$65 Yay!!!!!!!!

[SP1!]

Obama president naaahhhwwwwww (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090221/ts_nm/us_obama_2)

Between that pittance and Obama backs Bush on terror prisoners (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19099.html), you can call me unimpressed so far

[ToiletCrusher]

That might cover the cost of internet for me...

Now, if only I had a paycheck and a job to get the extra money.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Obama president naaahhhwwwwww (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090221/ts_nm/us_obama_2)

Between that pittance and Obama backs Bush on terror prisoners (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19099.html), you can call me unimpressed so far

65/month is 780/year. That's two plane tickets to someplace nice.

[OGC]

$65 will just about cover half of the yearly cost of the increase in the gas tax by Obama's friend Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts. :furious: He's looking to jack up the tax by 19 cents per gallon. Of course he promises that if the gas tax increase passes, he won't push for an increase in the tolls on the highways and bridges.

Uh-huh I've heard that one before. :wallbash:

[disneyspy]

65/month is 780/year. That's two plane tickets to someplace nice.

780 extra a year? damn obama makes SP1s hero bush look like a chump
i can get 780 free whopper jrs

[Tenbatsuzen]

780 extra a year? damn obama makes SP1s hero bush look like a chump
i can get 780 free whopper jrs

Yeah, something tells me SP1 didn't read the entire article.

[ChrisTheCop]

65/month is 780/year. That's two plane tickets to someplace nice.

Why would we wanna leave? Obama's gonna make this place heaven on Earth.:wink:

[FezsAssistant]

We're ruining our future for that. Very nice.
I'm glad we learned our lesson regarding electing presidents who are 'cooler' than their opponent (Kerry and Gore were 'too stiff', just like McCain). We are fucking doomed as a country.

[SP1!]

65/month is 780/year. That's two plane tickets to someplace nice.

$780 is nothing. When is the last time you went anywhere on under $1000? I think the cheapest 4 day trip we have taken recently was around $3k and we drove to that destination, sorry unless you are a teenager that amount is not shit and will not mean a lot to 90% of the people who receives the so called tax cut.

And yes I did read the entire article, what good is that pittance when its not even close to half of a paycheck for most people? Can people not do simple math? You want to impress me make a tax cut that will give people a months salary by the end of the year.

[SP1!]

780 extra a year? damn obama makes SP1s hero bush look like a chump
i can get 780 free whopper jrs

Funny I have never said bush was anything special, in fact I thought quite a few of his policies were flawed but not nearly as flawed as this bullshit plan or the plan that got us into this housing mess. Blame whomever you want but the fact remains this mess is the fault of both parties with maybe just a bit more resting on the dems since clinton helped champion those types of loans.

Both sides are fucking with the people and do not give a shit about them.

[instrument]

I own my home(s) and car(s) 750 will pay all my bills for nearly 3months.

Sadly those bills are in N.C., ugh.

[SP1!]

I own my home(s) and car(s) 750 will pay all my bills for nearly 3months.

Sadly those bills are in N.C., ugh.

Yeah even here in atlanta thats not enough to cover 1/4 the bills for a month.

[underdog]

$780 is nothing. When is the last time you went anywhere on under $1000? I think the cheapest 4 day trip we have taken recently was around $3k and we drove to that destination, sorry unless you are a teenager that amount is not shit and will not mean a lot to 90% of the people who receives the so called tax cut.

Are you illiterate? He didn't say a vacation, he said plane tickets.

[underdog]

Both sides are fucking with the people and do not give a shit about them.

Duh.

[epo]

That might cover the cost of internet for me...

Now, if only I had a paycheck and a job to get the extra money.

65/month is 780/year. That's two plane tickets to someplace nice.

$65 will just about cover half of the yearly cost of the increase in the gas tax by Obama's friend Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts. :furious: He's looking to jack up the tax by 19 cents per gallon. Of course he promises that if the gas tax increase passes, he won't push for an increase in the tolls on the highways and bridges.

Uh-huh I've heard that one before. :wallbash:

I would like to point out that the first three responses all talked about how they would spend the money....which was the point of having a tax cut embedded into the stimulus package.

Give normal people money and they'll spend it.

[HBox]

Obama president naaahhhwwwwww (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090221/ts_nm/us_obama_2)

Between that pittance and Obama backs Bush on terror prisoners (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19099.html), you can call me unimpressed so far

This total tax cut is either the biggest or one of the biggest ever.

[epo]

This total tax cut is either the biggest or one of the biggest ever.

