Republicans oppose economic stimulus

[DiamondDave]

Because people can't spend on their own??

Clearly not enough. The middle class and poor are running out of money and the rich refuse to invest in more jobs.

And are they not free to spend or not spend as they please??? It's up to the government to force the spending after confiscation if they don't spend??

Seems like you're into more of a control society than a free one...

And yes, the public can spend it better all on their own... without all the government waste

 

[The Rabbi]

If i had millions in my pocket to invest right now, I'd either:

A - Sit on it until the government gets over the crisis

or

B - invest in a stable foreign country

It's not being unpatriotic, but being intelligent. These people made millions for a reason.

Very few stable foreign countries left

I'd invest in china. They have flat tax rates (15% for businesses) Almost no red tape or regulations, and hold the majority of the US's bonds and if you've been wondering where all the US companies are outsourcing, It's mostly china.

China is going through a bad inflation problem, the central bank has been raising rates. Their export business is down. They are losing market share to even cheaper countries, like Vietnam. they also have domestic instability, especially among the Uighurs.
Switzerland is obviously doing something right. I think the Czech Republic is stable. There are certainly others.
The U.S. will be a great place to do business with a different gov't. The basic infrastructure is here, as is tremendous talent. Get rid of the anti business attitude of the leftists in power and we'll do fine.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And are they not free to spend or not spend as they please??? It's up to the government to force the spending after confiscation if they don't spend??

Fed policy - the topic of the OP - doesn't really force any spending.

But yes, if no one is spending and the economy is failing, its up to the government to spend. You got it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If i had millions in my pocket to invest right now, I'd either:

A - Sit on it until the government gets over the crisis

or

B - invest in a stable foreign country

It's not being unpatriotic, but being intelligent. These people made millions for a reason.

Very few stable foreign countries left

I'd invest in china. They have flat tax rates (15% for businesses) Almost no red tape or regulations, and hold the majority of the US's bonds and if you've been wondering where all the US companies are outsourcing, It's mostly china.

China actually only owned about 1 Trillion of U.S. debt - far less than a majority.

 

[naturegirl]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy,

It did in the 40's

but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Depends. If they're taking less money from those who aren't spending it - it won't do much good.

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If i had millions in my pocket to invest right now, I'd either:

A - Sit on it until the government gets over the crisis

or

B - invest in a stable foreign country

It's not being unpatriotic, but being intelligent. These people made millions for a reason.

Very few stable foreign countries left

I'd invest in china. They have flat tax rates (15% for businesses) Almost no red tape or regulations, and hold the majority of the US's bonds and if you've been wondering where all the US companies are outsourcing, It's mostly china.

P.S. - China might be hitting their own debt bomb soon

Chinese local debt understated by $540 billion: Moody's | Reuters

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Good will and belief doesn't produce goods and services or create jobs. The economy recovered in the 40's because the government created so much work there was a shortage of labor. From directly created jobs - like draftee - to the jobs created in the private industry as part of the massive war machine - anyone who wanted a job and was willing to work hard could get one - even women could get jobs doing things women never did, like building airplanes. Thus EVERYONE had money to spend. When WW II closed, all those soldiers came home to savings they and often their wives had accumulated and to the benefits of having served - and they spent spent spent - stimulating the private sector into creating jobs as the post-war government payroll declined.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

I'm fine with paying higher taxes depending on what I get in return. In particular, I'm willing to pay higher taxes for national health care and for reducing the deficit - or preferably, both. I'm not fine with paying higher taxes simply because the guy making 10 X as much as me hired a lobbyist to shift some of his tax burden onto me.


EDIT: You have of course, hit on an important distinction. The way in which people spent their increasing incomes in the 40's and 50's was different than the way people would do it now. Back then - they'd take their savings and put 30% down on a 15 year house note - now people blow all their extra money on crap and try to get no money down 30 or even 40 year loans. They wind up running up huge credit card bills because they have no rainy day savings to fall back on - and the interest burden on those credit cards reducing their long term standard of living. I think the reason there is such contrast between the spenders of the 40's and 50's and the consumers of now is that the Great Depression was still fresh in people's minds in the 40's and 50's. They knew what economic hardship was and no one wanted to live through that again - so they saved much of their income to prepare for a repeat depression.

 

[xcelerate]

I feel like I need to explain this.

OK, so the government wants to spend money to help the economy, this sounds good at first.

