| Are you for or against the economic stimulus plan? | |
I'm absolutely for it.
|  | 17 | 18.68% | |
I'd support it if some changes were made to the allocation of funds.
|  | 25 | 27.47% | |
I firmly oppose it.
|  | 35 | 38.46% | |
I'd firmly oppose it if the President decided to spend the money differently.
|  | 0 | 0% | |
I'm so unsure.
|  | 14 | 15.38% | | Voters: 91. This poll is closed |
Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have 406,586 members! Join today to learn, network, laugh, and share with nurses.
| No. 50 | 
Feb 01, 2009, 05:46 PM
 Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan?
The economy under President Bush enjoyed 24 consecutive quarters of GDP growth, through the summer of 2007. Starting in the fall of 2007, after Democrats controlled Congress for the year, the economy began to falter.
3 of the next 5 quarters GDP has been negative, with the LAST, Q4 2008 being -3.8%, the worst decline in GDP since Carter's Stagflation.
But, here's a telling story. The Democrats took control of the purse strings of this nation in Jan, 2007. What has happened since? http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...id=LNS14000000
UNEMPLOYMENT (unemployment rate, %, 16 yrs and older): 
~faith,
Timothy.
 | | No. 51 |
Feb 01, 2009, 05:47 PM
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan? Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA  Conservatism brought 30 yrs of astounding economic growth. And that was with only tax cuts. Imagine what could have happened with BOTH tax cuts AND spending cuts. Sigh.
The current crisis: look at the time-line of this crisis. It began after the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.
The ship is going down because Democrats have been running the show. It wasn't going down, before. I will concede that Bush created a mess with the 850BN bailout last year, a mess compounding by the coming giveaway with money that we don't have.
However. A Democrat Congress will deliver both bills to the President's desk.
Go ahead. Spend 2 trillion/year in deficit spending this year and next.
And the next: Republicans will bail out the stagflation created.
Again.
~faith,
Timothy.
Clinton Bailed out Bush the first, and MAYBE, after a couple of terms Obama can untangle the utter abortion your party created to land us where we are.
The Blame party does exactly that. Nothing is ever your fault. To listen to ANY conservative give advice about anything relating to government is a pitty conversation.
You had it, screwed it up, and lost it. That is a fact our grandchildren will study. To blame Democrats for Republican ineptness says it all. Didn't you guy's, at one time - long ago, espouse personal responsability?
Own it.
Eat it.
Recognize it.
The blame game has already posted results. Republicans have been banished from the halls of congress for two cycles now. Time to smell your finger.
| | No. 52 |
Feb 01, 2009, 06:06 PM
Updated
Feb 01, 2009 at 06:21 PM by ZASHAGALKA
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan? Originally Posted by Absolutely13 Clinton Bailed out Bush the first.
You're kidding, right?
Bush '41 did nothing to end the mini-recession of '91, and that was the RIGHT call. The economy worked itself out and righted, before the '92 election.
Primed after a recession, on the cusp of a tech boom, the economy was handed to Clinton on a silver platter.
Your claim is a blatant political lie. I don't accuse of you creating that lie, but nevertheless. There was NO recession by the time Clinton took office; the economy was primed to boom. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/....asp?Popular=Y
GDP growth 1990:
Q1: 4.7%
Q2: 1.0%
Q3: 0%
Q4: -3.0%
GDP growth 1991
Q1: -2.0%
Q2: 2.6%
Q3: 1.9%
Q4: 1.9%
GDP growth 1992
Q1: 4.2%
Q2: 3.9%
Q3: 4.0%
Q4: 4.5%
GDP growth 1993 (Clinton takes office)
Q1: 0.5%
Q2: 2.0%
Q3: 2.1%
Q4: 5.5%
The 1991 recession ended in the first Q of 1991. In 1992, the year that Team Clinton was claiming to be "the worst economy in the last 50 yrs," the economy grew strongly all year.
Clinton didn't bail out anything. He benefited grandly from Bush '41's economy. The facts here are plain to see.
~faith,
Timothy.
| | No. 53 |
Feb 01, 2009, 06:16 PM
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan? Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA You're kidding, right?
Bush '41 did nothing to end mini-recession of '91, and that was the RIGHT call. The market worked itself out and righted, before the '92 election.
Primed after a recession, on the cusp of a tech boom, the economy was handed to Clinton on a silver platter.
I'll be back and link into THIS post with GDP numbers from 1992/93 from the gov't's stats site.
This is a blatant lie. There was NO recession by the time Clinton took office; the economy was primed to boom.
~faith,
Timothy.
I'm sure you're right. I just tried a Limbaugh move and you soaked it up like a Bounty Towel on New years Eve.
I offered no facts, but got an emotional response from you. That's how to become a billionaire.
Tim, break the brainwashing cycle. You are a much smarter man than this.
| | No. 54 |
Feb 01, 2009, 06:17 PM
Updated
Feb 01, 2009 at 06:29 PM by ZASHAGALKA
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan? Originally Posted by Absolutely13 I'm sure you're right. I just tried a Limbaugh move and you soaked it up like a Bounty Towel on New years Eve.
I offered no facts, but got an emotional response from you. That's how to become a billionaire.
Tim, break the brainwashing cycle. You are a much smarter man than this.
At least you are admitting the only ONE of us is dealing with fact.
(besides, you should know me enough to know that I'm passionate when I debate regardless what tactics are used against me.)
~faith,
Timothy.
| | No. 57 |
Feb 01, 2009, 06:34 PM
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan?
The key problem is that the 850BN last fall was an unholy amount of money. Now. 6 months later, it's no big deal.
During President Bush's Administration, 300-400 BN deficits were a big deal. And on this criticism, I actually AGREE with the left. President Bush never saw a budget request that he didn't like, and that was a big negative on his tenure.
But now?
1-2 TRILLION dollar budget deficits are no big deal?
We've lost our frame of reference. Reread that last sentence a few times.
It's like a household saying that I'm borrowing $1,000/month to make ends meet, and, since THAT'S not working, I'll try borrowing $5,000 a month instead. How long could a household already overloaded with debt keep that up?
How long can a nation?
More important, with either that household - or that nation - what comes next?
Think hard about this. What comes next? It's not hard to predict. It's really common sense.
~faith,
Timothy.
| | No. 58 |
Feb 01, 2009, 06:35 PM
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan? Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA At least you are admitting the only ONE of us is dealing with fact.
~faith,
Timothy.
No, I was revealing tactic.
I don't like the tactic, but Republicans do it without guilt. Like I've said, I've listened to a lot of conservative radio lately, and I used a common form of Republican argument. You are right, the facts don't matter.
If you thought David Ayers was bad, check out Rush Limbaugh. Civil Terrorist and smoker.
| | No. 59 |
Feb 01, 2009, 06:36 PM
Re: Are you for (or against) the economic stimulus plan?
Wish I could spend myself out of debt. Wish I could just sell my condo. Sorry, just grumbling.
I agree with Elvish. Don't they have their crap together in Iraq yet?
|
| 459 members
4,868 guests 5,327
|
World News & Politics