".
had they chosen the latter, the odds us NOT being in a depression would be astronomical. tens of thousands of people would have lost their jobs and the housing market would have done even worse, gas prices would be in the teen$ by now and chaos would be the norm. (personally, i like this option, but i'm a minion of chaos and discorse)
there is a third option, but i don't think it would have happened. with both the bail out and "stimulus" packages that we've seen in the last 6 months, had they divied that money up and given it to the middle class, that would been roughly a trillion dollars thrown at the public. then you tell big business, "well, it's up to the people to bail you out, they either purchase/invest from/in you or you go under, that's capitalism , good luck buddy". but honestly, we know that our government would never give us that kind of power

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Certainly not the freedom from worrying about their mortgage payments or putting gas in their car. Or more recently not a house of their own.

They are "owed' the free chance at life, liberty ant the pursuit of happiness without government interference. The same thing we are all owed, by the circumstance of simply being human. Inherent in that is the freedom to make bad decisions and fail, possibly paying for those decisions with our house, car, savings and even life. As soon as you begin to protect people from the consequences of their actions you begin to limit their very potential. We have some great examples of what happens when you limit potential this way in every ghetto, and trailer park in the country.

honestly, you make my brain itch.

Originally Posted by kljr

...but honestly, we know that our government would never give us that kind of power

The US government should derive its power from its people and not the other way around - or at least that's how it was shoveled to me as a schoolkid

hog, i agree whole-heartedly. that's why i said that. the government hasn't been run by the people in decades, business has controlled it. thus creates the problem. there's really only one way to fix that, and that's to put term limits on congress, but since that would mean all those "professional politicians" (keep in mind, when the founding fathers started this country, they had no intention that people would be in office till they died) would all have to get actual jobs, they'll never pass a bill that gets them out of their offices. YEA GREED!!!!

Just so we are on the same page as to what is included in this bill:

An Open Letter to the Congress
and the President of the United States
For the last 35 years, educators and analysts at The Heritage Foundation have been intimately involved in the nation’s great public policy debates. In all that time, we have never encountered legislation with such far-reaching and revolutionary policy implications as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act currently before Congress. And never have we seen a bill more cloaked in secrecy or more withdrawn from open public exposure and honest debate.
In addition to being the single most expensive bill ever proposed, this measure calls for a massive expansion of the federal government’s reach into the day-to-day life of virtually every citizen, business and civic organization in the nation. That, in itself, should be the subject of an extensive public conversation and thoughtful debate. Instead, we have seen Congressional leaders schedule snap votes on a 1,434-page bill that no one—repeat, no one—has had a chance to read in its entirety, much less digest and deliberate.
This bill has been advertised as an economic stimulus bill—despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will actually weaken our nation's long-term economic growth. While the stimulative utility of the bill is, at best, questionable, it would unquestionably rewrite the social contract between the American people and their government. For example:

* The bill reverses the bipartisan and highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state. For instance, it will start rewarding states for adding people to their welfare rolls, rather than for helping them find gainful employment. And contrary to long-established practice, it will entitle able-bodied adults without children to receive cash assistance.
*
* It does extreme violence to the concept of federalism—bailing out states that have spent irresponsibly at the expense of taxpayers in states that have been fiscally prudent.
*
* It greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government. Among other things, it would create a new federal health board to decide which medical services are “effective” in America, paving the way for government effectively to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians.
*
* It deliberately censors religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting use of any “stimulus” funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.

The list goes on. These and similar provisions will mean fundamental changes in our society. In many instances, the bill would establish policies that directly challenge widely held American values.
We are appalled that Congress is even contemplating such profound changes with so little openness and due diligence. In the past, major policy changes in our welfare system, or health care, or trade policies, etc., were always, quite properly, preceded by extensive public conversation and full debate. That is how a democracy should make important decisions.
The failure of Congress and the Administration to allow that debate is damaging to our democracy. Both chambers of Congress suspended their budget rules to push it along. And both the President and the leaders of the House and Senate have violated their solemn promises that the bill would be available for several days of public review prior to voting, so that the American people might have a chance to learn what is in the bill and to make their views known to their elected officials.
This reckless approach to governance can only undermine public faith in our elected officials and our government as a whole. We call on Congress and the Administration to live up to their promises and stated ideals, and give the democratic process a chance to work.

Sincerely,

Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
President
The Heritage Foundation

I heartily agree with the above letter. And I think some of you could really use a read of this and then the parts of the bill it is talking about. If that doesn't change your opinions nothing will.

Originally Posted by kljr

hog, i agree whole-heartedly. that's why i said that. the government hasn't been run by the people in decades, business has controlled it. thus creates the problem. there's really only one way to fix that, and that's to put term limits on congress, but since that would mean all those "professional politicians" (keep in mind, when the founding fathers started this country, they had no intention that people would be in office till they died) would all have to get actual jobs, they'll never pass a bill that gets them out of their offices. YEA GREED!!!!

I think big business has always had a big hand in government, but globalization and consolidation has made the impact more dramatic.

Actually, they do very well once they leave government. They get very high paying jobs with the companies they served while they were in office...

Jordan

very true jordan, they do get great jobs with the corporations they represent. putting term limits would limit how much they ceo bottom they could kiss to get those jobs.

Re: Heritage Foundation letter. --"I heartily agree with the... letter. And I think some of you could really use a read of this and then the parts of the bill it is talking about. If that doesn't change your opinions nothing will."

Oh, so we all need to adopt the Heritage Foundation's p.o.v. in the stimulus package. Gee--isn't this the same Heritage Foundation that supported the policies of the recently-departed G.W. Bush, who left the present POTUS with an economic nightmare to deal with? Maybe we can resurrect Jerry Falwell and have him run in 2012. Yeah-The Heritage Foundation-that's the ticket! Deny women the right to choose! Lock up the queers!! Back to the good ole days!!!

morons...