In terms of total value, yes it is the largest tax cut ever.

[styckx]

$65 doesn't sound like a lot, but it's not all about you, it's about the nation as a whole.

Taxpayers in the U.S. as of 2007 was about 138 Million. $65x138 million is a ton of money going back into the economy.

[Farmer Dave]

I would like to point out that the first three responses all talked about how they would spend the money....which was the point of having a tax cut embedded into the stimulus package.

Give normal people money and they'll spend it.

That's what they count on. I wonder how many really do. It will go to bills here.

[SinA]

also, no torture, so that's worth a few dollars more.

[beachbum]

I would like to point out that the first three responses all talked about how they would spend the money....which was the point of having a tax cut embedded into the stimulus package.

Give normal people money and they'll spend it.

:thumbup:Exactly.The common theory is that if you give someone $780 all at once they will sit on it.If you dole it out a little at a time they will spend it.Spending is what stimulates the economy.

Loaning billions to mega-banks does not help the economy if they don't loan it out to the people.It was very generous of Paulson to give all of his friends huge chunks of our money though.Especially since there were no strings attached and no provisions for what they have to do with it.

[high fly]

$780 is nothing.


Glad you don't need it.
Send it to me....

[TheMojoPin]

$780 is nothing.

For a lot of people in this country it is. You say you expect "a month's salary" to be given, but what does that even mean? Whose monthly salary?

[beachbum]

If I get a vote I wouldn't mind O&A's month's salary.

[ecobag2]

You have to be on a strict budget to benefit from this... you'd benefit, but you'd reallyhave to be on a strict budget...

Here's how I'd wind up benefitting (I'm not on a strict budget - but it's my dream)

$30 per month more toward various snack and coffee related products
$30 per month more toward cigars
$5 per month more toward some other bullshit.

In sum. I'd piss it away.

[HBox]

You have to be on a strict budget to benefit from this... you'd benefit, but you'd reallyhave to be on a strict budget...

Here's how I'd wind up benefitting (I'm not on a strict budget - but it's my dream)

$30 per month more toward various snack and coffee related products
$30 per month more toward cigars
$5 per month more toward some other bullshit.

In sum. I'd piss it away.

Everyone knows that the coffee, snack, cigar and other bullshit industries drive this country's economy.

[cougarjake13]

Obama president naaahhhwwwwww (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090221/ts_nm/us_obama_2)

Between that pittance and Obama backs Bush on terror prisoners (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19099.html), you can call me unimpressed so far

clicking on that link in the article was a header 'HAZARDOUS ROAD AHEAD'but i read it as 'HAZARDOUS ROAD HEAD'

[cougarjake13]

i dont see how an extra 65 dollars a month is gonna matter much to most people and it doesnt seem like its gonna help people to stimulate the economy


most people will just be paying bills with it




bush's stimulus checks didnt do much either


i still have both of mine, theyre in my savings account, i didnt buy shit with any of that money

so maybe its my fault the economys in the shitter

[Recyclerz]

If I get a vote I wouldn't mind O&A's month's salary.

I think you might be better off with Stern's. Unless you had to listen to his show as a precondition.

$65 a month might not seem like a lot if you're currently making a nice salary but it is significant to a lot of people. I'm sure the executives at Wal-Mart, Target, et al. are up late working out marketing plans to get that additional cash spent in their stores. It could also be the bridge that allows some folks to be able to make the monthly payments on a new car.

Given the empirical failure of the "trickle down" school of economic thought I'm glad to give "trickle up" a fair shot, even though my chimpanzee ravaged portfolio would probably be better off with the former.

[Recyclerz]

i dont see how an extra 65 dollars a month is gonna matter much to most people and it doesnt seem like its gonna help people to stimulate the economy

most people will just be paying bills with it

bush's stimulus checks didnt do much either

i still have both of mine, theyre in my savings account, i didnt buy shit with any of that money

so maybe its my fault the economys in the shitter

Isn't the biggest industry in Tampa strip clubs? Go do your patriotic duty and buy yourself 3 lap dances and spend the last $5 at the dry cleaners.

[SP1!]

$65 doesn't sound like a lot, but it's not all about you, it's about the nation as a whole.

Taxpayers in the U.S. as of 2007 was about 138 Million. $65x138 million is a ton of money going back into the economy.

The problem is, as scared as people are they arent going to run out and spend that money, they are going to horde it away.

