Women Online Worldwide

Women Online Worldwide (http://www.wowwomen.com/boards/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.wowwomen.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   Stimulus Package.... (http://www.wowwomen.com/boards/showthread.php?t=1691)

birudflax October 19th, 2009 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazymomma (Post 57399)
amen.

Out of the many posts, this one attract my attention. I believe it is possible for anyone to participate.
Excellent ! I like it very much.:clap:

Seehund November 21st, 2009 09:29 AM

Hi there, At least Obama and Co. seem to be talking more than shooting and bombing... but perhaps they just let the drones do it

gatty2010 March 28th, 2010 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seehund (Post 58335)
Hi there, At least Obama and Co. seem to be talking more than shooting and bombing... but perhaps they just let the drones do it

I like your sharing a lot ! So friendly, Thanks for your exp shring ! So great!

PriscillaMS March 31st, 2012 11:49 AM

Frankly I think the stimulus has been a total waste of money. First, the Federal Government is nearly borrowing forty cents of every dollar it spends. How long can that go on before imflation gets out of control. And inflation husts the poor most of all since it reduces the buying power of their limited assets. Bernanke continues to authorize the printing of dollars. Calls that "quantitative easing". I call it simply diluting the value of the dollar to keep the economy artificially afloat. Wonder why gasoline and other commodaties are increasing in cost, gold for example? It is due to the fact that holding dollars is not holding value. Supply and demand, dollars loose value as more are printed out of thin air without a basis. So people switch to buying things, oil futures, gold etc. I predict that if Obama is re-elected, we will have a depression in two years. Obama is just not serious about reigning in the spending. Just this week every democrat in the house of representattives voted against their own leaders budget. Get serious ladies.

Jennifer23 April 1st, 2012 04:02 PM

Our rising gasoline prices are based solely on speculation; it's not supply and demand. You may not like Obama, but look what he inherited from W. I guess you liked that guy, though.

PriscillaMS April 1st, 2012 05:52 PM

And what do you think speculation is? Commmodities are traded every day, oil among them. When the leadership is not serious about a budget and print money then people move their money into stocks and commodities. More demand for oil futures the higher the price. And no I did not like everything done by the Bush administration. But frankly after nearly three and a half years of uncontrolled spending, five trillion in added debt in that short time, then yes I will vote for the serious party.

Jennifer23 April 1st, 2012 06:15 PM

I consider myself to be a democratic anarchist. I say that we should do away with political parties and just vote for people. But, Clinton actually left W. with a budget surplus . . . .

PriscillaMS April 2nd, 2012 06:18 PM

I too am very disappointed with both major parties. But for now we have to make due with the choices at hand. As I recall Clinton may have left office with a surplus bidge. But keeep in mind two important points. First following his debacle regarding Hillart's medical reform, the democrats lost control of the House of Representative for the first time in 40 years. And it is the this legislature that actually must provide the President an approved budget. If you recall Clinton cooperated with the Repub;icans and hence the surplus you give him credit for. (Remember too that it was Clinton who claimed after the loss of the House that "the era of big government is over". Second, the Democratic Party reclaimed both the House and Senate in 2006. SoAnd it was in the last two years of the Bush presidency that the major potion of his deficit spending occured. Bush did approve large spending programs such as No Child Left Behind and an expansion of the medicare drug program. So the I am not blaming the Democrats entirely, But again it was the Democratic controlled legislature that enabled Bush to sigh these programs into law. But from where I sit to day, it is only the Republican lead House that appears to be serious about controlling spending. Five trillion in debt in 3 years cannot be sustained. I like to debate. I hope no one takes offense since here at this site I seem to be in the minority. But I'm having fun.

Jennifer23 April 2nd, 2012 07:32 PM

Clinton left office with one of the highest approval ratings of any President in the history of this country. He also cost 2 Republican House Speakers their jobs when he refused to cave in to their tax cut demands because he was about balancing the budget. William F. Buckley Jr. didn't support W. in the 2004 election. I used to like John McCain when he was a moderate Republican. When he sold his soul to the religious right wing of the party, I said CYA. This is fun, huh?

PriscillaMS April 9th, 2012 08:27 AM

I'm never suggested Clinton was not popular. (I am somewhat surprised he is so loved by women considering his behavior towards them but OK.) I'm just reminding everyone that it is not the President who has control of the budget and spending, it is the congress. So....Clinton cannot be fully diven credit it took him cooperating with te Republican house. Seems to me, and my argument is only financial, that 5 trillion added to the debt in the past three and one half years cannot be sustained, it will cause recession or worse. The Republicans have proposed (and passed in the house - the only segment of government they control) and passed a budget that will HELP reduce deficit spending. Harry Reid in the Senate has so far not even propsoed a budget. And The President's proposal did not receive one Democratic vote of approval. Which party is serious? Popularity may not be the path to financial reform. And yeah, it is fun. Thanks for the debate.

Jennifer23 April 9th, 2012 08:21 PM

This is why I'd like this country to get rid of the Party system and just vote for people. There are so many Repubs that I could vote for if they weren't so worried about offending the right wing of their Party. The same for the Dems. I'm pretty much in the middle. You're right about Clinton; he was a Dem that found some common ground with the opposition party. That's what we should be about. Yeah, it's fun.

PriscillaMS April 16th, 2012 03:23 PM

One thing to consider perhaps. As you recognize it does take cooperation between the parties or people to achieve anything. I don't think voting for people will make this and easy task. To me in the current free enterprise economic system, it makes sense to have two parties. One representing the business owner or cooperation, the other the workers. The penulum of power should swing between these two interests I think. Having numerous parties with more limited interests and goals would make coalitions necessary. I predict even greater confusion wih this model.

Jennifer23 April 16th, 2012 04:47 PM

But, I'm not talking about numerous parties; I'm talking about no parties. I think that this country has partied enough. Mmmm . . . kind of reminds me of "Imagine" by John Lennon.

PriscillaMS April 23rd, 2012 03:25 PM

Just don't see how individuals can accomplish anything in practice. Some subset of goals have to first be established and then negotiated. To me, one party representing business the other the worker makes sense in the free eneterprise model we have. And with 15 trillion in debt fiscal priorities must come first. Just my opinion.

Jennifer23 April 23rd, 2012 05:36 PM

Hi Priscilla. Opinions are cool. I suppose Lennon's song "Imagine" has that title for a reason. Just imagine what he was singing about. But then, there's reality. You're a good girl . . . and going to be a Mom? Congrats!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Copyright ?1996-2008, Women Online Worldwide