But where do they get the money?

Well they get it from taxes from businesses and private individuals.

So now that they've taken that money from basically every American person and business who has money they use it to build (like in the Obama jobs act) roads, renovate schools, and various other infrastructure projects. Which sounds nice too, except the fact that the money used was DIRECTLY taken from consumers, manufacturers, and employers.

In the short term building and renovating infrastructures will help the people that work on those roads and schools, but screws everyone else. Basically what happens in the long term, nothing but hurt businesses and private citizens.

On the other side say congress passes a general tax cut, for everyone.

First every1 has more expendable income as consumers go. People can buy more goods go out more ofter ect ect ect...

Businesses have more money then they are used to budgeting for as well as the increased demand from higher consumer spending. This will make businesses out of both self preservation and an obligation to make there shareholders money will expand. Making new factories to produce the goods they can't supply with the increased demand from consumer spending. these factories create even more jobs, which are more consumers, and more tax payers. The effect of general tax cuts are exponential(until unemployment reaches 0% and outsourcing is literally required) where as stimulus is a small short term boost while the money last with little to no long term benefits.

Whenever I see someone ranting about make big business and rich people pay more! I just don't get it, its just not common sense.

 

[xcelerate]

Very few stable foreign countries left

I'd invest in china. They have flat tax rates (15% for businesses) Almost no red tape or regulations, and hold the majority of the US's bonds and if you've been wondering where all the US companies are outsourcing, It's mostly china.

P.S. - China might be hitting their own debt bomb soon

I stopped stock (options to be specific)trading right before Obama came into office so I'm a little out of the loop. I personally refuse to invest with anything in this country until the economy in the US and world stabilizes. Thanks for the heads up though even though half a trillion seems like nothing compared to our spending.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I feel like I need to explain this.

OK, so the government wants to spend money to help the economy, this sounds good at first.

But where do they get the money?

Well they get it from taxes from businesses and private individuals.

So now that they've taken that money from basically every American person and business who has money they use it to build (like in the Obama jobs act) roads, renovate schools, and various other infrastructure projects. Which sounds nice too, except the fact that the money used was DIRECTLY taken from consumers, manufacturers, and employers.

In the short term building and renovating infrastructures will help the people that work on those roads and schools, but screws everyone else. Basically what happens in the long term, nothing but hurt businesses and private citizens.

On the other side say congress passes a general tax cut, for everyone.

First every1 has more expendable income as consumers go. People can buy more goods go out more ofter ect ect ect...

Businesses have more money then they are used to budgeting for as well as the increased demand from higher consumer spending. This will make businesses out of both self preservation and an obligation to make there shareholders money will expand. Making new factories to produce the goods they can't supply with the increased demand from consumer spending. these factories create even more jobs, which are more consumers, and more tax payers. The effect of general tax cuts are exponential(until unemployment reaches 0% and outsourcing is literally required) where as stimulus is a small short term boost while the money last with little to no long term benefits.

Whenever I see someone ranting about make big business and rich people pay more! I just don't get it, its just not common sense.

You neglect the fact that some people aren't spending their money. They are keeping it in bank deposits - and the banks aren't lending that money out because they're afraid.


This is what always happens in a recession. The folks on the bottom run out of money because they lose their job, or get their hours or wages cut - while those on the top are fine because they have plenty to fall back on. But the folks on top with plenty to fall back on aren't investing any of their savings in new business because the economy is shitty. The only way to crack that cycle is to take a bit from the top, give it to the bottom - who then spends - and their spending creates the need for those on top to hire more people and invest in new business to meet the demands of that new spending - which gives more money to everyone, both the top and the bottom - resulting in more spending, etc.

WW II was a massive redistribution of earning power from the top to the bottom - and as a result - the rich, middle class, and poor have all prospered.

 

[naturegirl]

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Good will and belief doesn't produce goods and services or create jobs. The economy recovered in the 40's because the government created so much work there was a shortage of labor. From directly created jobs - like draftee - to the jobs created in the private industry as part of the massive war machine - anyone who wanted a job and was willing to work hard could get one - even women could get jobs doing things women never did, like building airplanes. Thus EVERYONE had money to spend. When WW II closed, all those soldiers came home to savings they and often their wives had accumulated and to the benefits of having served - and they spent spent spent - stimulating the private sector into creating jobs as the post-war government payroll declined.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

I'm fine with paying higher taxes depending on what I get in return. In particular, I'm willing to pay higher taxes for national health care and for reducing the deficit - or preferably, both. I'm not fine with paying higher taxes simply because the guy making 10 X as much as me hired a lobbyist to shift some of his tax burden onto me.