For a lot of people in this country it is. You say you expect "a month's salary" to be given, but what does that even mean? Whose monthly salary?Unless you are flipping burgers at some fast food place $65/month isnt shit, fuck it wasnt even that much to me 15 years ago, lets not get carried away and act like its some windfall from heaven.

bush's stimulus checks didnt do much either

Thank you, these same people are the ones bitching about bush's checks saying it wont do much for the economy but now this is supposed to be a good thing and I didnt even qualify for one of bushs checks so fuck him.

[TheMojoPin]

Unless you are flipping burgers at some fast food place $65/month isnt shit, fuck it wasnt even that much to me 15 years ago, lets not get carried away and act like its some windfall from heaven.

Who said "it's a windfall from heaven?" You're the only one engaging in ridiculous hyperbole shooting this down...it's pretty obvious you're going to do nothing but look down on this and the people that find it valuable. The bottom line is that money is money and that $65 can help, even if it's just towards things like gas or groceries...it's not nothing, and in the end it ends up being a larger tax cut/rebate than we've ever had.

[TheMojoPin]

i dont see how an extra 65 dollars a month is gonna matter much to most people and it doesnt seem like its gonna help people to stimulate the economy


most people will just be paying bills with it




bush's stimulus checks didnt do much either


i still have both of mine, theyre in my savings account, i didnt buy shit with any of that money

so maybe its my fault the economys in the shitter

The difference is in the structure. The hope is that spreading it out like that will lead to it being spent as opposed to a single lump sum that people plan to only use on bills.

[Contra]

This is great! The hundreds of thousands of people that have lost their jobs are going to really benefit from that extra 65 dollars a month in their pa...oh yeah scratch that.

[SP1!]

Who said "it's a windfall from heaven?" You're the only one engaging in ridiculous hyperbole shooting this down...it's pretty obvious you're going to do nothing but look down on this and the people that find it valuable. The bottom line is that money is money and that $65 can help, even if it's just towards things like gas or groceries...it's not nothing, and in the end it ends up being a larger tax cut/rebate than we've ever had.
This kind of tax cut does nothing to help the economy, this will not stimulate shit since people cant afford to get anything big with this which as the past shows, large purchases stimulate the overall economy. My bitch lies with the people who believe that this will build it back up, this does shit for most of the people out there and nothing for those with out jobs.

This is great! The hundreds of thousands of people that have lost their jobs are going to really benefit from that extra 65 dollars a month in their pa...oh yeah scratch that.Yeah something that created jobs would have been nice, this will not create shit except jobs for waiters.

[Zorro]

I would like to point out that the first three responses all talked about how they would spend the money....which was the point of having a tax cut embedded into the stimulus package.

Give normal people money and they'll spend it.

That's not what happened with stimulus one. Most of the money went to pay down debt or into savings. Suspect the same thing will happen again even if it doesn't. Using the money to pay "ordinary" bills is not stimulus since you'd pay them with or without a check from
Uncle Sam.

This whole stiumulus stuff is a scam. Was a scam under Bush and it's a scam now. The only thing that changes are the names of the politicians. This financial "crisis" took years to get into and the notion that a bill written in a couple of days is a solution is simply ludricous. Once again America wants a simple solution to a complex problem, but it's okay 'cause I love living in a banana republic.

[TheMojoPin]

This kind of tax cut does nothing to help the economy, this will not stimulate shit since people cant afford to get anything big with this which as the past shows, large purchases stimulate the overall economy. My bitch lies with the people who believe that this will build it back up, this does shit for most of the people out there and nothing for those with out jobs.

Yeah something that created jobs would have been nice, this will not create shit except jobs for waiters.

Yeah, it's a crime that all those jobs haven't been created in the last month.

Some of you people are ridiculous tripping over yourselves to find things to complain about. You honestly expect any of the jobs that are ideally going to be created to already be in place at this point? None of us knows for sure if any of this can work, but at least recognize the plan as it is instead of having unrealistic expectations.

It's not only large purchases that can pick up the economy. A steady increase in purchasing obviously also will help. The idea is that the tax cuts coupled with the ideal increase in jobs coming down the line will foster an environment of increased spending that will pump up the economy down the line. Most of this we need to wait and see how it works out, so flipping out like it's failed already is completely unrealistic.

[TheMojoPin]

That's not what happened with stimulus one. Most of the money went to pay down debt or into savings. Suspect the same thing will happen again even if it doesn't. Using the money to pay "ordinary" bills is not stimulus since you'd pay them with or without a check from
Uncle Sam.

