Yes or No: On the Stimulus Bill!

[Bern80]

The bill is wrong on two fronts.

First, it is wrong in theory for all the reasons Kennedy has already stated so i don't need to elaborate other than to say I really don't get how spending more money helps people with very little money to begin with.

Secondly, it is wrong because it is being orchestrated by the U.S. government. A government which does pretty much nothing efficiently, doesn't know how to say no to spending, and seems to have.

I'll post this again for the third time. Friedman (Milton, not Thomas) said most efficent to least there are three ways to spend money.

1) Spend your money on you.

2) Spend someone elses money on you.

3) Spend someone elses money on someone else.

That last one is what our government does. It takes money from other people via tax payers and spends it other people. Why is that inefficient? Because there doesn't need to be any accountability.

 

[ReillyT]

Well right now we're in a recession. The best thing the government can do is cut taxes and cut it's own spending. Taking money out of the private sector right now is not helping get us out of the recession, and this stimulus will only prolong and worsen it.

We are in a recession. There is too little demand to maintain our rate of growth, or possibly to maintain growth at all. What is wrong with government spending? In addition to providing public goods which benefit the private sector (e.g., bridges), it also stimulates demand directly (e.g., purchasing the materials and labour to build those bridges). There is minimal crowding out of private investment, because there is no credit available anyway.

I honestly don't understand your reasoning. Yes, someday we will have to pay it back. So what? Do you encourage kids without money not to borrow for college because later on down the line, when they have jobs, they will be faced with debt?

Government spending will not get us out of the recession is the problem. If government spending helped the situation we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place.

You said that before.

I still don't understand why you think government spending is a bad thing now.

As for what caused this mess, I don't think anyone fully understands. I lean towards the use of derivatives in the financial markets, because my wife, who is smarter than me, says that is the case. I don't see how government spending itself is to blame. Separate point though. What's done is done.

 

[ReillyT]

The bill is wrong on two fronts.

First, it is wrong in theory for all the reasons Kennedy has already stated so i don't need to elaborate other than to say I really don't get how spending more money helps people with very little money to begin with.

X produces construction materials and employs 100 people. Demand in the construction industry has dried up, and now X has to lay off 75 people (each of whom will now stop spending, hurting Y, who produces good W). Wait.... Look... the Federal government has decided to spend $100 billion dollars on roads and highways, with much of the construction taking place near where my business is. Yeah! 75 people get to keep there jobs.

, it is wrong because it is being orchestrated by the U.S. government. A government which does pretty much nothing efficiently, doesn't know how to say no to spending, and seems to have.

I'll post this again for the third time. Friedman (Milton, not Thomas) said most efficent to least there are three ways to spend money.

1) Spend your money on you.

2) Spend someone elses money on you.

3) Spend someone elses money on someone else.

That last one is what our government does. It takes money from other people via tax payers and spends it other people. Why is that inefficient? Because there doesn't need to be any accountability.

Above is a situation where X benefits from the Federal government spending Chinese money on a bridge. X didn't have the options of 1) and 2) because neither he nor anyone else around him had either the cash or credit to undertake construction projects.

 

[Mad Scientist]

How I wish you people cared as much about debt , wars for nothing , infrastructure crumbling , wasted government money(likes pallets of cash disappearing in Iraq), Corporations screwing the people and the like WHILE Bush and the Republicans were creating this mess.

Just to let you know, we had an election last year and Obama was elected. Bush is back in Crawford Texas. It's Obamas' problem now.

Try to keep up.

 

[cunclusion]

The main issue is this the bill does have a lot of issues. But some of the issues that is attempts to resolve need to be taken care of now our infrastructure, power grid and other issues need to be remedied now. Replacing the current problems are more cost effective then just patching. Since most of our infrastructure is old. I think more should have been spent toward infrastructure than what was spent.

 

[cunclusion]

How I wish you people cared as much about debt , wars for nothing , infrastructure crumbling , wasted government money(likes pallets of cash disappearing in Iraq), Corporations screwing the people and the like WHILE Bush and the Republicans were creating this mess.

Just to let you know, we had an election last year and Obama was elected. Bush is back in Crawford Texas. It's Obamas' problem now.

Try to keep up.

What truth is trying to say was anyone of you who seem more republican make any attempt or complain about the debt that was occuring before Obama became president. Everyone knows its Obamas issue to deal with now but for someone to be complacent then complain about the issue when someone else is in charge makes no sense.

 

[ReillyT]

The main issue is this the bill does have a lot of issues. But some of the issues that is attempts to resolve need to be taken care of now our infrastructure, power grid and other issues need to be remedied now. Replacing the current problems are more cost effective then just patching. Since most of our infrastructure is old. I think more should have been spent toward infrastructure than what was spent.

I agree, but there is a limit to the amount of money that can quickly be spent on infrastructure improvements. From the decision to spend the money to the point where shovels are being put into the ground can take years. I think part of the restraint on infrastructure spending lies with the decision to focus more on projects that can be started in the next 1-2 years.

Of course, as long as we are at it, I would rather we just pencil even the longer term infrastructure projects in now. I doubt we are going to see a recovery before 2011 anyway, and the shit has to be done some time.

 

[GHook93]

Strange how you make a poll. You might as well write in your poll "don't vote yes".

I guess you might get the feeling I am against it.

I am torn, because I see the state of the country, pray that Obama's plans work out. I pray and hope for the best !

But then against, I really don't think his approaches are the best to help the economy!

 

[GHook93]

This is not going to help our economy in the least, in fact it's going to make things worse. The government has to get it's money through taxation, inflation, or borrowing. All three choices hurt the private sector by taking money away from the consumers. This means that the private sector has less money to spend or save, which means that countless jobs are lost because of it. This stimulus is not water on the fire, it's gasoline.

