|
Post by bchevy on Jan 29, 2009 17:26:34 GMT -4
I mean, Bailout part II.
Just how dumb are we the people,
10s of MILLIONS of dollars for the arts? 10s of MILLIONS of dollars to study global warming 10s of MILLIONS of dollars for a new global warming computer system 10s of MILLIONS of dollars for STDs
PLEASE explain to me, just how does this "stimulate" the economy? It smacks of typical democratic pork barrel business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 29, 2009 17:42:42 GMT -4
Sounds like all of those will create new jobs.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 29, 2009 17:49:32 GMT -4
Giving the IRS a larger budget to audit more people will create jobs as well, but do you want that?
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 29, 2009 17:57:57 GMT -4
Considering that I believe that global warming is real and is caused at least partially by us, I'm happy to see money being spent on researching it.
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Jan 29, 2009 20:31:37 GMT -4
i'll stick up for the arts, too. part of what makes us human.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 29, 2009 21:04:19 GMT -4
Considering that I believe that global warming is real and is caused at least partially by us, I'm happy to see money being spent on researching it. i'll stick up for the arts, too. part of what makes us human. But the stimulus bill, the $800B+, is not for making our lives better, it's for making the economy better. Money for studying global warming will fill the pockets of Al Gore and a few "respected" researchers, but won't help the general economy much. The same for money for the arts: good for the soul, good for humanity, but only goes to a small group of people. It will certainly help them, but won't help the general economy.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 29, 2009 22:56:05 GMT -4
I haven't heard anyone speak up as to how many jobs the $150 million for honey bee research will generate. At least the 4 billion that will get spread out to ACORN & their partners can be used to hire more people to read phone books and obituaries to register voters for the next election cycle in two years.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 30, 2009 15:50:55 GMT -4
I agree with you, kl.
|
|
|
Post by shoreterp on Jan 30, 2009 16:10:46 GMT -4
We've come to expect everything in life to be painless as Americans.
There should be no stimulus, no wall street bail outs, no auto company hand outs, and no tax rebates. All we are doing it kicking the can a little further down the street.
Let the recession happen and it will be over quickly and we will bounce back. All this "help" from Washington is doing nothing other than extending out the time before the recovery.
The economy goes in up and down cycles. We've come to expect nothing but good economic times forever. Well, that ain't gonna happen. The sooner we let this recession run it's course without Government meddling, the quicker we can move towards recovery.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Jan 30, 2009 16:14:24 GMT -4
Agreed shore!!! Time to start fresh...
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 31, 2009 13:15:45 GMT -4
If they want to stimulate the economy, make it worth while for new business to begin, and for old business to stick around (not pack up and move overseas). Too many agencies to register with, too many taxes and fees, too many permits to apply for, water and soil testing for a home business? Its my freaking garage, ect ect.
If they want a better economy, shift some of the weight off the boot that stands atop the neck of commerce.
Ever wonder why there is less than a half-dozen companies that make cars? Ever wonder why those cars get heavier and heavier every year? Nobody can afford to break into the business because its too expensive to meet safety standards, among other things. Just think about how difficult it would be for a new company to design and build a car, and the process they would have to go through with the government to get it to the consumer and registered/titled.
Why does it have to be that way? It should be Man A builds car, sells to Man B, he pays for it and drives it. That is the end of the story. If Man B wants crumple zones and 50mph certified safety, he goes to a company that guarantees such things, IF that is what he wants, and has the means to pay for it.
People should be able to buy brand new cars that cost $3000 if they want to.
That is only one area where our government is choking commerce, there are thousands of others, I'm sure everyone can think of one or two.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 31, 2009 13:25:34 GMT -4
If someone doesn't have money to buy a car with safety standards, they surely won't have money to pay the hospital bill when they get in an accident. This would shift the weight "off the boot" to the rest of the taxpayers to pay this man's medical bills. I don't think that would ultimately help our economy.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 31, 2009 13:40:20 GMT -4
But Rob's point of regulations driving up business costs is a valid point. This results in higher manufacturing costs, and stifles competetion, both of which drive up consumer costs.
Following his example of the car industry, here's a real life sample. In the late 1970's I was stationed in Germany and had bought a very nice Audi that was safe enough to run at unlimited autobahn speeds, and got better gas mileage than most, if not all, American built cars at the time.Yet to bring that car home in 1978 would have cost me a couple thousand dollars just to make it meet American safety & emssions standards, leaving me with a more expensive car that had weighed more, used more gas, had poorer performance and probably no more safer than it was in Germany. I know some will say at least it wouldn't have polluted as much with the emissions equipment, but would that have offset the extra pollution caused by having to burn more fuel?
