circuitfry-deactivated20130825 asked: Forgive me. 2006 was a time when I was too young to understand what new bills were coming out and affecting what. I guess I'm admitting that I don't know anything at all about the bills that were passed before my generation matured enough to comprehend what was happening. Those three bills, what were they meant to do and what do they really do?
No problem. I’m not here to belittle or talk down to anyone. I’m 29 and didn’t really get into politics until I was 24, so I understand. Nothing wrong with that. :P
1. The stimulus bill. This bill was created with creating jobs in mind. The administration (Obama) and Congress said it was full of “shovel-ready” jobs and would put America back to work. They wrote it up, took it to committee and voted on it in such little time that most admit they never even read it. In reality, this bill created very few jobs and the ones that it did create cost nearly $2 million each to the taxpayers. It also funded “junk” programs such as studies into how long a shrimp could run, the mating habits of mice and even sent million overseas to non-American companies. Many who voted for it now admit it did little to nothing to help the economy and create jobs, but we are still paying for it. (fyi, it cost a total of about $1.4 trillion)
2. The omnibus. It was another bill that spent about $400 billion all around the country in hopes of, again, creating jobs. It too was filled with pork spending and junk programs. It was passed with very little debate and many who voted for it didn’t even read it (again).
3. Obamacare. This, as you probably know, is President Obama’s signature legislation. It is supposed to provide healthcare and insurance to those who normally could not afford it. Sounds great. In reality it enacts numerous new taxes on the medical industry, fines you if you decide to not buy insurance and is projected to cause healthcare premiums to go up 100 - 400%. On top of all that it is not even going to provide everyone with healthcare or insurance. It too was never debated or read before it was passed.
Together, those 3 bills (among MANY others) are costing the American public billions and that number continues to grow. Most of the regulations needed to implement Obamacare aren’t even written yet and many experts say the only way for it to work is to raise taxes on everyone.
Of all the problems with Obama (and America in general), the debt is our biggest and could even compromise our national security.
Anyways, hope this helps. :)
The Republicans are missing the point… AGAIN.
The liberal goal over the fiscal cliff is not taxes and revenue. That is a clever excuse for their true goal, the military. Liberals have been trying to cut the military for years with little success. If they force us over the fiscal cliff then they get 60 years of their agenda in the blink of an eye.
All of this AND they will be able to blame the Republicans. For the liberal progressives in our government, this is a win/win.
Get it together Republicans, you are falling for a pretty simple ruse.
The royal family of England spends about $57.8 million per year
The Obama family spent about $1.4 billion last year. I know alot of that is for security and Air Force 1, but still… damn.
Obama: the cuts we have made to spending…
Mr. President, you have added $6 trillion in 3.5 years… how is that a spending cut?
Politicians that are not willing/able to cut spending…
What is wrong with you? I have cut back and so has alot of America, why can’t you?
Seriously, you take and you take so you can fund these ridiculous programs while we, the people, struggle to make it to the next paycheck. If we can cut out or limit eating out, movies and games, extra clothes or whatever… why can’t you cut back on your money hemorrhage?
I am going to repeat this.
Ron Paul has a spending problem.
He votes against the pork spending but campaigns on the pork, and being “consistent”, later. He uses some deluded reasoning that he’s just “bringing money back to his district” when it is actually stealing your money and funneling it to his, no matter what way you look at it. Ron Paul has no way of knowing the totality of the economy; therefore, he is, by definition, stealing your money to give to his district.
Yet you’ll make up excuses, saying “it’s constitutional”. No, if he was against the pork spending, he wouldn’t “return it to his district” in the form of pork—he’d donate it to the Treasury. Instead, he makes pork projects to appease his constituents. That’s dishonesty.
For someone who claims to be a student of the Austrian school, he really should understand that stealing is still stealing, even if he voted “no” and then later supported it.
This is what I’ve been trying to tell Paulbots. Thank you CK for wording it better than I could.