Obama's "major milestone" for US economy

[_____V_____]

US President Barack Obama said on Friday the Congressional passage of the $787 billion stimulus package is a 'major milestone' on the road to recovery of the recession-ridden American economy.

"Congress has passed my economic recovery plan: an ambitious plan at a time we badly need it," Obama said in his weekly radio address, hours after the Congress passed the much debated stimulus package and sent the bill to him to sign it into law.

"It will save or create more than 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, ignite spending by business and consumers alike, and lay a new foundation for our lasting economic growth and prosperity," Obama said.

"This is a major milestone on our road to recovery," he said and thanked US lawmakers for making this happen, even if he failed to get any major support from the opposition Republican members.

Obama said, he will shortly sign this legislation into law, and will begin making immediate investments necessary to put people back to work doing the work America needs done.

The US debt has doubled over the past eight years, and his administration has inherited a trillion dollar deficit, Obama said.

"This morning, I'm pleased to say that after a lively debate full of healthy differences of opinion, we've delivered real and tangible progress for the American people," Obama said in his early morning radio address.

Promising American people that he would unleash a new era of transparency and accountability along with the implementation of the $787 billion stimulus package, Obama said, "This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but rather the beginning."

"The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread, and our response must be equal to the task."

For the plan to succeed, he said, "We must stabilise, repair, and reform our banking system, and get credit flowing again to families and businesses. We must write and enforce new rules of the road, to stop unscrupulous speculators from undermining our economy ever again."

"We must stem the spread of foreclosures and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes," the US President said.

Obama said in coming weeks he come out with a proposal for the federal budget which will begin to restore the discipline the challenging times demand.

"Our long-term economic growth demands that we tame our burgeoning federal deficit, that we invest in the things we need, and dispense with the things we don't. This is a challenging agenda, but one we can and will achieve," Obama said.


Sounds like quite an uphill task ahead, but Obama is pretty determined with this bold step. Let's hope for the world economy's sakes that he pulls this off.

[sfear]

"Our long-term economic growth demands that we tame our burgeoning federal deficit, that we invest in the things we need, and dispense with the things we don't. This is a challenging agenda, but one we can and will achieve," Obama said.

I'm no economist but is it really reasonable to expect spending 787 billion dollars we do not have (unless we borrow or print it) will "tame our burgeoning federal deficit?" Our grandfathers grieved over the debt they left us and we don't even talk that about anymore. Will the debt we leave our grandchildren be discussed the same way -- worrying about their grandchildren? The deficit, no matter how real it is, seems to have become just another distracting abstraction.

[scouse mac]

Where the fuck does nearly $800 billion materialize from?

American tax payers are financing banks to lend money to american tax payers so that same tax payers can repay loans and interest back to the banks who then repay money to federal government??

Maybe Im missing something here

[Doc Faustus]

Economics is an illusion. Everything's about popular consent and it's not like it doesn't end up in the same place anyway.

[bwind22]

I support Obama more than most, but this package is overhyped. There are really only a couple things in it that will help out the average joe at all.

-We'll each receive an extra $13 per paycheck.
-Big tax breaks for first time homebuyers and new car purcahses.
-Increased income to people collecting welfare.

Since we don't have the money to pay for an 800 billion dollar stimulus package, the money is essentially a loan from future generations so really, we're just digging ourselves deeper in debt. It's the equivelant of paying off one credit card by switching the balance to a different one. The debt is still there, in fact it's increasing, and at some point we'll have to pay it back or our currency will ultimately become worth less than the paper it's printed on.

I'm not a fan of this plan (or any of the other ones they floated through congress before settling on the one we got.)

If the government really wants to turn things around, there is a way and a select few people are talking about it, but Washington doesn't seem interested. It's an idea called "trickle UP economics". Instead of handing out a trillion dollars to bailout the banks that caused this economic collapse in the first place (by loaning money to people they knew couldn't afford to ever pay it back), that trillion dollars could have been dispensed to the American citizens to pay down their credit card and mortgage debts. (The banks end up with the money anyways, but the massive consumer debt of the American public would basically be wiped clean. At the moment, I believe there is roughly 900 billion dollars in credit card debt in the US. The first bailout package could have wiped that out. So could the amount of this economic stimulus package.) But no, we're going to keep bailing out the failing corporations and banks, somehow expecting them to fix the economy that they broke in the first place. I guarantee there would be no better way to stimulate the economy than to wipe out consumer debt and for the responsible folks that have kept their credit cards maintained, they could pay off large chunks of their mortgage. If they are in the miniscule amount of people that own their home free & clear and have no credit debt, they get a nice fat check for being one of the responsible ones. In the end, people who get a fat paycheck or see their debt wiped out to zero are a hell of a lot more likely to start spending again.

