Obama economic plan

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-07-2004
Obama economic plan
37
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 12:38am

I'm sure we've all heard about it, but what does everyone think?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2007
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 1:08am

This is semantics, but I wish that he would get away from the terms "wall street vs. main street", "stimulus package", and "bailout". I think these terms come with baggage that make it hard for others to see it for what it is.

It seemed consistent with what he has talked about during his campaign.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2007
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 10:18am

I like his plans and I don't even care if we do grow the deficit.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 12:15pm
I disagree with the
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 12:53pm

yes, by all means, Obama is "looking out for all Americans", that's why he's continuing to drive up the deficit.


Between the money already thrown away in bail outs, the proposals for the Big 3 and this, it looks like "trillions" are becoming the new "billions".


Learn Chinese and Arabic now - those are the languages our owners will speak.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 2:31pm
What do you mean will? I would actually be funny if the shortsightedness wasn't so sad.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 4:20pm
Just out of curiosity, were you singing this same sad song while the republicans were driving up the debt over the last 8 years? Because China owns that debt as well. What exactly do we have to show for that debt?
.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 5:01pm

Yes I was.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-23-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 6:32pm

ITA that the deficit needs to be handled. I think spending needs to be cut, but I think it needs to be done intelligently AND I think taxes need to be raised, but not in this financial climate.

HOWEVER, when we decided we needed to go to war in Iraq - no one asked "Where's the money going to come from?" and they should have. Taxes weren't raised to pay for it, spending wasn't cut to pay for it, and that put us deeply in the hole. Some would argue that a matter of national security trumps being able to pay for a war. Sure. But now we have an altogether different crisis on our hands that affects or will soon be affecting most Americans. Since we've been spending SO MUCH money on rebuilding Iraq (necessary in a you broke it you buy it kind of way) I find it appalling that when we now want to spend money on AMERICAN CITIZENS to create jobs and help the economy, people are balking all over the place. I find it hypocritical at best.

Now, I do not think that the bailouts have been handled appropriately, but I'm no expert so I have no idea what would have been appropriate, given the circumstances. I do think that job creation is a crucial piece of the fixing of this economy, though. If banks won't lend so people can create jobs then the government needs to. I think public works are a good idea and if we can't pay for it now, that's really unfortunate, but to me it's necessary to save our citizens - just as we thought that invading Iraq was necessary to save our citizens (only in this case it's a MORE legitimate cause, IMO).

As soon as the economy improves and we are in a better financial climate, THEN we need to see to reducing the deficit. Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a child who is sick with a serious and likely fatal disease. Your insurance (if you have any) only covers a portion of her treatment and large parts are deemed "experimental" and aren't covered at all. You have taken out a 2nd mortgage (or other large loan) to help you pay for her treatment. You are falling further and further into debt, but you can see the improvement in your child. You rationalize that you can pay off the debt when she is better because you can make money but you can't bring your daughter back if she dies. This is kind of what I think about the economy right now. It is urgent to American families who have lost or will soon lose their jobs that we fix this economy. Sure, it's not ideal that we are falling farther and farther into debt, but we are doing it to save something precious that might be lost forever if we neglect to do anything.

Also, and I've said this before, I think healthcare falls under the umbrella of national security and if we're not going to ask how to pay for wars then we shouldn't ask how we will pay for healthcare. Why is it NOT ok for an American to get killed by a terrorist attack but it IS ok for an American to get killed by a disease that they can't afford treatment for. The American citizen is dead either way. If you think that a role of the government is protecting citizens, then I don't see a way in which healthcare is not a part of that. Period.





~Ashley~




pregnancy week by week





Edited 11/25/2008 6:51 pm ET by goobersnot1


~Ashley~

Lilypie 1st Birthday Ticker

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 6:36pm

Also, and I've said this before, I think healthcare falls under the umbrella of national security and we shouldn't ever ask how will we pay for it. Why is it NOT ok for an American to get killed by a terrorist attack but it IS ok for an American to get killed by a disease that they can't afford treatment for. The American citizen is dead either way. If you think that a role of the government is protecting citizens, then I don't see a way in which healthcare is not a part of that. Period.


Amen, sister! ITA.




pregnancy Photobucket Photobucket
BARACKED2.jpg picture by irishnutmeg
Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 6:58pm

Well then, there is something we can agree on - even if we never agree again. I find it interesting that democrats are referred to as 'tax and spend' while it would seem historically republicans could be referred to as 'don't tax but keep spending', personally if we have to keep spending someone has to pay the piper so who are the republicans expecting to pay? Reduced taxes and increased spending hasn't worked - as evidenced by our ever increasing debt, so somewhere along the line we are all going to either be paying higher taxes or receiving significantly fewer services. Neither is a very palatable option.

"I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

I found this an interesting tid bit concerning national debt under republican vs democrat presidents:

"Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84.

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending."

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

.
.

Pages