And again, that's why this is spread out as opposed to just throwing a lump sum at people.

[high fly]

This kind of tax cut does nothing to help the economy, this will not stimulate shit since people cant afford to get anything big with this which as the past shows, large purchases stimulate the overall economy. My bitch lies with the people who believe that this will build it back up, this does shit for most of the people out there and nothing for those with out jobs.

Yeah something that created jobs would have been nice, this will not create shit except jobs for waiters.


Is there an ignorant contest going on or something?

[SP1!]

It's not only large purchases that can pick up the economy. A steady increase in purchasing obviously also will help. The idea is that the tax cuts coupled with the ideal increase in jobs coming down the line will foster an environment of increased spending that will pump up the economy down the line. Most of this we need to wait and see how it works out, so flipping out like it's failed already is completely unrealistic.
Exactly how many jobs will be created by being able to spend $65 more dollars a month? We buy a ton of stuff and we cant think of anything we could buy except for maybe a night out, other than a night out there isnt much to go out and consume which is part of the basis of stimulating the economy. Like I stated before these policies really dont seem to think of the long run and are all about immediate benefit then nothing will stimulate the economy as a whole.

Is there an ignorant contest going on or something?
Depends, is there a point you are trying to make or just talking out of your ass without realizing that dems and their supporters have said that tax cuts does nothing for the economy for the past 5 years but are now touting this as a big deal.

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly how many jobs will be created by being able to spend $65 more dollars a month? We buy a ton of stuff and we cant think of anything we could buy except for maybe a night out, other than a night out there isnt much to go out and consume which is part of the basis of stimulating the economy. Like I stated before these policies really dont seem to think of the long run and are all about immediate benefit then nothing will stimulate the economy as a whole.

The jobs aren't beholden to the tax cuts and vice-versa. You just created a false scenario to argue against.

The bottom line is that none of us know right now how the tax cuts will work out and what jobs will be created or how many. You're ranting across the spectrum at policies that we need to see what happens as if you can already declare them to be failures.

Your repeated dismissal of an extra $65 a month as nothing is baffling to me. I refuse to believe you're that out of touch. I'm obviously not saying that that is an amazing amount of money, but you act like it can't buy anything. Some new clothes, DVD's, music, books, toys, a video game or two, groceries, gas, etc.. It's not some insane shopping spree, but it very easily could be enough to get people to spend just a little bit extra.

[TheMojoPin]

Depends, is there a point you are trying to make or just talking out of your ass without realizing that dems and their supporters have said that tax cuts does nothing for the economy for the past 5 years but are now touting this as a big deal.

And yet again you refuse to acknowledge the obvious diferences in the plans that have been pointed out repeatedly.

[angrymissy]

$65/month is a shitload of extra cash for my Dad. Sorry if it isn't for you Mr. Fancypants.

If Obama started giving everyone an extra $500/mo, there would be outraged posts... "HOW DOES HE THINK WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS??!!!"...

[SP1!]

The jobs aren't beholden to the tax cuts and vice-versa. You just created a false scenario to argue against.

The bottom line is that none of us know right now how the tax cuts will work out and what jobs will be created or how many. You're ranting across the spectrum at policies that we need to see what happens as if you can already declare them to be failures.

Your repeated dismissal of an extra $65 a month as nothing is baffling to me. I refuse to believe you're that out of touch. I'm obviously not saying that that is an amazing amount of money, but you act like it can't buy anything. Some new clothes, DVD's, music, books, toys, a video game or two, groceries, gas, etc.. It's not some insane shopping spree, but it very easily could be enough to get people to spend just a little bit extra.Well the problem is that most people spent time in this thread stating that this money would create jobs by people increasing their consumption, so they are directly tied together.

And yes none of us know but for the past 4-5 years all the democrats have yelled to anyone who would listen about how bushs tax cuts wont do shit for the economy, now those some mother fuckers are saying how great this tax cut is, the double standard fucking pisses me off. $65 is not going to buy much for the average family, maybe one night out for the kids at dave and busters or a night out with drinking but thats not going to help anymore than the tax cuts bush pushed.

And yet again you refuse to acknowledge the obvious diferences in the plans that have been pointed out repeatedly.
What differences? In bushs plans? Nobody has pointed out the big differences except that only people poorer than me got those checks.

As I stated earlier only those flipping burgers will see much of a benefit. Also Im wondering how we are going to pay for this tax cut since its more than others that were proposed under bush and they screamed we couldnt afford those cuts.