Jon Stewart got on this bandwagon a couple weeks ago so it's finally getting some exposure, but I've heard it discussed in articles and such since the bank bailout became an issue a few months ago. In my opinion, it's the only thing that would have an immediate effect on the economy and almost instantly turn things around.

[milktoaste]

Where the fuck does nearly $800 billion materialize from?

American tax payers are financing banks to lend money to american tax payers so that same tax payers can repay loans and interest back to the banks who then repay money to federal government??

Yep, Pretty much. We're all repaying our Bush stimulous package out of our taxes(if you got a stimulous check last year). And really, the money didn't change anything for anyone, except maybe Sony and Microsoft from all the games and consoles they sold. The whole stimulous package idea just seems like a bandaid, not a cure.

I have to agree with sfear, what's going on behind the stimulous package vail?

[Zero]

what kills me is nobody complained when georgie porgey put us deep into debt for the pointless war in iraq - that was 'ok' - but now that obama wants to spend money on fixing roads (remember minneapolis and the bridge collapse??) and other projects to put people back to work and put money back into the economy suddenly the republicans have decided that the debt matters. mind boggling

[milktoaste]

what kills me is nobody complained when georgie porgey put us deep into debt for the pointless war in iraq - that was 'ok' - but now that obama wants to spend money on fixing roads (remember minneapolis and the bridge collapse??) and other projects to put people back to work and put money back into the economy suddenly the republicans have decided that the debt matters. mind boggling

Actually, I seem to remember a lot of complaining. Something around the lowest approval ratings in history for a president kind of complaining.

Oh yeah, the Minneapolis bridge collapse was totally a state issue, you can't blame Bush for how a state spends their Federal Highway Fund.

[Posher778]

Obama sucks. Bush sucks. They both suck. The best president was Lincoln, back in the good ole days of politics. Kennedy was also good. The end.

[milktoaste]

Obama sucks. Bush sucks. They both suck. The best president was Lincoln, back in the good ole days of politics. Kennedy was also good. The end.

I was always a big fan of Andrew Jackson-minus the whole slave owner part.

[bwind22]

Obama sucks. Bush sucks. They both suck. The best president was Lincoln, back in the good ole days of politics. Kennedy was also good. The end.

Only 30% of people would disagree about Bush. He buried us in debt, led us in to a war without justification that we're really going to have trouble getting out of, alienated us from the majority of the globe, erased several of our rights to privacy in the name of counter-terrorism.

Obama hasn't had time to suck yet. He walked in to a shitstorm and is trying to figure out how to clean it up. Whether or not he will be able to remains to be seen, but at least he represents a departure from the typical shady two-faced political culture that has come to be just about everyone in Washington. I'm also impressed at how he really hit the ground running and is trying to get stuff done quickly, I just don't agree that this stimulus package will be what we need to boost the economy.

[milktoaste]

Obama hasn't had time to suck yet. He walked in to a shitstorm and is trying to figure out how to clean it up. Whether or not he will be able to remains to be seen, but at least he represents a departure from the typical shady two-faced political culture that has come to be just about everyone in Washington. I'm also impressed at how he really hit the ground running and is trying to get stuff done quickly, I just don't agree that this stimulus package will be what we need to boost the economy.

I couldn't agree more, the pressure on Obama right now is unmessurable. But with his first move as President being considered a fiasco(the stimulous package)and with everything behind him in Illinois,(Blagojevich) it's hard to say for sure what type of 'ship' he'll run. I've only voted against Bush, and I trully beleive that Obamas' 'hit the ground running' attitude will improve our economy-or totally crash it into a mountian- but who cares I love the chaos theory anyway. Everybody buy a gun!

[bwind22]

Everybody buy a gun!


That's a good idea regardless of what happens with the economy. Ever watch Jericho? All it would take is 1 well planned out attack on several major cities at once to descend this country in to a state of anarchy where it's more or less every man (or neighborhood or small town) for themselves. Owning a gun or two is good idea for everyone, just keep them out of reach of the children. When the shit hits the fan, it'll be too late to go out and get one (since anywhere with weapons will be the first places looted.)

[milktoaste]

That's a good idea regardless of what happens with the economy. Ever watch Jericho?

That what I keep telling my wife.

[Zero]

Actually, I seem to remember a lot of complaining. Something around the lowest approval ratings in history for a president kind of complaining.

