Results 1 to 10 of 123
Threaded View
-
02-14-2009, 04:41 PM #11
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 448
Thanked: 50You've been getting some bad information. Nearly half the package is tax cuts. This in spite of the fact that irresponsible tax cuts were a large part of what got us here. When you consider that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 amounted to $1.35 trillion, one has to wonder, if tax cuts are the answer, why we are we in this situation in the first place?
Government has only two methods of stimulating a failing economy -- tax cuts and increased government spending. Neither is a panacea. Tax cuts put money into the economy sooner, but don't result in long-term growth. Spending takes longer, but it tends to preserve jobs. That's why a blend is necessary.
I look at the provisions of the package, and I don't see what you mean about "Pet Projects." It all seems like infrastructure to me. If what you're saying is that government should never spend money, I think you're just out of step with reality. We expect government to do certain things, for which money must be spent.
I'm not going to say the the Democrats haven't hurt the economy on occasion, but I'm really sorry to have to say that this one occurred solidly on the Republicans' watch. The smoking gun in this case was the repeal of Glass-Steagal by a solidly Republican Congress. That's what enabled the credit crisis.. There simply is no credible disagreement on that point.
I, too, would like to see some backup on the notion of millions of Canadians storming our borders for our magnificent health care system. Please, no anecdotal evidence. Numbers would be nice. Also, I'd like some of our Canadian members to chime in with how much they'd prefer to live with the American health care system.
j