EDIT: You have of course, hit on an important distinction. The way in which people spent their increasing incomes in the 40's and 50's was different than the way people would do it now. Back then - they'd take their savings and put 30% down on a 15 year house note - now people blow all their extra money on crap and try to get no money down 30 or even 40 year loans. They wind up running up huge credit card bills because they have no rainy day savings to fall back on - and the interest burden on those credit cards reducing their long term standard of living. I think the reason there is such contrast between the spenders of the 40's and 50's and the consumers of now is that the Great Depression was still fresh in people's minds in the 40's and 50's. They knew what economic hardship was and no one wanted to live through that again - so they saved much of their income to prepare for a repeat depression.

So you obviously understand this. Don't you think paying down the massive debt, getting some savings going on and living within our means before we must submit to this massive health care debt would be a wise move?

With that said, what do you think businesses are now doing with their savings?? Perhaps they're sitting on it to prepare for a repeat depression. What most people fail to realize is businesses are owned by people, they are not just a name sitting on top of a bundle of cash.

 

[xcelerate]

I feel like I need to explain this.

OK, so the government wants to spend money to help the economy, this sounds good at first.

But where do they get the money?

Well they get it from taxes from businesses and private individuals.

So now that they've taken that money from basically every American person and business who has money they use it to build (like in the Obama jobs act) roads, renovate schools, and various other infrastructure projects. Which sounds nice too, except the fact that the money used was DIRECTLY taken from consumers, manufacturers, and employers.

In the short term building and renovating infrastructures will help the people that work on those roads and schools, but screws everyone else. Basically what happens in the long term, nothing but hurt businesses and private citizens.

On the other side say congress passes a general tax cut, for everyone.

First every1 has more expendable income as consumers go. People can buy more goods go out more ofter ect ect ect...

Businesses have more money then they are used to budgeting for as well as the increased demand from higher consumer spending. This will make businesses out of both self preservation and an obligation to make there shareholders money will expand. Making new factories to produce the goods they can't supply with the increased demand from consumer spending. these factories create even more jobs, which are more consumers, and more tax payers. The effect of general tax cuts are exponential(until unemployment reaches 0% and outsourcing is literally required) where as stimulus is a small short term boost while the money last with little to no long term benefits.

Whenever I see someone ranting about make big business and rich people pay more! I just don't get it, its just not common sense.

You neglect the fact that some people aren't spending their money. They are keeping it in bank deposits - and the banks aren't lending that money out because they're afraid.


This is what always happens in a recession. The folks on the bottom run out of money because they lose their job, or get their hours or wages cut - while those on the top are fine because they have plenty to fall back on. But the folks on top with plenty to fall back on aren't investing any of their savings in new business because the economy is shitty. The only way to crack that cycle is to take a bit from the top, give it to the bottom - who then spends - and their spending creates the need for those on top to hire more people and invest in new business to meet the demands of that new spending - which gives more money to everyone, both the top and the bottom - resulting in more spending, etc.

The economy is run ENTIRELY by consumers which like I said is why there is a need for a general tax cut, for EVERYONE. Because if one company doesn't take lead on the large influx of consumer demand then another will because they see a shot to make some money. Tax cuts are a snowball effect not a jetpack to riches. Hell if there's a general tax cut and EVERY SINGLE business in the world does not take advantage of it I PERSONALLY will start one up and make the money myself.

No class warfare, no hand outs, no regulations. Business owners are rich because they know how to take calculated risk and see opportunity when it arises.

Taking money from the top will do nothing but scare big business more and cost more jobs in the end. People need to earn there own damn money, that's the American dream isn't it?