Oh yeah, the Minneapolis bridge collapse was totally a state issue, you can't blame Bush for how a state spends their Federal Highway Fund.

you should at least glance at the real history before making bold statements.

the complaining about GB came a) after it became clear that the war in iraq was a dismal failure but not when he committed to spending the clinton surplus on the war in the first place - also the republicans stayed with him during his spending-spree and they are now the one's saying 'oh no we can't have a deficit' - freaking hypocrites; and b) when bush first came into office he was told that there was a massive need for spending on the nation's highways and infrastructure - he essentially said 'no' and put in a minimal budget. so, the fed has responsibility for much of these problems. Here's a quote from a MN state senator (dibble) on the matter:

"Our roads and bridges must be safe and structurally sound to ensure the global competitiveness of this nation," Dibble said. "This NTSB report further supports our calls for federal transportation support in any new economic stimulus package from the next administration and the next Congress. Our roads are ailing and it's time we start capital projects to fix them not only to get people back to work, but also to keep them safe at the same time."

[Leprucky Cougar]

Actually, I seem to remember a lot of complaining. Something around the lowest approval ratings in history for a president kind of complaining.

Oh yeah, the Minneapolis bridge collapse was totally a state issue, you can't blame Bush for how a state spends their Federal Highway Fund.

Sure there was complaining...but it wasn't universal instantaneous complaining. Many did not not complain initially in October 2001--with the first edition of the Patriot Act. Many did not complain March 18, 2003--when the first "reports" of war were declared. There weren't many complaints in March 2004 when Bush held up that infamous sign "Mission Accomplished"--yet it's 2009 and we still have our troops there.....funny isn't it.

Sure there were complaints--but majority of them started much after all of these events unfolded. Much after Americans, and much of Congress were manipulated into increasing Bush's capital and level of patriotism and support for a war. It took us nearly two-and half years of reports of the number of deaths, propoganda, and deceit to realize all the pieces of the puzzle didn't make sense. Al Quieda and Afghanistan had direct links to the events of September 11, 2001. Yet, despite our awareness of this direct ourselves and allies to invading Iraq in March 2003. When questioned, our commander in chief attempts to connect non-existant weapons of mass destuction with Saddam Hussein and connect him as another partner of Bin Laden. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but no problem, we'll believe it, right. It took us a long time to fathom that none of that was clear or real.


Many of those lowest approval ratings came as a conclusion of the disastrous economy, how Katrina was handled, the mismanaged war, etc. Remember despite initial criticism, he was re-elected in '04--a time where democrats were not as unified as republicans--and usually all incumbents up for re-elections win--especially when they have lots of political capital.


I'm with Zero on this one.

[scouse mac]

Doesnt matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Doesnt matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

What context do you mean?

Because, that's kind of the point...that's why we have government to establish and maintain order.

[scouse mac]

What context do you mean?

Because, that's kind of the point...that's why we have government to establish and maintain order.

Its a part of a joke (think it was Bill Hicks who said it) basically meaning if party A or party B gets into power it ultimately doesnt make too much difference to us average joes. The big decisions are still made whether or not people agree with them.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Its a part of a joke (think it was Bill Hicks who said it) basically meaning if party A or party B gets into power it ultimately doesnt make too much difference to us average joes. The big decisions are still made whether or not people agree with them.

Well the hope was that by at least having a representative government, the people elect officials to represent them to make the larger decisions and if big big disagreement occurs when election season rolls around, we get them out of office or if they do something unlawful get them impeached. Now sure attempts to do both occured and some had the ability or took advantage of those abilities and intercepted opportunity but as a whole for the most(excluding the past 8 years) part it's been in tact.

[milktoaste]

you should at least glance at the real history before making bold statements.

Ok, I suppose since Wisconsin isn't in America, I must not of got the full story. And sure Dibble blamed not fixing a bridge with multiple reports of failing braces on Bush. That's what politians do, redirect blame. But then it doesn't matter when any other President denies highway funding. Here in my beautiful country, we get denied highway funding every year. None of our bridges fell down though, in fact, we still manage to build some new ones now and then.

[milktoaste]

For the record, I hated Bush just as much as the next guy. I just don't think as many things that are blamed on him were his fault. The guy was a jerkoff, and I trully hope things improve with Token-I mean Obama.

[Zero]

I trully hope things improve with Token-I mean Obama.

wow - what brilliant argumentation - you are a total douche.

please go away

[milktoaste]

From Wikipedia:
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.

Excuse me for the low blow on Obama. I wasn't kidding that I hope he can fix things for America. But for argumentation sake, he totally fits the bill. I had never heard of this man untill he ran against Hillary for the Democratic Nomination, and neither had most of us. In my own personal opinion, he won because he was the most attractive option in the election. Democrats had an easy job defeating the GOP after Bush screwed everything up. We didn't need to know anything about Obama, we didn't care that he went to a rascist, seperatist church, or that he had gone largely ignored by the Democratic party up untill that point. I think we were all excited for a change, and we were just as excited to see a black man do it. I know of entire churches from innercities from Arizona to Virginia who went by the bus load to vote him in. Not because he was black, but because he wasn't a old white man. If that doesn't make him the Token Black Guy, then I guess I'm just a douche bag.