[TheMojoPin]

Well the problem is that most people spent time in this thread stating that this money would create jobs by people increasing their consumption, so they are directly tied together.

And yes none of us know but for the past 4-5 years all the democrats have yelled to anyone who would listen about how bushs tax cuts wont do shit for the economy, now those some mother fuckers are saying how great this tax cut is, the double standard fucking pisses me off. $65 is not going to buy much for the average family, maybe one night out for the kids at dave and busters or a night out with drinking but thats not going to help anymore than the tax cuts bush pushed.


What differences? In bushs plans? Nobody has pointed out the big differences except that only people poorer than me got those checks.

Yet again, the key difference is the size of the refund and how it's structured to be spread out over the year as opposed to just one lump sum. This ideally will help stimulate prolonged extra spending.

As I stated earlier only those flipping burgers will see much of a benefit.

Yes, we've all seen how you repeatedly begrudge anyone who would dare to find an extra $65 a month truly useful, beneficial or enjoyable.

[SP1!]

Yet again, the key difference is the size of the refund and how it's structured to be spread out over the year as opposed to just one lump sum. This ideally will help stimulate prolonged extra spending.
This is not an amount to stimulate much, Im glad to see that tax cuts are ok as long as they are spread out over a longer term, dont act like its going to be that big of a difference. States are already saying that they may have to raise their unemployment taxes to pay for them taking the money, which in turns will end up killing off any benefit when employers have to pass that on to the employee.

Yes, we've all seen how you repeatedly begrudge anyone who would dare to find an extra $65 a month truly useful, beneficial or enjoyable.
No what I said was only those starting out or in school will benefit from this and thats not going to fix much.

[TheMojoPin]

This is not an amount to stimulate much, Im glad to see that tax cuts are ok as long as they are spread out over a longer term, dont act like its going to be that big of a difference. States are already saying that they may have to raise their unemployment taxes to pay for them taking the money, which in turns will end up killing off any benefit when employers have to pass that on to the employee.


No what I said was only those starting out or in school will benefit from this and thats not going to fix much.

That final point is simply you being stubborn. You're clearly not going to acknowledge that people can easily benefit from a extra $65 a month...besides, it's not like they can only spend an extra $65. The ideal scenario is that it encourages people to spend a bit beyond that, especially if the economy starts to shift, people start getting jobs and economic confidence picks up. It's by no means a sure thing, but a large part of it is fostering a general environment where people think it's OK to spend and buy at least a little extra.

[SP1!]

That final point is simply you being stubborn. You're clearly not going to acknowledge that people can easily benefit from a extra $65 a month...besides, it's not like they can only spend an extra $65. The ideal scenario is that it encourages people to spend a bit beyond that, especially if the economy starts to shift, people start getting jobs and economic confidence picks up. It's by no means a sure thing, but a large part of it is fostering a general environment where people think it's OK to spend and buy at least a little extra.Yeah I can admit Im stubborn, my biggest bitch is that all the tax cuts republicans were trying to push through were rebuffed because they included everyone, now people are championing this cut. Im sick of people thinking only one party is 100% correct all the time when 9 times out of 10 they have the same ideas for this shit just different ways to spend the money after the fact. I still just want a party that embraces the old republican financial responsibility and be mindful of social causes but not spend money frivolously there, oh and legalize pot. Then I would be happy.

It may help, hell you could put what I know about the countries economics on a post it note but from what I read in articles real economists have wrote is they do not understand how this is going to help very much, if at all.

Personally I will enjoy one more night out drinking shots, hell I may even toast to obama.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah I can admit Im stubborn, my biggest bitch is that all the tax cuts republicans were trying to push through were rebuffed because they included everyone, now people are championing this cut. Im sick of people thinking only one party is 100% correct all the time when 9 times out of 10 they have the same ideas for this shit just different ways to spend the money after the fact. I still just want a party that embraces the old republican financial responsibility and be mindful of social causes but not spend money frivolously there, oh and legalize pot. Then I would be happy.

It may help, hell you could put what I know about the countries economics on a post it note but from what I read in articles real economists have wrote is they do not understand how this is going to help very much, if at all.

Personally I will enjoy one more night out drinking shots, hell I may even toast to obama.

Personally, I don't think it's going to be the lynchpin of turning things around...I just hope it somehow helps.

[Recyclerz]

Well the problem is that most people spent time in this thread stating that this money would create jobs by people increasing their consumption, so they are directly tied together.

And yes none of us know but for the past 4-5 years all the democrats have yelled to anyone who would listen about how bushs tax cuts wont do shit for the economy, now those some mother fuckers are saying how great this tax cut is, the double standard fucking pisses me off. $65 is not going to buy much for the average family, maybe one night out for the kids at dave and busters or a night out with drinking but thats not going to help anymore than the tax cuts bush pushed.


What differences? In bushs plans? Nobody has pointed out the big differences except that only people poorer than me got those checks.

As I stated earlier only those flipping burgers will see much of a benefit. Also Im wondering how we are going to pay for this tax cut since its more than others that were proposed under bush and they screamed we couldnt afford those cuts.

OK here's the difference between the theories behind the Bush and Obama tax cuts:

When Bush became President the Federal Government was running surpluses due to increased revenue from the higher incomes (across the board) in the '90's. The stock bubble was bursting so the economy was due for a bit of a pullback. Bush championed tax cuts to 1. cushion the downturn (not unreasonable) and 2. the Washington Republicans were scared shitless that the Democrats would gain control of the govt. at some point and use the surpluses to fund new wacky govt. programs (again, not totally unreasonable). However, the tax cuts Bush passed did very little to address either of those issues and instead attempted to restructure the economy in a way that steered more capital to the upper classes on the theory that they would put it to more efficient use in growing the economy. Well, we see how well that worked out.

Obama's tax cuts are different because they are an attempt to slow or stop the collapse in demand in the country (and, frankly, in the world). They are not as efficient as straight government spending for the reasons that Zorro and you point out - people are so scared now that they might save everything they get from tax cuts - but they were included in the stimulus package to try to bring the Republicans on board. Obviously, that barely worked. However, giving the benefits to the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder makes it more likely that it will be spent (on whatever) and frankly, makes good political, as well as economic, sense since it is cheaper to buy the votes of poorer people.

Given the financial position of the country, which might be likened to a flaming bag of shit left on the doorstep of the White House for Obama, we better hope that the cash funneled to people through these tax cuts does what it is intended to, regardless of how small it might seem to someone making a salary of six figures and up.

[The Jays]

Funny I have never said bush was anything special, in fact I thought quite a few of his policies were flawed but not nearly as flawed as this bullshit plan or the plan that got us into this housing mess.

Hmmm... so, which of Bush's policies were less flawed? The whole "Iraq has WMDs" policy that got us into that quagmire? How about the "let's not read reports on terrorist groups, instead let's get people who are lending risks some homes" policy? Oh, I really enjoy the one entitled "the Federal government's job is not to secure people's lives in the event of a natural disaster."

[The Jays]

Yeah I can admit Im stubborn, my biggest bitch is that all the tax cuts republicans were trying to push through were rebuffed because they included everyone, now people are championing this cut. Im sick of people thinking only one party is 100% correct all the time when 9 times out of 10 they have the same ideas for this shit just different ways to spend the money after the fact. I still just want a party that embraces the old republican financial responsibility and be mindful of social causes but not spend money frivolously there, oh and legalize pot. Then I would be happy.

It may help, hell you could put what I know about the countries economics on a post it note but from what I read in articles real economists have wrote is they do not understand how this is going to help very much, if at all.

Personally I will enjoy one more night out drinking shots, hell I may even toast to obama.


You need the Libertarian party, not the Republican one.

[SP1!]

Hmmm... so, which of Bush's policies were less flawed? The whole "Iraq has WMDs" policy that got us into that quagmire? How about the "let's not read reports on terrorist groups, instead let's get people who are lending risks some homes" policy? Oh, I really enjoy the one entitled "the Federal government's job is not to secure people's lives in the event of a natural disaster."
Was there a point to that or did you just want to ramble about something I typed 2 days ago? And get off the quagmire talk, yeah its shitty but its not nearly as bad as vietnam or korea.

You need the Libertarian party, not the Republican one.
Libertarians are too freaky for me, they need to rein in their crazies.

[Contra]

" And get off the quagmire talk, yeah its shitty but its not nearly as bad as vietnam or korea, YET."

Fixed it for you

[scottinnj]

65/month is 780/year. That's two plane tickets to someplace nice.

Paradise?

[SP1!]

" And get off the quagmire talk, yeah its shitty but its not nearly as bad as vietnam or korea, YET."

Fixed it for you

If you say so, but your logic is faulty. Iraq is a crap war but it still has 32,000 deaths to go just to reach korean war loses, not to mention vietnam.

The war is bullshit but lets not kid each other, it is no where near a real quagmire.