Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

Look at what happened during the Depression. There was the first “new deal” and the “second new deal”. The whole lets not give handouts was the thought by the government then too.

What happened? During the First new Deal they tried giving Tax cuts to the large corporations hoping that it would boost the economy and enable them to provide new jobs along with other things. Did it? No, because if it had worked there wouldn't have been a second new deal. In the second New Deal they attacked the problem at its source...The people.

The Government set up special works projects etc. so that "it wasn't a handout" but in the end they were still fighting the depression along with getting some other things taken care of. In fact 95% of our highway system was built during the depression and funded by the Government.

So you do not want to give out handouts...fine, Don't give handouts to corporations either. Lets fund a whole bunch of special projects to better the infrastructure. One particular project that comes to my mind is New Orleans. It needs to be rebuilt badly. How about, we rebuild it so well that it never has to worry about being flooded again? If man gan make an Island that floats out in Southwest Asia, then we can use the same technology to float the infrastructure of New Orleans during floods and hurricanes. Think about it. That is a large project that would require a lot of workers and it isn't a handout.

But my thinking is, if you are going to give a handout, which our government did; then give it to the people not to the corporations. History has already taught us twice now that it doesn't work that way.

You picked New Orleans as your example? Wow poor choice. That is a fine example of how the federal goverment waist money. If the money was just giving to the people we would have done a better job then all the waist that started with the federal goverment down to the cities in NO. So now you want to tear down the city put it on some giant float and then rebuild the city on this floating island. I think Obama needs to up the stimulas to 6 billion to float that project.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You picked New Orleans as your example? Wow poor choice. That is a fine example of how the federal goverment waist money. If the money was just giving to the people we would have done a better job then all the waist that started withe federal goverment down to the cities in NO. So now you want to tear down the city bput it on some giant float and then rebuild the city on this floating island. I think Obama needs to up the stimulas to 6 billion to float that project.

The city is already destroyed. They can employ workers from outside the state as well. You would not need to float every square inch of land. Only Roads, buildings, houses, and utilities. Its a thought not a save all. What have you come up with Mr. Critic?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

The city is already destroyed. They can employ workers from outside the state as well. You would not need to float every square inch of land. Only Roads, buildings, houses, and utilities. Its a thought not a save all. What have you come up with Mr. Critic?

How about have Obama sign the bill to allow off shore drilling which is safe and in our state would create 1,200 to 2,000 jobs and cost the goverment very little. Use the tax money raised off of the off shore drilling to fund reserch for alternative fuels.

Hey not a bad post for #6000

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by firstdown

How about have Obama sign the bill to allow off shore drilling which is safe and in our state would create 1,200 to 2,000 jobs and cost the goverment very little. Use the tax money raised off of the off shore drilling to fund reserch for alternative fuels.

Hey not a bad post for #6000

That can also be part of the solution, I agree, but it is not a save all. But if all of these ideas get put into practice then they will combine to be the save all.

The problem is that the majority just say "That will not be enough" and decide not to do it at all. So we are stuck in neutral trying to move up a hill with our thumbs up our asses. In the end we need to do something. Let's get it started! We may not absolutely see eye to eye on all ideas, but hell lets put some things in action.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

That can also be part of the solution, I agree, but it is not a save all. But if all of these ideas get put into practice then they will combine to be the save all.

The problem is that the majority just say "That will not be enough" and decide not to do it at all. So we are stuck in neutral trying to move up a hill with our thumbs up our asses. In the end we need to do something. Let's get it started! We may not absolutely see eye to eye on all ideas, but hell lets put some things in action.

Sorry but I do not think that passing a bill that spends 800 trillion dollars that by the presidents own words saves 4,000 jobs is worth the investment. I have said all along lets not just rush a bill through to say something was done but lets take our time and try to get the best bill through. I don't care which party has the right solution but rather they come up with a better plan. I'm not talking 6 to 12 months but a month or so to really think this through. The money going to Iraq is spent and there is nothing that we can do about that now so there is no need to have that argument again. The money that is getting spent on Iraq is creating jobs here and we also have people over there working but I agree it would be better if it was all spent here.