 

[xcelerate]

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Good will and belief doesn't produce goods and services or create jobs. The economy recovered in the 40's because the government created so much work there was a shortage of labor. From directly created jobs - like draftee - to the jobs created in the private industry as part of the massive war machine - anyone who wanted a job and was willing to work hard could get one - even women could get jobs doing things women never did, like building airplanes. Thus EVERYONE had money to spend. When WW II closed, all those soldiers came home to savings they and often their wives had accumulated and to the benefits of having served - and they spent spent spent - stimulating the private sector into creating jobs as the post-war government payroll declined.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

I'm fine with paying higher taxes depending on what I get in return. In particular, I'm willing to pay higher taxes for national health care and for reducing the deficit - or preferably, both. I'm not fine with paying higher taxes simply because the guy making 10 X as much as me hired a lobbyist to shift some of his tax burden onto me.


EDIT: You have of course, hit on an important distinction. The way in which people spent their increasing incomes in the 40's and 50's was different than the way people would do it now. Back then - they'd take their savings and put 30% down on a 15 year house note - now people blow all their extra money on crap and try to get no money down 30 or even 40 year loans. They wind up running up huge credit card bills because they have no rainy day savings to fall back on - and the interest burden on those credit cards reducing their long term standard of living. I think the reason there is such contrast between the spenders of the 40's and 50's and the consumers of now is that the Great Depression was still fresh in people's minds in the 40's and 50's. They knew what economic hardship was and no one wanted to live through that again - so they saved much of their income to prepare for a repeat depression.

So you obviously understand this. Don't you think paying down the massive debt, getting some savings going on and living within our means before we must submit to this massive health care debt would be a wise move?

With that said, what do you think businesses are now doing with their savings?? Perhaps they're sitting on it to prepare for a repeat depression. What most people fail to realize is businesses are owned by people, they are not just a name sitting on top of a bundle of cash.

Well said

 

[The Rabbi]

I feel like I need to explain this.

OK, so the government wants to spend money to help the economy, this sounds good at first.

But where do they get the money?

Well they get it from taxes from businesses and private individuals.

So now that they've taken that money from basically every American person and business who has money they use it to build (like in the Obama jobs act) roads, renovate schools, and various other infrastructure projects. Which sounds nice too, except the fact that the money used was DIRECTLY taken from consumers, manufacturers, and employers.

In the short term building and renovating infrastructures will help the people that work on those roads and schools, but screws everyone else. Basically what happens in the long term, nothing but hurt businesses and private citizens.

On the other side say congress passes a general tax cut, for everyone.

First every1 has more expendable income as consumers go. People can buy more goods go out more ofter ect ect ect...

Businesses have more money then they are used to budgeting for as well as the increased demand from higher consumer spending. This will make businesses out of both self preservation and an obligation to make there shareholders money will expand. Making new factories to produce the goods they can't supply with the increased demand from consumer spending. these factories create even more jobs, which are more consumers, and more tax payers. The effect of general tax cuts are exponential(until unemployment reaches 0% and outsourcing is literally required) where as stimulus is a small short term boost while the money last with little to no long term benefits.

Whenever I see someone ranting about make big business and rich people pay more! I just don't get it, its just not common sense.

You neglect the fact that some people aren't spending their money. They are keeping it in bank deposits - and the banks aren't lending that money out because they're afraid.


This is what always happens in a recession. The folks on the bottom run out of money because they lose their job, or get their hours or wages cut - while those on the top are fine because they have plenty to fall back on. But the folks on top with plenty to fall back on aren't investing any of their savings in new business because the economy is shitty. The only way to crack that cycle is to take a bit from the top, give it to the bottom - who then spends - and their spending creates the need for those on top to hire more people and invest in new business to meet the demands of that new spending - which gives more money to everyone, both the top and the bottom - resulting in more spending, etc.

WW II was a massive redistribution of earning power from the top to the bottom - and as a result - the rich, middle class, and poor have all prospered.

Well, you nailed one part. Banks aren;t lending because they are scared. What are they scared of? They are scared of an out of control administration proposing new taxes and regulations that will change the rules of t he game mid-stream and render their businesses unviable.
Think that's far fetched? How many banks will be willing now to lend money to businesses that profit from oil drilling in the Gulf?

the second part is just stupid. You don't take money from someone and give to someone else with the hope they're going to spend it. We have had three tries at this one and every time it was a gross failure. Because consumer spending does not drive the economy, investment does. People need jobs before they are comfortable spending. Otherwise they simply save it or pay down debt.

 

[eflatminor]

It appears as if Republicans are against any attempt to revive the economy

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies? Then that money gets run through inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies before a dime can be spent on "stimulus". Sure stimulus helps those that get the handout, in the short run at least - I'm sure that solar company's half billion dollar loan was great for awhile. But in the long run, the overall economy suffers as does job creation.