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 31, 2009 13:42:14 GMT -4
One other note, that extra couple thousand I would have had to spend in 1978 is probably several thousand more now, with the additional regulations added since then, even without taking infalation into account.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 31, 2009 14:13:53 GMT -4
Should we get rid of all regulations, or only those that are inconvenient for you? Do we get rid of all safety and emissions standards, or only those that you don't find useful?
I wonder if more businesses move overseas to avoid rules and regulations or if more businesses move overseas for cheap labor. I wonder if Americans would be willing to take the jobs for the wages being paid overseas. I wonder if consumers would buy American if that meant paying more for the same product.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 31, 2009 14:47:31 GMT -4
That's the point I've been trying to make in this and other threads, falgar: we like to whine and moan about how much business goes overseas, and yet we're not willing to pay the extra money to buy American.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 31, 2009 14:53:23 GMT -4
I never advocated doing away with rules & regulations entirely (or at least I missed that part of my post, even after rereading it).
What I look for is is some balance & common sense to them, apparently to much to ask in this country, as it seems all people must be protected at all times from all things.
The example I used was Germany, not some third world country. They had safety & emissions standards in the 1970's too. The difference was their standards allowed them to build cars safe enough for autobahn travel, while getting better mileage. By comparison, it seems that at the time, our regulations were more excessive, costing Americans more money, with no real tangible results.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 31, 2009 15:02:22 GMT -4
To answer you falgar: If only given the choice between current regulations and none, I'd chose none. I'm sure there is a happy medium with a set nearly everyone can agree on.
To answer funnel: I think dej covered it nicely. A safe car maintains its shape under a reasonable impact (obviously nobody expects a honda to stand up to a 100mph impact from an 18 wheeler). It isn't expensive to make such a vehicle. It is expensive when you start to define "safe" as being able to hit a pedestrian at 20mph and not break their bones (Not saying this is the current standard, just giving a ludicrous idea on the other end of the spectrum).
Just like so many areas, we have too many laws on the book, we need to start taking an eraser to the book and get rid of what we can afford to get rid of.
The Automotive Industry was the first thing that came to mind, since they are suffering so badly. Well, if new cars didn't cost half a year's salary, maybe people would be in a better position to buy one. I know regulations aren't the whole issue, but its a piece of the puzzle. No reason to not take a step in the right direction just because that step alone won't get you where you want to go.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 31, 2009 15:38:21 GMT -4
I never advocated doing away with rules & regulations entirely (or at least I missed that part of my post, even after rereading it). What I look for is is some balance & common sense to them, apparently to much to ask in this country, as it seems all people must be protected at all times from all things. And I apologize for not being more clear in my post. Sure, you don't advocate doing away with all rules, only the ones that you feel are excessive. I don't advocate doing away with all rules, only the ones I feel are excessive. My wife doesn't advocate doing away with all rules, .... The problem is, I expect your list and my list and my wife's list and all the other lists out there are not exactly the same. I suspect if we took everyone's list and wiped out only the rules that each of us feel are excessive, there won't be many rules left. So, do you advocate wiping out only your list or are we all equal in this and we'll wipe out the sum of all our lists? And I certainly agree there are too many rules and regulations and each one adds to the cost of doing business. I just don't know that I have enough knowledge to know which are truly unnecessary and which have benefits that I don't see.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 31, 2009 15:52:38 GMT -4
I don't have that knowledge either. Unfortunately, too many of these rules and regulations are implemented by people that have no more knowledge than you or I. They either take them as written by a special interest they are courting, or they are written as a knee-jerk reaction to something that occurred. Once in place, it seems they become someone's sacred cow and it becomes difficult to have an open discussion of their merits without being attacked by whaterver group feels it's their cow getting gored.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 31, 2009 17:01:10 GMT -4
^ Exactly. That reminds me of an interview of one of the democrat's leading anti-gun senators gave during the Clinton years ((I forget her name and don't feel like looking it up right now, although I want to say it was Barbara Boxer).
She was being asked questions about some of the provisions of the assault weapons ban, specific things they were banning, ect. They were talking about things like bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, ect. She had no clue what they were or what their purpose was, only that she was supposed to be against them "Its for the children, afterall".
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 31, 2009 17:30:04 GMT -4
The Stimulus Bill will stimulate the pockets of the corrupt capitalists and politicians that got us into this mess. The goal of the politician is to get reelected by any means. The goal of the capitalist if profit by any means.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jan 31, 2009 18:35:15 GMT -4
WOW!
special interest + knee-jerk reaction = sacred cow
How absolutely accurately prosed!
|
|
|
Post by island tech on Jan 31, 2009 21:33:22 GMT -4
That's the point I've been trying to make in this and other threads, falgar: we like to whine and moan about how much business goes overseas, and yet we're not willing to pay the extra money to buy American. If American Car companies would build better quality it would increase their sales. Then people would buy products like these from our own soil.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 31, 2009 22:27:08 GMT -4
That too, island tech.
|
|