The Obama Curse?

UrRight wrote:

Mexico has failed us miserably with everything from baby bottles, formula, fruits, vegs., etc. We have enough farmland to produce our own vegetables. Instead, the gov't pays them not to plant. I'm always scratching my head over all this stuff.

Who ever said that is wrong. There is not enough farmland in the US to 100% sustain the entire population of the United States

Then why is it between my uncles, second cousins, in Missouri get paid NOT to farm (between them thousands of acres), and in one case, they open a nursery and collect the gov't money and make money with that money to make more money?

Why is it in Missouri, even in Indiana, downstate IL, there's so much farmland being sold for subdivisions, or, left vacant? Why is it in Michigan, they can't get the illegals anymore, so they left the crops go to hell last year, because it was cheaper to claim it on the insurance, get paid to plant trees and evergreens, while sitting at home, forgetting about farming? There's a hell of a lot of open land for farming...hell, I can grow the backyard for all my yearly needs, so that doesn't bode well with me.

The farmers quit farming, so that the trade agreement could be met. Except now, the farmers can't find the brave illegals anymore. (In Michigan, that I know of. They left the cherry trees rot, and without the cheap help, the agriculture industry, went to hell. The gov't pays them not to farm. Period.

UrRight, look at the housing situation.

2 years ago, houses were selling for hundreds of thousands, so if a farmer had 10 acres worth say $4,500 an acre as it is, but if a house is on that land, they can get $100,000 an acre, guess what the farmer is going to do? Thats right, sell and take the money.

My aunt and uncle owned a 500 acre farm in southern Indiana. They sold it to a developer for $3.5 million, and that developer in turn built 500 houses that sold for $200,000 a piece. Were my aunt and uncle stupid? Hell no, they were smart, they took the money and ran.

Not many farmers are willing to leave piles of money to tend to a farm, especially when the kids do not want to follow in their footsteps

Ohhmama wrote:

Or force those on welfare to get off their duffs and do those less attractive jobs. At least they'd be earning an income instead of getting it from the gov't.

I saw a few minutes of a Nancy Pelosi interview where the new budget was being discussed and the moderator said Obama said everything was on the table for review. Pelosi agreed, but then he pushed the point and she said Oh well, of course social security, Medicare, and Medicaid were off the table. Then the moderator said so not everything is actually on the table to which she responded no, everything IS on the table.

Now were we to seriously consider reducing the national debt those 3 entitlement programs being a sacred cow already makes the task that much harder. Even small percentage changes there translates to large amounts of money simply because of the enormous size of those budget items.

But add to that the bailouts already imposed upon the taxpayer and a so-called economic stimulus package that as has been noted is nearly all pork and extremely lean on actual economic stimulus and it becomes quite easy to see that this is a recipe for financial disaster. As if we were not already in a crisis, except our government representatives sure aren't acting like it! Does anybody on any level of government even know what a crisis is?

Not only is this so-called stimulus proposal not like the Roosevelt WPA or PWA work programs but back then we didn't have the same massive Federal debt but much of that money actually went directly to wages while making community improvements to infrastructure. From the sounds of it if anybody is going to benefit from the construction side it will be the contractors, not unemployed, unskilled laborers. And lest we forget that it took WWII to generate the revenue to pay for those works programs?

This is all smoke and mirrors and the only prayer it has of working is in the illusion that things are better than they are and that prosperity is just around the corner, except it seems to me that if history is any guide this will all only lead to more war.

As for the tariffs barriers proposed by some posters I think it would do us more harm than help. If anything we should focus on making it less advantageous for US companies to move across international borders but a general tariff war is not the way to go.

As for the illegals the immigration issue must be addressed, as does the guest worker type programs which would intentionally allow temporary employment in the US without granting permanent resident status. Permanent resident status should be evaluated through an entirely separate program which concentrates on marketable skills and a willingness to become a US citizen and not primarily a paycheck to send to the old country. We also need to change the Constitution to not automatically bestow citizenship simply for being born on US soil. It made sense in 1776 but today it is simply an insane practice and is too often used to exploit the resources of the US citizens.

Mirage wrote:

But add to that the bailouts already imposed upon the taxpayer and a so-called economic stimulus package that as has been noted is nearly all pork and extremely lean on actual economic stimulus and it becomes quite easy to see that this is a recipe for financial disaster.

Show me the pork,Mirage. I've looked and the most I can see is 100 million out of 850 billion and even that is questionable. If it's "nearly all pork",as you claim,you shouldn't have trouble providing us with a list.

Have you been reading this thread?

I think Mike summed it up best:

He said he wanted Congress to pass a stimulus package that contained no pork, yet look at the bill as it is right now, and of the $800+ Billion, only $68 billion is for the stimulus. The rest is for tax cuts(which he said he would take away), digital converter boxes(which sorry, they had plenty of time to get those already, no need to put more money into it), and billions to universities(which are facing state cuts)

Building new schools may be a nice goal but using Federal "stimulus dollars" to that end actually IS pork with respect to the goal. And how are digital converter boxes stimulating the economy? Not adding funding for that would essentially force people to buy new TVs or a cable or DBS subscription. I'll bet Circuit City could have benefited had they said there would be no converter box bailout and perhaps postponed putting something like another 3,500 people into the unemployment lines.

