Thursday February 16, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Obama says differences shouldn't delay economic stimulus plan

World Feb. 03, 2009 - 06:35AM JST ( 18 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

18 Comments

0

yabitsFeb. 03, 2009 - 07:31AM JST

Frank Rich (NYT) put it best: After the attacks on 9/11, bipartisanship was set aside as all Americans rallied behind then-President Bush. But now that we've been hit with an economic tsunami, the Republicans want to play politics as usual -- showing how terrified they are of windbags like Rush Limbaugh.
0

rajakumarFeb. 03, 2009 - 08:09AM JST

Obama can delay the 100s of billion, but it has to go where it will do good.
0

WolfpackFeb. 03, 2009 - 10:19AM JST

Spending billions on socialist programs will do nothing for the economy. The US would be better off in the long run by not running up the debt by another 1.2 trillion (including interest). This is a huge waste of money and Liberals shouldn't fall for it because of hot air from the likes of Air America's Randi Rhodes and MoveOn.org. These are not "modest" differences as the President suggests. This is a Left wing free-for-all with money being thrown at the most ridiculous of programs. So much for the 'change' that Obama promised the American people. Wasting more money and running up the national debt isn't change - it's business as usual. The man is being stampeded by the far Left in Congress and he is completely oblivious of the hoof prints all over his suit.
0

Taka313Feb. 03, 2009 - 10:57AM JST

The US would be better off in the long run by not running up the debt by another 1.2 trillion (including interest).

I agree. Let's leave Iraq. There. Done.

Taka
0

SushiSake3Feb. 03, 2009 - 11:01AM JST

Wolfpack, the main reason this stimulus package is even necessary is because of the collasal balls-up caused by the previous administration, that oversaw an increase in US national debt from 4 trillion to over 10 trillion in just 8 years.

You are now bashing Obama for trying to fix it.

I agree, some of the spending areas submitted by the Dems may be a bit shonky, but hey, give the guy a break - he didn't break the economy - the last guy did.
0

wuzzademcratFeb. 03, 2009 - 11:02AM JST

Amazing. Already lookin like Jimmy Carter - and with his brother's recent arrest in Kenya for drugs, Obama even has the Billy Factor going.
0

bebertFeb. 03, 2009 - 12:27PM JST

Considering the bulk of this money doesn't get spent until 2010 or later, I don't really see any reason to rush this bill through, except to help avoid further scrutiny of the bill, which even some Democratic senators are saying doesn't spend enough on solving housing or immediately stimulating the economy in 2009. What came out of the Congress was a Democratic pork package that mostly provides aid to blue states that face massive deficits due to unrestrained spending.

That Obama had to go to the Governor of Vermont - one of the most liberal, embittered, class-conscious states in the United States, shows just how wide the gulf is between the majority of Republicans and what is in this bill. The Democrats control both houses of Congress, if they are so confident in their stimulus package, they should pass it over the Republicans, then take all of the credit -or blame- for what happens next. That they want bipartisan support shows what a stinker this "stimulus" bill is.
0

wuzzademcratFeb. 03, 2009 - 12:56PM JST

Pass it, and destroy the world economy.

shocka - Even the NY Times is allowing dissent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01irwin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
0

SezWho2Feb. 03, 2009 - 01:11PM JST

Spending billions on socialist programs will do nothing for the economy.

Spending billions on education has done nothing for discernment. This is not socialism.
0

smithinjapanFeb. 03, 2009 - 02:29PM JST

Wolfpack: "Spending billions on socialist programs will do nothing for the economy."

Are you guys STILL on the 'socialist this and that' tact that in part lost you guys the last election? Didn't you learn yet that education is NOT socialism? Ah, wait... guess you can't learn that if education costs you an arm and a leg, and considering... what... a quarter of highschool students now drop out nation-wide? (or is it just that 1 in 4 adults is illiterate?). You guys NEED things like better education, better health care services, and what not. It is not 'socialist' to give everyone access to free or at least cheaper health care; that ensures a healthier country so it can work and improve its economy on its own.

All I see is a bitter and jaded poster who can't comment on anything unless it's griping and messages of negativity, etc. I wonder what put you in such a sad state of fear and paranoia. You probably can't even define 'socialism' and apply it to what Obama wishes to do for your nation, and for you since you can't help yourself, clearly.

wuzzademcrat: "Pass it, and destroy the world economy."

