Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
A question for the supposed conservatives...?
When President Bush though it would be a good idea to give banks taxpayer money without any provisions attached nobody thought it was stupid. Now when President Obama wants to stimulate the economy and at least get some decent paying jobs going you poo poo it...why?
If the republicans were so against it, why did they vote for it?
31 Answers
- Diane WLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Who said it wasn't stupid? Most people didn't agree and said so. It is not governments job to create jobs. Governments job is to foster a good business climate and get out of the way so businesses thrive and produce jobs. It is ALL a stupid absurd money grab game played by our politicians to gain more power. How can anyone believe a word they are telling us..none of them have credibility. They are incapable of managing this country that is quite evident.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 71 decade ago
Actually, many people did not like the idea of giving banks tax payer money. I think if you'll look at the voting records, more Republicans voted no on the bank bailout bill then Democrats did. Many conservative web sites were leading efforts to kill the bank bailout bill.
Oh, and just so you know, the only bi-partisan vote in the House on the Obama stimulus bill was the vote AGAINST it.
- RaysFanLv 61 decade ago
No real Republicans were for it...you know Arnold Schwarzenegger is in the Republican party he would be a better fit in the Socialist Party.
Anyways Bush panicked and bailed them out, didn't work, and now Obama is thinking "Bush's bailout failed, but since I am Barrack Hussein Obama my bailout will work"
Source(s): Chief. RIP AMERICA. - ochimo444Lv 41 decade ago
From my perspective, it's because the republicans were idiots too. My senators did NOT vote the way I wanted them too. You ask this question like the American people actually had a say in this. This fiasco was caused by government, both dem and repub. I didn't vote for this garbage.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Natasha bLv 41 decade ago
How does this bill stimulate the conomy.
Most of the money doesn't get spent for 4 or more years from now.
These are just socialist programs the Democrats want to implement.
If it were a stimulus it would be temporary, this bill is permanent.
Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eyes can see, how long can we do that.
- Busy Lady 2010Lv 71 decade ago
He is making government jobs. More out of our pocket. Can't you see the green? His spending is outrageous. Not enough jobs will be created with this. This is just a bunch of pork that's been sitting there for years they want passed. You will see. He will want more taxes paid too. Wait and see. The stimulus package will not be over after this they will want more.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Bush crawled on the knees (literally) begging congress to 'do something'. Repugs voted against first bill not because of spending, but because of democratic provisions to make banks accountable they vopted against regulation.
Now the same repugs all voted against Obama's bill because it has even more provisions to make banks accountable for spending. The do not have the gust however to say it outloud, but instead are hiding behind the alleged 'pork'.
Repugs were pathetic then , today even more so..
What these idiots do not understand , that when patient is dying, tablet of aspirin won't help - he require a massive and extremly strong therapy with ALL strings attached..
I would say that even $800 billion is not sufficient today
- John DohLv 51 decade ago
Obama was 100% for Bush's plan as you forgot to mention. There was such a panic at the time people thought the banks would crumble. Now that we have had time to absorb all the info it did seem like Bush's plan was too hasty. So giving Obama the green light to waste a trillion seems foolish to me.
Bush & Co only spent half of the money set aside to bailout the backs too BTW
- 1 decade ago
I'm not really opposed to this... Well, actually, I was more opposed to it than I was agreeing with it... I realize that when one bank / company fails, we can learn from our mistakes and make a better system. Don't fix the failing system, start a new and improved one.
And I'm more opposed to all of the other pork thrown in...
P.S. likeuknow, I completely agree.
- iamright2Lv 41 decade ago
" Now when President Obama wants to stimulate the economy and at least get some decent paying jobs going you poo poo it...why?"
Now when this actually happens I will support it but the current version does not meet this .