Do you think President Obama can solve the economic crisis with his current plan?

@bobmnu (8157)
United States
March 15, 2009 2:10am CST
Will his policy of spend and spend work, knowing that we will have to tax later, or will any recovery be short term with any recovery being stopped by inflation shortly after the recovery starts.
5 responses
@venshida (4836)
• United States
15 Mar 09
I hope it works,but based on everything I read it might work short time then we are going to be back to where we started. I think they are spending too much money. I guess we will have to wait and see.
• United States
18 Mar 09
"So all you people think that President Obama is spending to much money in an attempt to right the wrongs inherited by eight years of "Greed"?" Wow, talk about repeating "talking points" while not understanding anything! This quote takes first prize. The current economic mess is purely the result of deficit spending by all Congresses and all Presidents since the 1930's. Is there anyone who does not realize that since FDR every President has compounded the problem of deficit spending? The deficit has grown at an exponitial rate. 0bama's spending is a continuation of what has been going on for decades. Yes, Bush's spending policies were very bad. So, why is 0bama repeating that mistake only on a larger scale? The problem with 0bama's stimulus spending plan is that it destroys the value of the US DOLLAR, indebts us to foreigners, (some of them our enemies) and really won't stimulate the economy as proven by FDR's policies in the 1930's and recently confirmed by modern economists. All that is needed to stimulate the economy is for the government to quit deficit spending, reduce the size of government, not take too large of a tax bite and then get out of the way.
• United States
15 Mar 09
I don't see anyone "blaming" the poor. But when you speak of stimulus and the way the money's going to be repaid, you have to be truthful about the facts. You can't speak around them and let sympathy silence common sense simiply because some people are genuinely unable to work and are poor and suffering. The problem that people - at least the people I know - have with spending is this: It has to be repaid! And the poor, yes, I'm sorry they're poor, but, they can't afford nor have the means, and at this point, even the will, to repay any of it. The problem with the spending is the money's going to have to be taken from people who make it. If you think that 250k/year mark isn't going to drop, I'd have to argue that you haven't thought ahead at all. Eventually, every working person in America, even the lowest end of middle/working-class, is going to suffer because of this spending due to rising inflation and taxes. Nobody's "blaming" the poor at all. A lot of people simply realize that the battle is high and low, and the middle is going to receive most of the fallout. Meaning, the rich are ALL being considered greedy devils who helped cause this crisis, and the poor are ALL being considered innocent victims who suffered because of those devils. So, while the rich are being taken from to create more money for balance, the regular working people of America are going to end up suffering all the more. These are my views and I'm sticking by them!
2 people like this
• United States
15 Mar 09
So all you people think that President Obama is spending to much money in an attempt to right the wrongs inherited by eight years of "Greed"? Why is it that people always seem to blame the poor? The gas prices in New York or anywhere were not created by the poor. They were created by the Greed of the mega corporations and those in government that are part of that clan, i.e. Halliburton. Georgie Bush started a war that is costing this country billions of dollars, yet the people that perpetrated 9/11, the people that he should have gone after, are still issuing taped messages. All you naysayers, those complaining about the President's spending. Those that say that spending is no way to get us out of this rut. This is the diffition of Stimulus: "Something that rouses or incites to activity: as A) incentive B) stimulant". Pray tell, how is the economy going to be aroused or incited to activity without spending? The large banks were given an "incentive" in the hopes that they would once again begin making loans so as to "stimulate" spending and thus begin driving the economy. Please read my discussion entitled "AUDACITY" Gilberto Cintron These are my views and I'm sticking by them!
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
15 Mar 09
I was speaking with my family earlier this week. We're run-of-the-mill Americans who work for what we earn, shun the idea of a nanny state, and simply want a chance to succeed without the government dictating terms. We're far from economists, but even to us laymen, this "plan" seems so desperately out of proportion that it simply cannot work long-term. This is way we see it: Ghost money is being spent that technically doesn't even exist yet, at least in terms of value. When everything kicks in, taxes are going to have to be higher to make up the make believe sum. Inflation is going to get carried away. And both of these factors will be tearing down the walls at once. And one constant remains here: Nobody is going to pay you more money! Let's see: Taxed more, charged more, but don't make more. I don't know about "depression," but it sure as hell is depressing! As far as we're concerned, the only people who won't be suffering are the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy will at least have money to cling to, and, of course, the poor (generalization here, as 'poor' is relative to whomever Obama chooses to help) will have an increased amount of welfare. But the working-class people of the world will be kicked around, yet again, by a government that insists on trying to handle OUR money better than WE can! It's disgusting.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
15 Mar 09
It is interesting what you say about the poor. My sister lives in New York State and commented last summer when the gas was going out of sight the first thing the state did was to increase the cash benefit to those not working to ease the pain of the gas increase, at the same time she and her family are getting alone for the second year in a row with no pay increase for her husband. They can pay more taxes and cut back to account for the increase gas [rice but we can't ask the welfare people to cut back. We need a leader like Captain John Smith in Virgina. When faced with men who would rather look for gold than plant crops he said fine no work no food. Let get back to the basic American Values.
• United States
15 Mar 09
Exactly. Somewhere along the way we lost our identity. We're a people who build, invent, and sweat to live comfortably. I understand that some of the "rich" people in America - who are demonized and all considered to be greedy - don't have to drip their sweat and put their hands in the dirt to sustain a comfortable way of life. But since when has that been cause to put your feet up, stop working all together, and insist that their money be given to those who simply do not feel as if they should work? I recently wrote on my blog and asked a question on myLot: "How Do WE Fix Welfare in America?" My personal answer: Make individuals, unless they're physically unable, "work" for their welfare. If a person is drawing welfare or free healthcare and isn't disabled, he or she should be mandated to fill 30-hours a week as a volunteer at homeless shelters, the Red Cross, children's hospitals, etc. The idea of working for your worth is what needs to be taught to pull America out of crisis. Teaching that we can sit around and wait for the government to fund our lives is going to drastically decrease the quality of our lives. People I grew up with in my hometown are making more drawing welfare and unemployment benefits (families; husband, wife, children)than they were making working. I know of at least 6 families doing this in my neighborhood alone. The more working people struggle, the more the government throws into the unemployed freebie pool, thus non-working people never don't even want to work again.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Mar 09
I think no government official has enough authority or power to do anything more than influence the economy. The only way Obama can destroy it is to nationalize it. If that happens, all the talk about limited government and separation of powers will be cast into the pages of history.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
15 Mar 09
I don't think there will be much of a recovery. Everything I am reading is pointing to a period of hyperinflation very soon. Right now the FED is printing more money than ever before, and all that does is devalue the dollar even further. You cannot spend your way out of a recession, and the taxes that he has proposed will not even begin to cover the amount of spending that is being done. I believe that the tax increases are going to be felt by everyone, and not just those making over $200,000... or whatever figure they are using this week. All of this inflation is just the same as a hidden tax increase, and I really think that things are going to get much worse. With all of the spending, I don't see things getting better at all.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
15 Mar 09
The best way to get money back into the economy is through tax cuts and spending cuts by the government at all levels. We also need to get over the idea that everyone on welfare is willing to work but are just down on their luck. If you are receiving welfare you need to get a High School Diploma or GED. Then you need to be working at something. With the Internet there are jobs for people who have mild disabilities. Once they are working they can work their way off welfare and index the welfare system so that people are rewarded for working and can slowly have their benefits reduced rather than an all or nothing system.
@blink182m (182)
• Philippines
18 Mar 09
We all know solving global financial crisis is not an easy task. Well just hope for the best that Pres. Obama's solution can lessen the crisis that the whole world is facing today.