A RIGHT view that isn't

Discussions that relate to the World Economy and Finances

A RIGHT view that isn't

Postby pierreo on 15 Feb 2009, 17:03

Paul wrote:
You don't need superstition to realize that this Friday the 13th is shaping up to be particularly unlucky for taxpayers. Despite protests from both parties, House and Senate leaders are forcing a stimulus vote at 6:00 p.m. so that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can catch a flight to Italy. Apparently, the Speaker's Roman holiday (fiddle included, considered "official business" since it includes a stopover at NATO headquarters) takes precedence over the largest piece of spending legislation ever considered by Congress. Pelosi, 13 members, and their spouses plan to take a lovely Valentine's jaunt through Paris, Brussels, and Vienna on your dime to celebrate a stimulus package that only 37% of Americans support.

The new vote deadline also breaks the liberals' vow that both chambers--and the public--would have 48 hours to read the bill. Democrats like Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) are just as frustrated as everyone else. "I don't think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill]," he said. It would be no small feat to comb through the legislation since the final version was posted online a little before 11:00 p.m. Thursday and now numbers 1,071 pages--903 more than the King James Bible in my office! For a team who insisted on bipartisanship, Pelosi and company will be fortunate to appease their own party.

Meanwhile, the $1.3 trillion package grows more unpopular every day. FRC has complained from the beginning that the stimulus is a government build-up, not a financial bailout. Yesterday, a coalition of economists agreed, saying the bill is "short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity." The conference bill makes tax relief smaller and federal spending bigger. At last count, a whopping 104 government programs will be created or expanded through the legislation.

The tax cuts are so minimal that working taxpayers are expected to take home a measly $7.70 a week from the "stimulus" while they pay billions more for: school construction ($9 billion), liberal reelection campaigns ($2 billion for ACORN), welfare incentives ("such sums as are necessary"), socialized medicine ($87 billion), finger-painting ($50 million for an "Arts Endowment"), and unknown millions for agency "slush funds," which would allow Obama to shuffle money between departments without any congressional oversight.
pierreo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 04 Aug 2008, 17:41

Re: A RIGHT view that isn't

Postby pierreo on 15 Feb 2009, 17:05

Lou replied:
Hey Paul, thanks for your view.
So, if opposition grows daily, why did the bill Pass?
The bailout vs tax credit to the people is a big debate. Tax reductions have been tried in the last 8 years and decades ago and have failed. People will waste the money. Stimulous to business and its trickle down to the people may actually work...time will tell nest pas?
So bailing out losing businesses, whilst disgusting, may help the economy. I certainly hope so because it occurs in the shadow of raising the national debt to $2+ trillion...or is it 3T with the Iraq war (not counted in the talley)....or is it $4T with the first stimulous package. What a legacy.
Also, I haven't seen the Right suggest anything to solve the problem but the same old, same old.
I hope you don't mind me giving my opinion. I figure if you are going to send me this stuff, it reflects your opinion, and I have the responsibility of replying. I have cc'd other xom folks who I regularly correspond with...many of them on your OFFEX distribution list.
PS if Pelosi's business trip includes a vacation stopover, what's the problem? I can remember many of OUR colleagues doing this acceptable practice under the then Exxon guidelines.
PPS Once again, a ridiculous dramatization intended to raise the anger in the Dem's opposition parties.
pierreo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 04 Aug 2008, 17:41

