Stimulus package??

[adam_c]

Russell,
That respect has to go both ways. I'm not convinced that our government leaders respect us. They are there to SERVE to public, not to rule over it. Again, just my opinion.

So, since this is a financial forum; do you have any thoughts on how success of the current policies being put in place will translate into success for you personally? Do you see the current events leading to increased business or personal opportunities for your job or your family?

Thanks,
Adam C

[sweeps]

Adam, just want to say, I don't agree with many of your points, but I do respect your thought process and I respect your opinion.

Whoever prevails, I hope whatever direction we take from here is positive for the country.

[EEinNJ]

Grimjack, great thread, and it reflects the opposing views in this country. Including political name calling! The reality is this recession started long before the current administration, and nobody knows if this huge spending bill will work. Generally, on a state level these programs don't.

Personally I think the bank and investment companies that created a mess should either fix it themselves or go broke. Same with auto companies, and idiots who make 40K buying 400K houses. That would be capitalistic justice.

But if the major bank my savings are at, or the brokerages that have my investments, closed up and took my money with them, me and a lot of other people would be up in arms. Likewise with hundreds of thousands unemployed from failed industries, and homeless people and boarded up towns. I believe the government doesn't want to run everything- they want to prevent catastrophic failures that would create huge social problems.

[jIM_Ohio]

All I have to say is that it shows that we have no respect for our leaders. Even if you have a difference in opinion, now that he is the elected leader as voted by the majority of the population, give him a chance to succeed. It's in everyone's interest to succeed as a country and as a nation that includes the republicans and the democrats - you and me.

But as I said we as a nation don't respect our leaders. Being in IT management, I sometimes experience this myself.

Comparing IT management to elected officials is short sighted. Your IT managers hired you. The government officials are hired based on winning an election.

Just because "everyone else" voted for Obama does not mean I have to agree with him, endorse him, or otherwise support him.

He is the leader and I wish him well, but I think history will show for all the good he does (first black president...), his policies will put the country further behind or become more of a place I don't want to live... I might immigrate to a south american country in retirement to avoid his policies altogether.

[GREENBACK]

I think the president is a good speaker and probably a fine man. I disagree with what he's doing politically though. I think he wants everyone to be financially equal with his plan to redistribute wealth. I'm all for everyone having an equal opportunity to succeed but not like he plans it. I think what has made America the great country that it is is the creativity and driving spirit of it's people. The fact that you can be born an average person and rise to anything you put your mind to. Whether you agree with capitalism or not it's what allows people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Sam Walton , to name a few, to go from humble beginings to super rich buisnessmen who then give employment to thousands of people and donate enormous amounts of money to various charities not to mention the actual money they put back into the economy.

I believe it's a bad approach to go after the earnings of these people, and many that make much less, to put towards ideas that have never worked anywhere in the world. Providing health care for all sounds great on paper but doesn't work so well in practice(Canada). Canadiens come here when they need the best and brightest doctors.

When he starts going after people that make 250k or whatever figure they work out I think you'll see small buisnesses not hiring as many people and not providing the benefits they currently do.

In short, I think his plan will greatly deflate the entrepenurial spirit that drives and motivates our society. The economy may very well rise again to what it was but I think we'll have a watered down version of what it could be.

[sweeps]

GREENBACK, I hear you, but we've had a progressive tax policy for a very long time and it's never killed anyone's entrepreneurial spirit.

People with entrepreneurial spirit and drive and risk-taking have and will continue to overcome. What's left out of the argument is how our country makes it easy for entrepreneurs and risk takers to succeed. People should be (and are) willing to pay for a premium for that.

[GREENBACK]

GREENBACK, I hear you, but we've had a progressive tax policy for a very long time and it's never killed anyone's entrepreneurial spirit.

People with entrepreneurial spirit and drive and risk-taking have and will continue to overcome. What's left out of the argument is how our country makes it easy for entrepreneurs and risk takers to succeed. People should be (and are) willing to pay for a premium for that.

I hear what you're saying but have to wonder about the end game in all this. Will this administration focus on incentivising individuals to rise to greatness or continue to go after the bank accounts of those that have already gotten there. If his programs don't succeed will he go for more cash from the "rich" and claim he just didn't spend enough. I don't know the answer to that but it seems like they could explain it to us common folks.

[adam_c]

GREENBACK, I hear you, but we've had a progressive tax policy for a very long time and it's never killed anyone's entrepreneurial spirit.

People with entrepreneurial spirit and drive and risk-taking have and will continue to overcome. What's left out of the argument is how our country makes it easy for entrepreneurs and risk takers to succeed. People should be (and are) willing to pay for a premium for that.

Hi Sweeps,
Again, a total difference of perspectives. To say that our country makes it easy for entrepreneurs to succeed implies that freedom is something that flows from the government to the individual. I personally reject that premise.

Freedom begins with you and me and there should be no more more government interference in our lives than is necessary to see that our rights are protected. It shouldn't "cost" me anything to have the opportunity to succeed. I don't pretend to be a geopolitical scholar, but if anyone can name a country that is currently suffering from too much freedom, I'd be interested in discussing it.

[GrimJack]

GreenJack, I'll be happy to have this conversation with you, but since it will most likely end up a political debate rather than a financial one, we may be in the wrong place.

Well, this particular area is labeled "Everything Else" so I think we are safe for now.

I have a couple of question for you. I'm curious about something. You use the terms transfer of wealth and redistribution as if they are interchangeable.

I used the term 'transfer of wealth' as part of the definition of redistribution

Is that your position?

Yes.

Is forced confiscation of my tax dollars morally equivalent of my choosing to invest in the stock market?

No, All political policies enforce some form of redistribution; taxation is one form, investing is another form, putting a gun to someones head is another; Bernie Madoff used a different form. Transfer of wealth is just transfer of wealth which is to say redistribution is transfer of wealth. I noticed that you used a pejorative for taxation - that might be for a different discussion (or at least not this post) so I will leave it.

You use the term "far right". Could you define that for me please? Also, could you define the term "far left". Feel free to reference specific individuals if necessary.

Okay, you are far right, I am far left and President Obama is center left.

We can discuss this as long as you want if we can keep it on a financial level, otherwise, I would feel like we are out of place here.

agreed

Thanks,
Adam C

ps. Have you read the full bill?

I have to admit I have ADD - I keep working my way through various versions of it but I keep getting distracted. I will RSN - so far I have mostly searched it for what other people try to tell me is in it. and the different versions are beginning to confuse me -- I should just stick with the end result and not worry what was left out and what was shoehorned in during the 'sausage-making' process.

[Angio333]

Grimjack,

In the previous thread we agreed that money for smoking cessation and tobacco prevention education was in the bill. That is a classical example of pork. How does that stimulate the economy?

Why should the government take my money and money from other workers at gunpoint in order to help someone else stop smoking? It is not the government's job to help anyone stop smoking.

Make no mistake about it, all taxes are taken at gunpoint....just not directly. Don't believe me, don't pay any income tax for a few years. What would happen if you did that? People with guns (law enforcement) would come and arrest you.

[GrimJack]

I'm keeping my opinion out of this, because it's futile anyway... Grimjack, no offense, but it seems that you started this thread simply in order to evoke reactions from both the left- and right-leaning members of the forums here. There are merits of this argument on both sides, some of which have been brought up. However, no one seems to be willing to discuss those ideas on the merits of the position, but rather unilaterally denounce them. You in particular have picked apart people's responses without attempting to consider the merits behind them, entirely denying them as valid. Logic has its place, but not (apparently) in this thread. point, counterpoint, proof, etc., -- all out the window here.

I have picked apart some people's responses because, in order to have a discussion, there must be some agreement on terms. I had to 'Plonk' Greenback because he was unable to define any of his terms (I hope his was not one of the opinions you think have merit). There have been some very thoughtful responses since you posted this and I am going to work with them as I can. I do not care if you approve of my style but if you critique it please be specific so I know what you are talking about (ie, I will discuss my style in specific if you want but a generalized statement "you suck" is neither here nor there).

Back around the election, I realized that there is a wide variety of opinions on these boards. However, few are willing/able to make intelligent conversation about topics of a political nature. Each feels his own opinion above reproach or questioning, and therefore will defend it (and attack opposition) blindly. Has anyone gained a greater breadth of understanding or learned anythi0ng through the "conversation" in this thread? I highly doubt it.

I started this thread so that I can learn; I have my opinions, I enjoy making my opinions known, I want people to teach me something I did not know. But, if I am pointed to a source that I do not trust, I will look for other sources - at the very least, I will check Wikipedia and I will also read the discussion of the article to see how the politics were handled.

For these reasons, I decided back then to stay out of political conversations here... I would recommend that be the course for everyone here. I really don't mean to make ad hominem attacks here on anyone, but this is an exercise in futility, always has around here, and probably always will. Tchüss....

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

Was that harsh? An exercise in futility is posting that posting is an exercise in futility.

[GrimJack]

Grimjack, great thread, and it reflects the opposing views in this country. Including political name calling! The reality is this recession started long before the current administration, and nobody knows if this huge spending bill will work. Generally, on a state level these programs don't.

Personally I think the bank and investment companies that created a mess should either fix it themselves or go broke. Same with auto companies, and idiots who make 40K buying 400K houses. That would be capitalistic justice.

But if the major bank my savings are at, or the brokerages that have my investments, closed up and took my money with them, me and a lot of other people would be up in arms. Likewise with hundreds of thousands unemployed from failed industries, and homeless people and boarded up towns. I believe the government doesn't want to run everything- they want to prevent catastrophic failures that would create huge social problems.

This is the direction I was hoping the thread would go.

I get really steamed when I think about how we got to this place - it was almost a 'perfect storm' (dang, I hate that cliche) of disparate pieces that came together to screw us all. This neither the time nor the place to point fingers - the economy is in the tank, no one knows how much of our wealth disappeared when this correction (read 'bubble burst) happened because so many 'things' were bundled into bonds and the bonds were bundled into other bundles and then all sliced and diced and re-bundled then insurers guaranteed the bundles and the guarantees were bundled into bonds and sliced and diced and re-bundled. All the banks in the world own pieces of all these bundles. Somewhere along the path to where we are, people started believing that buying a house was an investment the same way that centuries ago, people forgot how beautiful the flowers were and thought they were an investment.

[GrimJack]

I did not read the whole link by sweeps, but I did like the summary by adam. In the brief part I did read, here are my thoughts:

1. Public utilities (electric, gas, water) are needed even in a capitalistic society. Some portions of government are needed. Our political system is democracy. This is in the constitution... there is no mention of capitalism being our monetary system in the same document (I think).
2. Government regulation of things like environment make sense because there is little money in environmentalism until the government requires it.
3. Taxes in USA are low relative to other modernized countries, but those other countries provide more socialistic services (like healthcare). There is nothing I have read which suggests the USA WANTS to be like the other countries. I'd prefer to be a capitalist and keep my money and provide for myself.
4. The USA does appear to have some socialist programs like welfare and foodstamps... and there is not clear winner, but IMO these programs are what is failing the american way (as opposed to sustaining it).

Jim, I followed you most of the way through your list. You sort of have to put yourself into the time and place when the 'socialist' programs came into being. We were one of the richest countries in the world; people were starving to death; old people who had worked all their lives lost their homes; banks were folding and/or repossessing the farms; on top of this, there was a many-yeared drought and the soil was blowing away; everyone believed that the stock market would only go up.

Social Security is one of the most successful programs this country has ever run (along with the interstate highway system); the old have an income that they earned and that no one can take away from them. Food stamps is another successful program, children do not starve and healthy children grow up to be contributing members of society. Where is the problem with that? These programs ARE the American Way - they do not show its failure but its success.

[GREENBACK]

I had to 'Plonk' Greenback because he was unable to define any of his terms .

You never did say to me what I couldn't define. Point out what "terms" you are talking about. You called my posts "incoherent". Say what you what to have defined and I will explain. I've read through everything I've written and can't find anything mysterious.

[GREENBACK]

@GreenBack - The previous thread was closed and I was unable to respond - sorry but whining about my ignoring you is classic mis-direction.

I do not care that you have not doubts. You can not define any of the terms that you throw around so this is not surprise.

I have not yet even started to defend anybody or anything - I am waiting for you to define your terms so that I know how to talk to you. Your idea of 'socialism' is so completely undefined that you are able to see socialism in everything, everywhere.

Prove to me that you think; define your terms. In order for me to be able to explain something to you, you first have to open to the explanation. Just as in science - a theory, hypothesis, central thesis has to be falsifiable, if there is nothing that I can say that will convince you of anything, why should I waste my time?

Tell me what you think a liberal is
Tell me what you think a conservative is
Tell me what you think a socialist is
Tell me what you think you are.

I now see what you mean. These are easily definable terms. Why do you need a special definition from me. They mean exactly what you're dictionary says that they mean. You can easily gather what I think from my previous posts. I'm a conservative as you know that believes in a small unobtrusive gov't. I am a libertarian as far as party affiliation.