Thanks, Helter... we'll all read the opinion piece you posted the URL to and live in fear as you do! haha. Seriously, bud... try coming up with something real.
0

skipthesongFeb. 03, 2009 - 02:32PM JST

seems many have really been looking what this bill is all about.

We need to think differently and stop trying to bring back the past. I think America needs to get used to less spending in all sectors as credit should be harder to get. There is no logical reason to give money to people for a house they can't afford. They should instead of finding their dream house, keep looking for cheaper ones and settling for less... Most Americans won't be able to swallow that though. The same holds true for cars, why buy a car you can't afford? Why really buy anything on credit? I only use my credit card when I buy online or travel..
0

suebe36dFeb. 03, 2009 - 02:34PM JST

Yes, we can! At Tupperware, Avon, Wellness, Happiness conventions. They sold. Enjoyed a boom. Hope Obama can keep boom going.
0

smithinjapanFeb. 03, 2009 - 02:56PM JST

skipthesong: "Why really buy anything on credit? I only use my credit card when I buy online or travel.."

I agree. The problem is people don't really use their cards with the intention of not paying them off. As you probably know you keep it for a bit and maybe only use it once to activate the account and as a kind of celebration. You pay it off and put it away for a bit, then use it later when you don't quite have enough to buy what you want, promising that you'll put the money you have towards paying that off. You then spend said money not having put it towards paying the card balance, and things build up. Eventually you can't pay off the balance and only pay the minimum, buying more in the meantime. The minimum builds interest, so you get another card and make a cash withdrawal to pay off the other one. You then have to do the reverse later, and it spins into a nightmare of a cycle, with interest growing the whole time along with the general debt.

I hate using the things, but it's become a necessity with online shopping and services, and as you said while travelling, etc. The card companies are not to blame for people's lack of responsibility, but they ARE to blame if/when they target people who are likely to go into debt and run up a lot of interest. They'll give a person, for example, with a meagre income a card that has a $5000 limit in some cases. What the hell do they think is going to happen? It's akin to the firms who gave loans to people to buy a house/car when those people had no collateral and potentially no means to pay it off.

Anyway, it's a sad state of affairs all around, but even as wuzza said yesterday your own people are to blame (or with world economic matters, we all are).
0

adaydreamFeb. 03, 2009 - 02:57PM JST

This is the GOPs proposal for the stimulus plan:

The $713 billion plan was put together by Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who has been working with a handful of other GOP senators.

The proposal includes $430 billion in tax cuts, $114 billion for infrastructure projects, $138 billion for extending unemployment insurance, food stamps and other provisions to help those in need and $31 billion to address the housing crisis.

The draft Martinez put together is a broader approach than what some GOP leaders have suggested.

This will not get jobs. Sure a few, but we have to create jobs and get people to work, not pack it full of tax breaks.

I guess we're still with the democrats package. < :-)
0

VORFeb. 03, 2009 - 04:09PM JST

democrats got the ball so run with it. you don't need a single republican vote so what is all the whinning about. scared about this insane amount of spending? you should be. that's been one of your chief complaints about the bush administration. so go for it. if it works, outstanding we are all better off. if it doesn't, you own it. and if it is as foolish as it appears, mid term elections are only 1 year and 9 months away.

so quit your belly aching about the lack of bipartisan spirit because we all know the only time you complain about partisianship is when republicans don't go along with the democrats dumb ideas.
0

adaydreamFeb. 04, 2009 - 12:43AM JST

VOR we agree.

I posted the other day that if the republicans want to stay out of the process and vote no, fine. We, the democrats have the majority now and to hell with the republicans. Vote for it and go on. When it starts working tell the republicans we didn't need you.

You want to remain in the land of bush and stay the course, then don't go along with the program. < :-)
0

SargeFeb. 04, 2009 - 06:54AM JST

"to hell with the republicans... When it starts working..."

There's an excellent chance it won't work, and if that be the case, the Democrats will own it.
0

adaydreamFeb. 04, 2009 - 07:18AM JST

Sarge there is an even better chance that it will work and we'll be glad to own it, lock, stock and barrell. < :-)