Re: A RIGHT view that isn't

Postby pierreo on 15 Feb 2009, 17:07

Milt added:
I share your views Lou. It is time for the "super patriots" to start thinking as Americans for a while and drop the failed policies of the last 8 years that almost bankrupt this country.
But I know their response! "It is the failed policies of...Clinton that caused the economic meltdown for Obama! Bush simply delayed its arrival thanks to his smart decisions. If we had elected Al Gore instead of Bush, the meltdown of our economy would have arrived 5-6 years earlier!"
However, having said that, I got to admit that sooner or later the world economies and standards of living will be leveled. It is inevitable.
Since our standards are still fairly high, we will have to be patient and prepared for the worst. Increasing our national dept helps lower our standards a little. Reducing the value of dollar somehow lowers the pain of paying for the dept. Since we have already lost most of our industries and we rely on imports for the goods we need, our purchasing power is reduced at an accelerated rate.
What little production capacity we got left is in the weapons industry that unfortunately is not improving our living standards. We still maintain our integrity that does not allow us to attack our adversaries, defeat them, and loot them. Instead we destroy them and then we spent our limited resources to rebuild them. If there is no profit in our wars, what is the benefit of maintaining a powerful military? To protect our rapidly declining living standards?
With my pessimistic thoughts, I doubt that Obama will be able to reverse the tide. He may simply slow it down a little.
Another way to look at these, the Chinese, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian civilizations lasted several thousands of years. The Roman and Byzantine empires lasted less than 1500 years. The Automan empire lasted less than 500 Years. The British Empire lasted less than 300 years. How long do we believe the American empire is going to last?
pierreo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 04 Aug 2008, 17:41

Re: A RIGHT view that isn't

Postby pierreo on 15 Feb 2009, 17:08

Ray said:
Milt,
There is enough blame to go around. Bush spending was out of control and Clinton tried social engineering on the housing market which started the whole thing that Bush made worse. You don't have to pick sides.
I don't know what "start thinking as an American" means. Is this your definition of an American or mine which may be slightly different. I think that we as a country need differing points of view, checks and balances, which is the basis for our government. "Start thinking like an American" in your email sounds a lot like you should think like me or you are unAmerican.
What I don't understand is why everyone thinks we should check our brains at the door and blindly follow whatever OBama says. I really hope that he does well but I don't agree with all that he is doing any more that I agreed or disagreed what all that Bush or Clinton did. It seems that if you disagree with anything OBama does or says today that you are labeled either unAmerican or a bigot. I have read the entire bill, the base document (House version). This was required by my Exxon training. Took me 3 days but I did the research. There are some good things and there are some bad things. Only about 1/3 is true stimulus. There are some good things that should be stand alone bills but are not part of a stimulus package and some things that are just pork.
My problem is that I find myself discussing this with people that only have filtered and spun information from the side that they agree with. This is both the Right and the Left. I am really troubled by the bias that I find on both sides and the total lack of knowledge and blind faith that I am encountering.
pierreo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 04 Aug 2008, 17:41

Re: A RIGHT view that isn't

Postby pierre on 15 Feb 2009, 17:14

Ray,
What you say is so true but it also applies in so many areas today.
Nobody is absolutely right, and nobody is absolutely wrong, but most people act, or feel as if this is the case. The media does not help as they only portray extremist views; even when they try to get a dialog, or debate going, they seem to select people who's views are so one-sided that they refuse to listen to each other and only repeat over and over again the same old arguments.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts (discussed in another part of this forum), the situation is exactly the same ... but I digress.
The debate of exactly how to 'spend money' to help the economy is very interesting. On the one hand, the world economy is so inter-linked that no country can do it alone; on the other why should the US congress spend money that will be used to save Chinese jobs? :evil:
As British jobs are being lost, why should Total (a French company) be allowed to hire Italians and Portuguese maintenance workers at its plant in the UK?
"British jobs for British Workers" - but than should it be "English jobs for English workers! No Welsh or Scots allowed!"
If the state of Texas has a stimulus package, should it favour people who buy Toyota's made in Texas or GM cars built by a good old American Company?
Very slippery slope - but I am afraid I do not have an answer, and I do not think anybody else does.

The world is still looking for the 'one-handed' economist as all their arguments are always "One the one hand, we could do this .... ; on the other, we may benefit from doing that ..." He is the only one who can save us now! (the analogy of the one-handed Economist is shamelessly stole from a colleague - I do not want to take credit for it...) :lol:
pierre
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Aug 2008, 18:16


Return to World Finances

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron