Obama's Hillsborough Speech

**countybear** · 02-06-09, 07:53 AM

"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

The debate seemingly here (with regard to economic stimulus) is the spender, either way (through government spending or consumer spending), it is ultimately the taxpayer's money being spent, that much is beyond debate.

Conservatives believe that the best economic stimulus is through allowing the taxpayers to keep more of their earnings (through tax incentives), thus having more to spend in the market. Liberals believe that the best means is for the government to increase its own spending, targeted at its agendas.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Why?

Discuss...

**lewisipso** · 02-06-09, 09:37 AM

It seems to me that if the government "supplies" the money, then it gives the illusion of how the government is the "provider". If I understand the socialist agenda properly that illusion makes it seem like a good idea to depend on the government to "make it better". Therefore it would be better to depend on the government than ourselves. I know that is a simplistic approach but I'm speaking in a nutshell.
I've always had to make my own way which is directly related to the childhood I had to endure. Now I wasn't homeless but I simply feel that if I can come from where I did and make a decent life then just about anyone can who has a mind to. I don't want the government being my provider. I'll take care of that myself.

**Five-0** · 02-06-09, 10:06 AM

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. Specifically government deficit spending. By spending money simply by printing it (ie deficit spending) the government is laying the ground work for rampant inflation and skyrocketting interest rates. Both of which will lead us to the stimulated economy of the Carter years. Allowing the productive members of society (yeah I said it and I don't give a damn about PC issues) to keep what they earn, they will spend, invest in their businessess and other businessess. Obama has finally admitted what anyone with basic economic knowledge already knew. This package is a SPENDING BILL NOT A STIMULAS BILL. Making the government bigger and more influential means that the individuals will be smaller and less influential. Margret Thatcher said it best, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

**countybear** · 02-06-09, 10:48 AM

Both very valid posts. I'd really like to hear from someone supporting the stimulus package as well.

**lewisipso** · 02-06-09, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by countybear

Both very valid posts. I'd really like to hear from someone supporting the stimulus package as well.

Good luck on that.

**MacLean** · 02-06-09, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by countybear

Both very valid posts. I'd really like to hear from someone supporting the stimulus package as well.

I would support an actual stimulus package - when I see one I will let you know.

**Captain America** · 02-06-09, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by lewisipso

It seems to me that if the government "supplies" the money, then it gives the illusion of how the government is the "provider". If I understand the socialist agenda properly that illusion makes it seem like a good idea to depend on the government to "make it better". Therefore it would be better to depend on the government than ourselves. I know that is a simplistic approach but I'm speaking in a nutshell.
I've always had to make my own way which is directly related to the childhood I had to endure. Now I wasn't homeless but I simply feel that if I can come from where I did and make a decent life then just about anyone can who has a mind to. I don't want the government being my provider. I'll take care of that myself.

Ditto........

Originally Posted by maclean

I would support an actual stimulus package - when I see one I will let you know.

.........and ditto.

**Rhino** · 02-06-09, 01:02 PM

If the free market would be allowed to remain a free market, then the economy would work itself out. It was government that put us into this recession- what sane person thinks it's going to be government to get us out?

**MacLean** · 02-06-09, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Rhino

If the free market would be allowed to remain a free market, then the economy would work itself out. It was government that put us into this recession- what sane person thinks it's going to be government to get us out?

Because the one time the government intervened in the correct fashion, it worked.

It's called tax cuts.

And we could argue that it was not the government that put us into the recession.

**Five-0** · 02-06-09, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by maclean

Because the one time the government intervened in the correct fashion, it worked.

It's called tax cuts.

And we could argue that it was not the government that put us into the recession.

Because government stayed out of the way is not what I would call positve intervention. That is kinda like saying that I didn't hold a person's head under water so it is not my fault they quit breathing. Look out Rhino, I might just see eye to eye with you on this one.

**MacLean** · 02-06-09, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Five-0

Because government stayed out of the way is not what I would call positve intervention.

Eh, I dunno - I think government reforming itself is a healthy step.

I see your point though.

**Rhino** · 02-06-09, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by maclean

And we could argue that it was not the government that put us into the recession.

The government was forcing banks to give loans to people they knew couldn't pay the debt. The only people who tell you this isn't true are government.

The CRA

**MacLean** · 02-06-09, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Rhino

The government was forcing banks to give loans to people they knew couldn't pay the debt. The only people who tell you this isn't true are government.

The CRA

10-Roger, familiar with that - but...

I'm not convinced the recession didn't come about because of a crash in consumer confidence brought about by the media.

We have to have a crisis to get someone like Obama elected, this provided the opportunity.

I completely believe if people were not tightening every belt because they were told doom and gloom was coming - that doom and gloom would not have come, or at the very least it would have been a small correction.

**bayern** · 02-06-09, 10:08 PM

Whanna bet that when Obama leaves office he will be a multi-millionaire along with his wife???

**Five-0** · 02-06-09, 10:09 PM

Not all of us are tightening belts. Right now is buying time on vehicles, mutual funds, and real estate. Those of us in the know and on a cash basis are seeing opportunity and bargains.

For me no vehicle as much as I want a new Tahoe.

Mutual Funds, I'm still waiting for what I consider a valley floor. Perhaps three months after this pork bill passes.

Real Estate, refinancing the house so it will paid off when I'm ready to sale. Paid off well before the young one needs college money. (even though the tennie queenie has a college fund in place and will be smart enough to land a scholarship = more cash and personalized plate on the sports car of "PLAN B"

)

When credit dries up cash is KING, and when that happens prices fall. When the credit is flowing again I will be selling at much higher prices.

**MacLean** · 02-06-09, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Five-0

Not all of us are tightening belts. Right now is buying time on vehicles, mutual funds, and real estate. Those of us in the know and on a cash basis are seeing opportunity and bargains.

I just moved in to a new home, and am already refinancing it.

I also just bought a new truck, as the prices have fallen.

I totally get that - but a lot of people didn't get the memo.