Who Supports the "Stimulant" Package and why?

@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
March 2, 2009 11:23am CST
I've read and heard from a lot of people who oppose the Stimulant Package. People from all points of the political spectrum seem to be speaking out against it. However, I haven't read or heard much from anyone who supports it. The few who defend it can't seem to give any examples of something good about it. They simply use generalities like, "well, he has to do something", or "give it a chance". So, here's your chance. If you support the Stimulant Package, tell me what you like about it. Please be specific though because if all you have to say is "he has to do something" I'm going to ask you why.
4 responses
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
3 Mar 09
I support the package because I think we have to do something and I agree with Senator Spector that things are worse than is being disclosed and it would be unconscionable to do nothing. I was hoping for more input in congress and maybe some changes that made sense to me. I'd also like to know when they are going to put back the regulations that allowed this mess to bleed through the economy. (The ones the Investment Bankers lobbied for 20 years to remove) I would also be open to anything else that could be done but I don't see anybody proposing it. I got scared last Fall when I saw the FDIC jumping in and brokering deals for all those teetering banks. I couldn't think of any reason for that other than the fact that they were terrified there would be a run on the banks and they did not have the money that was supposed to be insuring the savings of America. I don't believe they were afraid of a recession. I think they were afraid of an all out depression and I still think we are still on the ledge.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Mar 09
Just think, if Congress had of regulated Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac like they were supposed to, we might not be in this mess at all. It seems telling to me that the industries that are supposed to be regulated by Congress fell first, mostly because Congress refused to regulate them. I'm also still waiting for all the indictments of the Board members of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's disgusting that they were exposed for cooking the books, but no one was indicted for it. Why have investigations if they aren't followed up by action?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Mar 09
Or better yet, we should take the lessons learned from those situations where the government created artifical bubbles and make sure we don't do create them again.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
3 Mar 09
I think that we would have been in trouble sooner or later because of the deregulation of Glass Staegall, no matter what. We had a warning with the S&L collapse in the 1980's and we ignored it. (Everybody but Paul Volker anyway) If it were not the real estate collapse it would have been something else that would have triggered it. If the old banking regs had been held in place, people's savings would not have been invested in substandard mortgages because FDIC would never have insured those investments. Bad as it may have been, that real estate mess would have been contained and would not have bled through the entire economy. As long as the banking regs are still not in place, something else that collapses can and probably will once again threaten the financial system. Doesn't matter what. What matters is that banking is still unseparated and the FDIC was not set up to insure risky investment banking ventures and does not have the money to insure them. We can prosecute all we want but the bigger problem should be taken care of first. As long as the firewall remains out of the system and we are vulnerable as hell.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 09
Of course there haven't been many here on myLot supporting the stimulus package! The few who aren't die-hard conservatives and/or Republicans are probably aware of how they'll likely be belittled if they go against the flow here. There are only a few of us who are gluttons for punishment these days...it's been a long campaign, remember, and we've all taken a beating these past couple years...lol! Actually, I've personally heard from quite a few people who support the bill, maybe not entirely for various reasons but at least part of it. I like that some of our long neglected bridges in Pennsylvania will finally get repaired, putting some of our long-unemployed workers back to work. I like that the many who are unemployed due to no fault of their own will now get a little more compensation for a little longer. Most of that money they'll get will be spent immediately, even if only for necessities like food and gas, so it will be an instant stimulus to my state's economy. I like that my husband be getting somewhere between $50 and $100 more take-home pay each month and that I and others who receive Social Security benefits will get a check for $250 on May 1. It's not a fortune but we may go out for dinner once or twice a month that we wouldn't have before or go to the movies or maybe take the grandkids for ice cream. There will be lots of people that may also be able to do some things like that which will help local businesses. I intend to keep my eye on the Recovery.gov site to see where our money is going. I don't think the package is perfect but it's certainly better than the alternatives proposed by the opposition. Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Mar 09
Thanks Annie. As you well know, no one need fear being belittled or called names when replying to one of my articles ;~D. To tell you the truth, I'm not completely against it myself. I would be willing to support much of the 17% of the "Stimulant Package" The CBO said was actually about stimulus. That isn't to say I'm a big fan of government intervention in the economy, history has shown that recessions are merely the down side of the normal economic cycle, and as such, will correct themselves in a year or two. However, Prs. Obama isn't a conservative, nor was he elected to champion conservative values (unlike Prs. Bush who was, but didn't live up to them). If he feels he has to meddle, then that's fine, but if only 17% of the law he signed is about stimulus then it can't be truthfully called a stimulus package at all. Now if 17% of it was pork and earmarks, and the rest were actual stimulus, I think I could live with that.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Mar 09
It is exactly what The Central Committee wanted it to be. If it was about job creation and infrustructure, they would have included more of it in the bill.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 09
I know you won't belittle me or call me names, Ted, it's some of the others I can usually expect to weigh in who do that. Anyway, I don't agree with everything in the bill either and I would have liked to have seen more job creation and infrastructure spending. Annie
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
2 Mar 09
I don't know if this is what you wanted for a response but I support the Stimulus package and do not expect to get anything out of it. I am retired, work three part time jobs, pay my taxes. I think the whole plan is wrong and will hurt this country but I am forced to support it because the government is taking my tax money every week.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Mar 09
Good point!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Mar 09
21 hours and still nothing from the Obama supporters.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
3 Mar 09
I have heard 2 groups of people supporting it - 1) Those who still believe that Obama can do no wrong. Everything he does is right and the rest of the country who disagrees with him are wrong. 2) Those who want relief and think this will give it to them. Some of the people where I work who expect to see an increase in their paychecks and people who have lost jobs and are hoping the stimulus package will give them more money while they are on unemployment and health care coverage now along with a chance at new jobs later. The rest of America and even a lot of people in group 2 are against it; myself included.