Politics of fear

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 02-06-09, 07:08 AM

Interesting debate indeed on who is the sheep vs who is the sheepdog.

This thread is highlighting the failure to shed what the democratic election maching dubbed as the politics of fear, and to point out the hypocrisy in play on the first big issue of the Obama administration.

We can fill pages with fluff debating who is independent and who is loyal to who, but it is only a distraction from my point.

The bumper sticker rhetoric is dead on arrival.

**jmw_man** · 02-06-09, 07:35 AM

I don't understand how this is seen as "politics of fear." He simply "warned" that if nothing is done at all, we could enter a recession that may take a while to get out of. How is that politics of fear?

Off specific topic:

Isn't the purpose of a "stimulus" package to stimulate the economy? I just wanted to address this because I noticed a few posts putting "pork" into a negative context. I don't know, it seems to me that to stimulate the economy, you would need to spend money on many different things to disperse evenly. It makes no sense to me at all to spend it all on one industry. We've discussed this in another thread already.

Someone else mentioned that the money should just go to us as if we could spend it better. The problem is that, we would never spend it on infrastructure. The other problem is that if the people got the money, you increase the worth of people, not america.

**WorstPE** · 02-06-09, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by jmw_man

Someone else mentioned that the money should just go to us as if we could spend it better. The problem is that, we would never spend it on infrastructure. The other problem is that if the people got the money, you increase the worth of people, not america.

But wouldn't our spending of our own money go back into the system? That's how it'll fix the infrastructure.

We get more money per paycheck. With that extra money we could either, pay off our debts (this alone in the long run will help tremendously), spend more and that goes into companies who spend more to fix their debt and in thus expanding their company. It will all branch out from there.

I know that's not the best explaination. But that's what I can think of right now.

**Consultant** · 02-06-09, 08:03 AM

Government doesn't need to spend money to get our economic engine going...they need to create a regulatory climate that will encourage business growth.

Obama said that himself - very Regan'esque...which I can obviously get behind...but with this "stimulus" inching closer to a TRILLION dollars and with projects like tasers for police departments, water slides, baseball museum renovations...I can't support it.

Government needs to do what it can, legislatively, to incentivize small and medium sized businesses. IMHO, that includes creating an environment that encourages and rewards success. Nothing about Obama's plan will do that.

**MotoZ** · 02-06-09, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Consultant

Government doesn't need to spend money to get our economic engine going...they need to create a regulatory climate that will encourage business growth.

Obama said that himself - very Regan'esque...which I can obviously get behind...but with this "stimulus" inching closer to a TRILLION dollars and with projects like tasers for police departments, water slides, baseball museum renovations...I can't support it.

Government needs to do what it can, legislatively, to incentivize small and medium sized businesses. IMHO, that includes creating an environment that encourages and rewards success. Nothing about Obama's plan will do that.

Consultant,

I don't like the plan either, just like I didn't care for $750B TARP under Bush. That being said, there is much more to economics than what we see on the news or what's in our economics book. Come to think of it, it might be in our economics book in the section on lobbyists, but I digress.

This economic crisis is of global scale. It's my understanding that economists around the world are synchronizing similar stimulus packages to offset effects of currency devaluation. It appears that they are trying to keep a shell game going.

Grrr this whole situation is frustrating as shit. Fucking credit cards and leveraged McMansions. This whole poseur fuck economy pisses me off. What the world needs is more rednecks.

**Consultant** · 02-06-09, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Originally Posted by Consultant

Government doesn't need to spend money to get our economic engine going...they need to create a regulatory climate that will encourage business growth.

Obama said that himself - very Regan'esque...which I can obviously get behind...but with this "stimulus" inching closer to a TRILLION dollars and with projects like tasers for police departments, water slides, baseball museum renovations...I can't support it.

Government needs to do what it can, legislatively, to incentivize small and medium sized businesses. IMHO, that includes creating an environment that encourages and rewards success. Nothing about Obama's plan will do that.

Consultant,

I don't like the plan either, just like I didn't care for $750B TARP under Bush. That being said, there is much more to economics than what we see on the news or what's in our economics book. Come to think of it, it might be in our economics book in the section on lobbyists, but I digress.

This economic crisis is of global scale. It's my understanding that economists around the world are synchronizing similar stimulus packages to offset effects of currency devaluation. It appears that they are trying to keep a shell game going.

Grrr this whole situation is frustrating as shit. Fucking credit cards and leveraged McMansions. This whole poseur fuck economy pisses me off. What the world needs is more rednecks.

Amen.

**MotoZ** · 02-06-09, 08:32 AM

Amen.
[/quote]

Thanks for sharing a little peace. I worked myself into a frenzy and was about to blow a head gasket.

**jmw_man** · 02-06-09, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by WorstPE

Originally Posted by jmw_man

Someone else mentioned that the money should just go to us as if we could spend it better. The problem is that, we would never spend it on infrastructure. The other problem is that if the people got the money, you increase the worth of people, not america.

But wouldn't our spending of our own money go back into the system? That's how it'll fix the infrastructure.

We get more money per paycheck. With that extra money we could either, pay off our debts (this alone in the long run will help tremendously), spend more and that goes into companies who spend more to fix their debt and in thus expanding their company. It will all branch out from there.

I know that's not the best explaination. But that's what I can think of right now.

That's not infrastructure. If we had the money, it wouldn't go to roads, bridges, dams, etc.

**Imisnew2** · 02-06-09, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by MotoZ

What the world needs is more rednecks.

Lol sometimes I think the exact opposite.

Although the book seems like a good read, I hate politics.

**jason_jinx** · 02-06-09, 08:42 AM

From what I have heard Obama is tired of the same of arguement that the GOP is bringing to the table. Tax cuts here and there is not going to save the economy and get us out of this rut. I dont know 100% that Obama's plan will work but damn lets give it a shot. If we went with the GOP plan we will be reverting back to the way we ran things the last eight years. Even though some of you think that rebuilding roads and bridges is a waste but it will create massive amounts of jobs.

Its plain and simple.
The % of America that voted for Obama is tired of the same crap that has been pumped out of Washington for the last eight years. We can only really pick from plan A or plan B.
We are tired of plan A time to let plan B have a chance.