Stimulus Package

[plantsman]

I know you don't like big oil, but Pelosi and her ilk took office and promised us the sun. Surely you haven't forgotten that. And once again, let me say, with historical accuracy, that healthcare is NOT a constitutional right, but a corporate idea to attract the best candidates. If you want healthcare, work to achieve it. Don't rely on the government to provide you with it. Just because an individual can only bag groceries doesn;t mean he has a right to healthcare. I know that sounds cruel, but within the parameters of the Constitution, that's the way it is. I would love to see the American church get off their prosperity doctrine and reach out to those who need help - healthcare and otherwise. By the way, the mortage fiasco has occcurred under the democrat majority watch. Pelosi is a fool, as are her fellow dems in office.

"By the way, the mortage fiasco has occcurred under the democrat majority watch. Pelosi is a fool, as are her fellow dems in office"- more research. And which group really cares , if the loan limit is set at three/quarter million? The loan crisis started long ago. And the government really doesn't provide me with anything...they would just spend my money in a different way. I got about 6 mos worth of unemployment in 33 years...should I have to pay that back? Considering I paid into the funding for it to start with? Taxes don't belong to Bush to toss around, or Carter , Clinton. They belong to the folks that pay them, some of us are getting sick of seeing them given away .

[plantsman]

Surely you don't believe that the taxes you pay belong to you, do you?

I was under the impression that we had a say in how they should be used...unless you are a communist? You know...that constitution thing you mentioned awhile ago?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boney</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely you don't believe that the taxes you pay belong to you, do you? </div></div>
I givve -you win. I have to get up early. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]Workey thing ya know.

[plantsman]

When/how do you have a voice in how your taxes are spent? You pay 'em, they spend 'em, and they don't care what you think. When was the last time Boucher called you to get your opinion on how "your" tax dollars should be spent?

You get to vote for who you wish. And you can contact them. If you are willing to try. Like I said, you win, I got to get some sleep. I grow tired of this game.

[plantsman]

aight.

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lpd_observer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Coeburn Cane, I love your enthusiasm, but I disagree with this break in principle because we have a tremendous spending deficit which is partially how we got to this position in the first place. Instead of relying on increased consumer spending, lets put this money toward balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. Let's increase regulation on the lending industry so that they cannot entrap uninformed people with variable rate loans and mortgages. Your policy caters to the lowest common denominator, but I want to raise it. $1600 in the great scheme of things is nothing. Its not going to produce any long term returns. We need to quit thinking about economics as a 100 meter dash, and start thinking of it as a marathon. </div></div>

I am thinking of it as a marathon--whoever said that the high-yield savings I was speaking of would be turned around in a year's time? I'm thinking at least more along the lines of 10-20 years. At least it would have a generation's worth of time to gain interest and be passed down to the kids of the less fortunate. Plus, if we take that money and put it towards the massive deficit--what's the use in putting 150 billion against a national debt of <u>9 trillion???</u> It's a drop in the bucket. Would be useless. At least this way the money would be in an account for the taxpayer drawing interest and growing, not being tossed at a nearly insurmountable debt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lpb_observer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Individuals need to be more educated in matter of finances. During the colonial era in the Jamestown settlement, the common theme was that "The king isnt going to feed you and the church isnt going to save you." This means essentially that the colonists needed to grow their own crops and that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God. We need to reestablish that mentality in America. When lazy people are faced with the choice of working and starving, lets see how many rush to join the workforce. Additionally, people need to learn how to save more and build wealth. If people dont actively plan, save, and invest for retirement, then they dont deserve a good standard of living. </div></div>

It would be nice to reestablish that mentality--that's definitely agreed upon. But you can't change a societal mentality via policy. No matter how hard the system is made for someone who is less fortunate, there's always going to be loopholes, and if a person truly does not want to work--they won't, and they'll find a way to get money, whether it's turning to crime or defrauding the system itself.

That's why I'm saying put the money in the lower brackets, but put qualifiers on how it can be spent. Make sure it goes to planning for the future as opposed to blown at Wal-Mart. I think that the money could be used for opening up high-yield savings bonds in the names of each taxpayer eligible to get this, and that it cannot be touched for at least 15 years. This gives the taxpayer something to look forward to having, with interest, and will help them plan towards getting that money. If people won't take the money and make it work for them, use the money that they were going to be given and make it work for them in their name.

[sup-rbeast]

You guys are arguing this like you're talkin to Pacman about Manson and dinos...