let's debate where all this money is going

#1

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
Economic rescue: What's on the table - Jan. 26, 2009


Construction projects: $90 billion.
Ok with me. At least is going to something that is tangible.

Education: $142 billion
We already waste billions of dollars on education. Why not throw $142 billion more down the drain.

Renewable energy: $54 billion
On the surface not a problem until I read this "Double production of alternative energy in the next three years. Weatherize low-income homes, modernize 75% of federal buildings and update the nation's electrical grid with a new, cost-efficient "smart" grid." Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.

Health-care records: $20 billion
Good idea if it works. I'm not sure how this will really help the economy.

Science, research and technology: $16 billion
Like the renewable energy another black hole. Where exactly is this money going? if used properly maybe it helps.

Medicaid: $87 billion
Brilliant. Let's add more money to something that needs to be cut by 50%.

Law enforcement: $4 billion
See Medicaid

Unemployment benefits: $43 billion
Makes sense from a stimulus sense.

Cobra: $39 billion
Indifferent. What's another $39 bill

Feeding the hungry: $20 billion
Payoff to obama's buddies. No way $20 bill goes directly to the poor.

Middle-class tax cut: $145 billion
Now we are getting somewhere. It is nice to know obama thinks anyone making over $75K is rich and doesn't need a tax cut.

Low-income tax cut: $5 billion

How do you cut taxes to people not paying any?

Child tax credit: Up to $18 billion
Right let's encourage more people to have children who can't afford to have them.

Small business write-offs and Tax cuts for companies suffering losses: Up to $17 billion
Makes sense.
 
#2
#2
Infrastructure is quickly becoming an even more pressing problem, no problem with an upgrade there.

There is a lot of "feel good" stuff here that will have little to no positive effect IMO.

Overall half looks like it could be money well spent, if used correctly, and that is where the problem lies.
 
#3
#3
the renewable energy is a waste. it can't be sustainable on it's own. they'll need fed funding from now on. or at least until someone has the guts to stop the funding. if you want smart energy, drill and go nuke. this bill will increase by 25-35% by the time it's signed into law. we'll see hundreds of millions go to crap.
 
#4
#4
i know money will need to go to some infrastructure, but our infrastructure is nowhere near as bad as the media projects it. those states will get that money and steer much of away from what it's attended for.
 
#5
#5
the renewable energy is a waste. it can't be sustainable on it's own. they'll need fed funding from now on. or at least until someone has the guts to stop the funding. if you want smart energy, drill and go nuke. this bill will increase by 25-35% by the time it's signed into law. we'll see hundreds of millions go to crap.

agreed. nuclear is the only proven solution. solar and ethanol (in particular) are complete wastes of money.
 
#6
#6
"Honey, you know that we couldn't afford another child before"

"I know, but there's a tax cut going out for people that have children"

"Well, lets have another kid then"

Somehow, I don't see that conversation taking place.
 
#7
#7
"Honey, you know that we couldn't afford another child before"

"I know, but there's a tax cut going out for people that have children"

"Well, lets have another kid then"

Somehow, I don't see that conversation taking place.

... What is your point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
"Honey, you know that we couldn't afford another child before"

"I know, but there's a tax cut going out for people that have children"

"Well, lets have another kid then"

Somehow, I don't see that conversation taking place.

no the conversation that happens in the inner city is:

"I want to get out of the house and my cousin says we can get a bunch of money from the government if we have a kid"


and trust me this conversation happens a lot.
 
#11
#11
no the conversation that happens in the inner city is:

"I want to get out of the house and my couisin says we can get a bunch of money from the government if we have a kid"

I'm not sure I can see that happening. 18 years of taking care of a kid, vs. a tax benifit that's only good for a year or two at most.
 
#14
#14
I'm not sure I can see that happening. 18 years of taking care of a kid, vs. a tax benifit that's only good for a year or two at most.

you are talking about a rational person. you just eliminated a good % of this country.
 
#16
#16
the renewable energy is a waste. it can't be sustainable on it's own. they'll need fed funding from now on. or at least until someone has the guts to stop the funding. if you want smart energy, drill and go nuke. this bill will increase by 25-35% by the time it's signed into law. we'll see hundreds of millions go to crap.

Go nuke? It's ~$4 billion just to build a nuclear plant, much less the ongoing costs behind maintaining one.

We're trying to keep the overhead down here, joevol, and we're more worried (and rightfully so) about fixing things in the short term by implementing low initial cost, but viable long-term solutions.

I'm not arguing against nuclear at all, but now is not the time to try to implement it... it would be like sprinting at the start of a marathon.
 
#17
#17
I'd like for a nuclear program to start up here, but I agree with it not being the time. We've gotten too far in debt to do something like that now. Maybe later, just not now.
 
#18
#18
Go nuke? It's ~$4 billion just to build a nuclear plant, much less the ongoing costs behind maintaining one.

We're trying to keep the overhead down here, joevol, and we're more worried (and rightfully so) about fixing things in the short term by implementing low initial cost, but viable long-term solutions.

I'm not arguing against nuclear at all, but now is not the time to try to implement it... it would be like sprinting at the start of a marathon.

you forget nuclear plants generate significant revenue and profits after they have been completed and generate many high paying jobs during construction. and we obviously are not trying to keep the overhead down. quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
I'll grant you that. But I don't see how it encourages anything either.

It doesn't but it goes back to a root problem in our society today, a lack of personal responsibility. As we have seen with just about every entitlement program once you give people something they feel like it is their right, like they deserve it. It just sends the wrong message and those who made due with less and put money away, went to college etc. should not have to foot the bill because someone else didn't think before they acted.
 
#20
#20
I'd like for a nuclear program to start up here, but I agree with it not being the time. We've gotten too far in debt to do something like that now. Maybe later, just not now.

There are 104 reactors across the US.

Here is a map of their locations:
united_states.png
 
#21
#21
you forget nuclear plants generate significant revenue and profits after they have been completed and generate many high paying jobs during construction. and we obviously are not trying to keep the overhead down. quite the opposite.

I was arguing against significant government spending.

I would be interested to see how many jobs a nuke reactor would generate (both in construction and maintainence) when compared to a windfarm.
 
#22
#22
I was arguing against significant government spending.

I would be interested to see how many jobs a nuke reactor would generate (both in construction and maintainence) when compared to a windfarm.

windfarms just don't make sense economically. the times they generate the most income are the same times our power needs are the lowest.
 
#23
#23
There are 104 reactors across the US.

Here is a map of their locations:
united_states.png

Yes, but I'm talking about nuclear power plants furnishing over 70% of the power supply, like the French. We don't have the money for that at this point in time. I like nuclear power, I really do. The technology has came a long was since Chernobyl, and it is a relatively clean source of power. However, did you not just mention that a single NPP costs $4 billion dollars to build?
 
#25
#25
Yes, but I'm talking about nuclear power plants furnishing over 70% of the power supply, like the French. We don't have the money for that at this point in time. I like nuclear power, I really do. The technology has came a long was since Chernobyl, and it is a relatively clean source of power. However, did you not just mention that a single NPP costs $4 billion dollars to build?

if it's an ecomomically profitable thing to build and we are borrowing at 3% who cares if it costs $20 billion?
 

VN Store



Back
Top