Mirage wrote:

Have you been reading this thread?

I think Mike summed it up best:

He said he wanted Congress to pass a stimulus package that contained no pork, yet look at the bill as it is right now, and of the $800+ Billion, only $68 billion is for the stimulus. The rest is for tax cuts(which he said he would take away), digital converter boxes(which sorry, they had plenty of time to get those already, no need to put more money into it), and billions to universities(which are facing state cuts)

Building new schools may be a nice goal but using Federal "stimulus dollars" to that end actually IS pork with respect to the goal. And how are digital converter boxes stimulating the economy? Not adding funding for that would essentially force people to buy new TVs or a cable or DBS subscription. I'll bet Circuit City could have benefited had they said there would be no converter box bailout and perhaps postponed putting something like another 3,500 people into the unemployment lines.

You still haven't shown me any substantial pork,Mirage. Try and find some earmarks....there aren't any. The converter box money is there because the Bush commerce department obviously didn't do their job.

Mirage, I would consider a study about mustard pork, but giving money to schools to help close the gap from what the state pulled, I would hardly consider pork.

I can't believe the number of people I've heard complain about the new president having not done anything yet.Hellooooooooo!!!Do these people honestly think as soon as the election is over,he walks into the White House and sits down at the desk in the Oval Office? Wait,forget I said that.There are block heads out there who do think just that.Give the guy a chance to get into office and do some thing before you start complaining.

KJ wrote:

I can't believe the number of people I've heard complain about the new president having not done anything yet.Hellooooooooo!!!Do these people honestly think as soon as the election is over,he walks into the White House and sits down at the desk in the Oval Office? Wait,forget I said that.There are block heads out there who do think just that.Give the guy a chance to get into office and do some thing before you start complaining.

That would make far too much sense. When Kenndey declared that we could land on the moon within 10 years, no one could have envisioned the changes that the research to land on the moon would create in our lives. The developement of computers was vastly speeded up by the research done during the Apollo program.
However, that investment took decades to pay off. One of Obama's goals is to make this country energy sufficient. It may take decades to accomplish, but that investment will result in a better future.

KJ wrote:

I can't believe the number of people I've heard complain about the new president having not done anything yet.Hellooooooooo!!!Do these people honestly think as soon as the election is over,he walks into the White House and sits down at the desk in the Oval Office? Wait,forget I said that.There are block heads out there who do think just that.Give the guy a chance to get into office and do some thing before you start complaining.

Of course these very people are the same ones that gave Bush a mulligan for 9/11,because he was only in office for 8 months.

Artie60438 wrote:

KJ wrote:

I can't believe the number of people I've heard complain about the new president having not done anything yet.Hellooooooooo!!!Do these people honestly think as soon as the election is over,he walks into the White House and sits down at the desk in the Oval Office? Wait,forget I said that.There are block heads out there who do think just that.Give the guy a chance to get into office and do some thing before you start complaining.

Of course these very people are the same ones that gave Bush a mulligan for 9/11,because he was only in office for 8 months.

As long as there are those who began giving Him credit for good things that happened between election day and inauguration day (sound like anyone you know, Artie?), it is understandable that He would be fair game for criticism for the lack of accomplishment during that time, too.

happy jack wrote:

As long as there are those who began giving Him credit for good things that happened between election day and inauguration day (sound like anyone you know, Artie?), it is understandable that He would be fair game for criticism for the lack of accomplishment during that time, too.

I don't understand anyone giving him credit until he takes office. It is foolish to think he can do anything of real substance.

Face wrote:

Mirage, I would consider a study about mustard pork, but giving money to schools to help close the gap from what the state pulled, I would hardly consider pork.

then why is it included in STIMULUS package?

If he wants funding to go to schools, craft a different bill for that then, but do not include it in a package that is supposed to STIMULATE the economy and create jobs.

Seriously, how is giving schools funding to offset what state's are not giving going to create jobs? Its not.

And if the money is going to be used to build newer schools, again, what happens to those jobs when the projects are gone? they go bye bye that's what happens. When Hoover Dam was started, it employed thousands of people, but also had thousands of people on a waiting list to fill a position if someone died. Kinda startling to read about how some actually wanted people to die so they had a chance to get work.

A stimulus package that creates jobs needs to create jobs that will stay around after the funding measure is done. the new deal was a failure, because although it did create new jobs, it didn't create enough to keep the economy going either, and it took the japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, thus getting the US into the war officially, to stimulate the economy enough to have a lasting impact.

Exactly! If this were an education bill that would be different, all things being equal. Which is to say we don't really know where this money will actually be going in that regard.

And for all we know these schools could wind up being like the Hammond School Board with it's practice of spending 30% more than they should, which would be bad enough in relative terms. Not like certain way over budget road projects in recent years in a few New England states I suppose.

But I have a feeling schools may propose buildings they don't really even need just to cash in. Or has our memories already purged the fact certain cities even tried to cash in on the S&L bailout and now believe any request is a valid request when it comes to Federal dollars?