Comments:US Congress passes $787 billion stimulus package
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Do you think that the stimulus package will help the economy?Edit
Yes -- while tax cuts and Reaganomics helped us out of the 82 recession, Roosevelts gov't spending and works projects helped us out after the great depression. I lean Republican, but I say let's stop the wrangling -- the Dem's have been voted in, so let them give this a try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the last supposition, FDR's New Deal did not help us out of the Depression. The force behind our recovery was World War 2 which, ironically enough, is a cause of the current economic crisis right now. --Faustus66
$5 says that none of the people who voted for Obama just because he's black don't know crap about the economy, other than the fact that it's a pile of sheet right now. They probably don't even know what this package will do. - JustinSxE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Geithner just wants to throw money at his Wall Street cronies while the national debt piles up past $11 trillion. Yay for screwing over the current teens and their kids. --Faustus66
Economy? Let it die. Maybe then we can all live and prosper in reality.Edit
It's an abstract number game with no concrete connection to reality. It's a ruse to convince honest people they're unworthy of the products of their own labor. "Economic Crisis" is some arcane language which somehow fools people into behaving as if food and shelter are scarce, when in reality they're only being abandoned and wasted as the handful of people who own everything don't feel like sharing anymore.
Of the millions of empty houses in America now owned by banks, 2/3 aren't even put on the market for the sake of maintaining an appearance of scarcity.
At the same time, those people who no longer wish to share put on an elaborate media spectacle to somehow convince us all that they're working around the clock to bring back stability to our hollow lives as subservient consumers.
Money is the tool which enables all this madness, and we're supposed to believe that printing more is the solution?
Bailing out this goddamn economy won't do us any favors. We're just digging ourselves a grave. We basically have one foot on the gas, and another in the grave. - JustinSxE
It's a 50-50 -- a lot of crazy stuff on the billEdit
While stimulus efforts should be made by the government to help Americans who are hurting and to prevent any expansion of the current crises, spending money on other fields—totally ineffective in regard to the current problems—such as global warming, infrastructure, etc., doesn't necessarily help either. Certainly, reducing gas emissions i nice, and so is improving our infrastructure, but I believe that's not as demanding as the economical problem is; therefore, the latter should be given priority. If people were to actually read the bill, which was some 1,000 pages, they wouldn't be so crazy about it, but the Democrats—with absolute control of Congress—can do whatever they please, and the media supports them fully. One thing though, if Obama fails, he cannot expect to be elected a second time just be dubbing his upcoming as "a member of Bush's party." It worked once, not twice. I want him to do well, of course, but he hasn't shown to really be bipartisan. I mean, the way he tries to reach across the isle is like this: "Hey Republicans, I have this bill, do you wanna support it?" Rs: "I might wanna compromise on that." O: "Forget it! You are not bipartisan enough." So, Obama's bipartisanship is only when others agree with him 100%.--184.108.40.206 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
the people in charge of doling out the funds will be the problem. Greed and special interests will see alot of the money go to waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
You know, you'd almost think we were trying to devalue the US dollar. I wonder if anyone is familiar with the case of the Zimbabweian dollar. It simply doesb't work out when you just keep on printing more imaginary money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
To hear this monstrous spending bill refered to as a stimulus bill would be a joke if it were not so sad for this country. All we have done is grown the size of government and assisted Obama, Pelosi and Reid in the socializing of America. No one will remember when this started ten years from now but they will certainly still be feeling the effects. The soviet union and china have tried to run a socialist economy in the past and both have given up. We are now starting down a path which I am glad I am old enough that I am old enough to say I will not see the results. I am very concerned for my children and particularly grandchildren as they will pay the price for this lunacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdherdnerd (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No absolutely not, this would be better if it was given to the people, Companies only serve the people. I would like a 200'000$ check in the mail, I could pay of my debt with it, not some companies debts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voradin (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)