Bottom line, the Keynesian approach might look nice on paper but it doesn't work in the real world. Hell, even on paper, Keynesianism requires that we run a surplus during periods of economic expansion. That just doesn't happen in Washington, which is why we're $14.7 trillion in debt...rising like a bullet towards $20 trillion plus.

Just how much debt is acceptable to you?

 

[8537]

It appears as if Republicans are against any attempt to revive the economy

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

 

[xcelerate]

I feel like I need to explain this.

OK, so the government wants to spend money to help the economy, this sounds good at first.

But where do they get the money?

Well they get it from taxes from businesses and private individuals.

So now that they've taken that money from basically every American person and business who has money they use it to build (like in the Obama jobs act) roads, renovate schools, and various other infrastructure projects. Which sounds nice too, except the fact that the money used was DIRECTLY taken from consumers, manufacturers, and employers.

In the short term building and renovating infrastructures will help the people that work on those roads and schools, but screws everyone else. Basically what happens in the long term, nothing but hurt businesses and private citizens.

On the other side say congress passes a general tax cut, for everyone.

First every1 has more expendable income as consumers go. People can buy more goods go out more ofter ect ect ect...

Businesses have more money then they are used to budgeting for as well as the increased demand from higher consumer spending. This will make businesses out of both self preservation and an obligation to make there shareholders money will expand. Making new factories to produce the goods they can't supply with the increased demand from consumer spending. these factories create even more jobs, which are more consumers, and more tax payers. The effect of general tax cuts are exponential(until unemployment reaches 0% and outsourcing is literally required) where as stimulus is a small short term boost while the money last with little to no long term benefits.

Whenever I see someone ranting about make big business and rich people pay more! I just don't get it, its just not common sense.

You neglect the fact that some people aren't spending their money. They are keeping it in bank deposits - and the banks aren't lending that money out because they're afraid.


This is what always happens in a recession. The folks on the bottom run out of money because they lose their job, or get their hours or wages cut - while those on the top are fine because they have plenty to fall back on. But the folks on top with plenty to fall back on aren't investing any of their savings in new business because the economy is shitty. The only way to crack that cycle is to take a bit from the top, give it to the bottom - who then spends - and their spending creates the need for those on top to hire more people and invest in new business to meet the demands of that new spending - which gives more money to everyone, both the top and the bottom - resulting in more spending, etc.

WW II was a massive redistribution of earning power from the top to the bottom - and as a result - the rich, middle class, and poor have all prospered.

Well, you nailed one part. Banks aren;t lending because they are scared. What are they scared of? They are scared of an out of control administration proposing new taxes and regulations that will change the rules of t he game mid-stream and render their businesses unviable.
Think that's far fetched? How many banks will be willing now to lend money to businesses that profit from oil drilling in the Gulf?

the second part is just stupid. You don't take money from someone and give to someone else with the hope they're going to spend it. We have had three tries at this one and every time it was a gross failure. Because consumer spending does not drive the economy, investment does. People need jobs before they are comfortable spending. Otherwise they simply save it or pay down debt.

Your almost perfectly correct except for the fact that consumer spending does drive the economy, there's no point to invest in a stagnant company, I sure as hell didn't. Consistent increased consumer spending(I.E. not a short stimulus boost) WILL, GUARANTEED grow business, But your completely right banks and businesses ARE scared of what the administration is going to do with THEIR money. The administration needs to pass a general tax cut and back the hell off, it's just that simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

It appears as if Republicans are against any attempt to revive the economy

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Why that is relevant is beyond me.
They are also choosing to buy gold at historically high prices. The reason is the same: flight to safety. It is a no-confidence vote in this administration.

 

[xcelerate]

It appears as if Republicans are against any attempt to revive the economy

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

He's still right, stimulus really doesn't fix shit. As for those overseas investors buying our debt. Good for them they get to make money off of our idiotic administration.

 

[eflatminor]

It appears as if Republicans are against any attempt to revive the economy

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Taxes don't come from overseas investors, they come from US citizens and corporations mainly. Are you suggesting we simply borrow the money for stimulus? Is that your plan? If so, tell me how will you be paying the $131,500 you owe now, much less the higher amount that will result from more borrowing? Or, should we simply let the next generation deal with that burden?