Discussion in 'Economy' started by iamwhatiseem, Aug 29, 2010.
The economy would have been a lot better off if the government had just divided up the porkulous cash among all the citizens and sent everyone a check.
But we couldn't pay back cronies and special interest groups that way, no sirree.
It's the Chicago way.
If the government would have sent everyone a check, most of that money would have ended up in bank doing nothing for the economy. If you give the money to the poor, most of the money will be spent. If you give it to the rich, most of the money will not be spent. But using the money to encourage consumer spending that benefits society and adds jobs is the best alternative, although not always effective. Some will of course argue that the best thing government can do is to avoid spending money and just let the economic downturn runs it's course.
I would have spent my stimulus check money down at Wal-Mart.
It would have ended up in the bank? What planet do you live on?
Yet another believer in Keynesianism. Hey Flop. This program is a failure. Government spending "stimulates" more government, higher taxes, bigger deficits, and more corruption. It doesnt do a damn thing to help the economy. ANyone who thinks handing out money to the poor helps the economy needs to jump out a high window.
Well, FWIW, here in Maine people's houses are being weatherized all the time.
I personally know three people whose houses have already had that treatment.
So that program seems to be working here in Maine rather well.
How can the government encourage consumer spending when people don't have the money to spend?
Boy, it sure would be nice to have a link to the entire article.
Really, is it all that difficult to do? Apparently for some, it's a real challenge.
If they're being weatherized all the time then why do they need a gov't "stimulus" to make them do something they would have done anyway??
Separate names with a comma.