Look up Chicago’s Trinity United Church Of Christ and replace all the words 'black' with 'white'. Just fro argumentation of course.

[Leprucky Cougar]

That's what politians do, redirect blame. .

That's something that people do who argue....they reverse blame. For those that debate---even upon disagreements still come up with logical counterpoints not fallacies or assertions. And with your context, that's something everyone not just politicans do.

[Leprucky Cougar]

From Wikipedia:
I had never heard of this man untill he ran against Hillary for the Democratic Nomination, and neither had most of us. In my own personal opinion, he won because he was the most attractive option in the election. Democrats had an easy job defeating the GOP after Bush screwed everything up. We didn't need to know anything about Obama, we didn't care that he went to a rascist, seperatist church, or that he had gone largely ignored by the Democratic party up untill that point. .



In some Clintons supporters' mind, it was Hillary not Obama that was the most attractive option in the lesson---remember how nasty the primaries were in the spring, when she was hammering the Obama campaign with the experience and credibility debate.

And not everyone knew much of nothing about Obama. Perhaps those that have a disinterest in politics--but I along with several other friends of mind, predicted Obama would be president 5 years ago when he made the keynote speech and the 2004 Democratic National Convention. This was the beginning of his rise--from there on it wasn't so much he was ignored by the party--just needing to raise and establish himself and credibility as some members of congress already had. He served on the Foreign Relations Committee while in Senate, and practiced as a civil rights attorney--so he made a mark early on to some, maybe not a universal one--because it was yet to come.

[milktoaste]

In some Clintons supporters' mind, it was Hillary not Obama that was the most attractive option in the lesson---remember how nasty the primaries were in the spring, when she was hammering the Obama campaign with the experience and credibility debate.

--so he made a mark early on to some, maybe not a universal one--because it was yet to come.

That's true, I knew it would've been either Democrat, I'm glad it was Obama. Though Obamas' background as a politician was very limited in comparison to past presidents, and I can see that being a hinderance to him during the great scheme of things. I hope his 'universal mark' is everything it's hyped up to be.

Yes, not all politicians redirect blame, I just meant to say that particular one did. The 10 ave bridge was open and near by, the i 35 bridge should have been shut down mnths earlier when cracked brackets were found on it.

[Posher778]

Where's Rayne when you need her. She has enough arguments against Obama to make supporters cry.

[Elvis_Christ]

Obama's not going to change shit. The entire system of government/power needs to be changed to see the results most people think Obama will bring. Different face, same story.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Where's Rayne when you need her. She has enough arguments against Obama to make supporters cry.

Well, despite that assumption, he's every American's president--not just his party's. And he deserves a fair and legitimate outlook for his plans and agenda--in respect to the degree of problems he was essentially given after the past several years.

[sfear]

That's something that people do who argue....they reverse blame. For those that debate---even upon disagreements still come up with logical counterpoints not fallacies or assertions. And with your context, that's something everyone not just politicans do.

Not gonna disagree with you but it's also important to keep one's cool. When heated, a debate can slide into argument as easily as boiled water turns to steam. ;)

[milktoaste]

[QUOTE=Leprucky Cougar;789351]In some Clintons supporters' mind, it was Hillary not Obama that was the most attractive option in the lesson---remember how nasty the primaries were in the spring, when she was hammering the Obama campaign with the experience and credibility debate.

And not everyone knew much of nothing about Obama. Perhaps those that have a disinterest in politics--QUOTE]

What I was trying to say was, I believed America was more attracted to the idea of a black president than a female president-in general. I'm not reffering to those who keep up with politics, but more of the voters with a "disinterest in politics" who helped turn out record numbers in the polls. Yes I remember the "hammering" she handed him, I believe it was due more to the allure of his image than to his message that pulled him through.

I can't help but remember the images of Oprah and many other colored Americans crying when he won, and the idea that those powerful emotions effected countless numbers of 'first time voters' at the booths. I know a lot of black people who thought Clinton was as close a black president as they would get. And I think everyone knew if Obama beat out Hillary, he would be a shoe in for President, everybody knew it. It was the 'attraction' of a black president, in the long run, that won Obama the election.

I don't mean to discredit Obama in any way. I believe he is more than capable of performing his duties as President. Hell, I'm an American, and I don't care who the President is- as long it's not Bush- just like the rest of us.

[Elvis_Christ]

Way to quote

--------------->

GTFO