Borrowing from China is unlikely to hurt the private sector, at least in the way you suggest. There is a credit crisis. People can't borrow anyway, so it is unlikely that government borrowing is going to substantially crowd out the private sector. What it might do (fingers crossed) is expand the market for private sector products.

Have you checked the state of China's economy right now! It worst than most, since people all over the world are buying so much less!

 

[GHook93]

How I wish you people cared as much about debt , wars for nothing , infrastructure crumbling , wasted government money(likes pallets of cash disappearing in Iraq), Corporations screwing the people and the like WHILE Bush and the Republicans were creating this mess.

Get past the Bush administion TM, they are out of office completely! Look to the current stimulus package and actually give an opinion on it that isn't a strawman or red herring!

Also now that Obama is in office he could easily start the pull out of Iraq and save money. Why are you giving him a pass on that?

 

[user_name_guest]

No. The $700+ billion bailout that Bush, Obama, McCain, Democrats, Republicans voted on will be a preview. If they bailed before, they will fail again. Otherwise, how many jobs STD research is going to create? Only in the gay community?

Why did majority of Democrats voted with Bush billion bailout that didn't have the regulatory flavor called transparency?

 

[ReillyT]

This is not going to help our economy in the least, in fact it's going to make things worse. The government has to get it's money through taxation, inflation, or borrowing. All three choices hurt the private sector by taking money away from the consumers. This means that the private sector has less money to spend or save, which means that countless jobs are lost because of it. This stimulus is not water on the fire, it's gasoline.

Borrowing from China is unlikely to hurt the private sector, at least in the way you suggest. There is a credit crisis. People can't borrow anyway, so it is unlikely that government borrowing is going to substantially crowd out the private sector. What it might do (fingers crossed) is expand the market for private sector products.

Have you checked the state of China's economy right now! It worst than most, since people all over the world are buying so much less!

It is not that China's economy is so bad (it is still growing much faster than ours). It is that so much more is riding on it continuing to grow (roughly 700 million people more). China will keep buying up our debt because if our economy goes under, they will suffer more than us (actually, everyone everywhere will suffer).

 

[cunclusion]

In the end spending will have to be done either by the federal government now or later it just matters on how much it will be. Do you fight the cold with a warm blanket or hope it gets warm and freeze to death.

 

[sealybobo]

If we don't do this, it'll just make it easier for the corporations to consolidate power and lower our wages even more than they already are.

We must take control away from the Federal Reserve/banks. This economic crisis is proof of that.

But if we don't do this economic stimulous, that'll make it even easier for the robber barons to send jobs overseas, lower wages, lay people off and renig on pensions.

The Dems won. They'll fight for the middle class. Sure they won't go as far as we would like them to go, but at least the Dems throw the middle class a bone every now and then.

Until more of the American voters wise up.

This is nothing more than desaster capitalism. They are consolidating their power and we are running to them to implement their radical ideas that if we were not in a crisis, we would never put up with....

Are you all ready for revolution? Are you rich people ready to protect what we are coming to take? LOL.

 

[xsited1]

As a brainless Obama supporter, I agree with it because Obama says we need it and he's always right.

 

[sealybobo]

As a brainless Obama supporter, I agree with it because Obama says we need it and he's always right.

Just because your guys Paulson & Bush stole $350 billion and gave it to the banks and no one can say where that money went, does not mean Obama will do the same thing.

And we elect Presidents and Senators to make these decisions for us fuck face. If their decisions suck, then we vote them out of office.

So now is the time for you to shut the fuck up and hope the new government knows what it is doing. The last one clearly did not. Hell, they caused the crisis. The only thing we aren't sure of is if they did it on purpose or not.

And big mouthed cock suckers like you said the exact same thing when Clinton laid out his economic plan, and you were wrong then too. Today is almost no different, so why don't you shut the fuck up now?

So I'm sorry, but we tried things your way, and it failed miserably. So who should we be listening to? You? Newt? Bob Barr? Rove? Ann Coulter? Hannity? Drudge? Rush? Foley? Vetter? Abramoff? McCain? Boehner? Mitch McConnell? Pahleez!!!

Bunch of scum that like this crisis because they can lower our wages and their taxes even more. Fuck that. They've emptied the treasury. Time to fill it back up!!!

 

[user_name_guest]

As a brainless Obama supporter, I agree with it because Obama says we need it and he's always right.

Just because your guys Paulson & Bush stole $350 billion and gave it to the banks and no one can say where that money went, does not mean Obama will do the same thing.

And we elect Presidents and Senators to make these decisions for us fuck face. If their decisions suck, then we vote them out of office.

So now is the time for you to shut the fuck up and hope the new government knows what it is doing. The last one clearly did not. Hell, they caused the crisis. The only thing we aren't sure of is if they did it on purpose or not.

And big mouthed cock suckers like you said the exact same thing when Clinton laid out his economic plan, and you were wrong then too. Today is almost no different, so why don't you shut the fuck up now?

So I'm sorry, but we tried things your way, and it failed miserably. So who should we be listening to? You? Newt? Bob Barr? Rove? Ann Coulter? Hannity? Drudge? Rush? Foley? Vetter? Abramoff? McCain? Boehner? Mitch McConnell? Pahleez!!!

Bunch of scum that like this crisis because they can lower our wages and their taxes even more. Fuck that. They've emptied the treasury. Time to fill it back up!!!

Obama voted for it. It shows how much he cared for Americans when Bush pushed it through.

Palin runs a state government, not the federal. You ignore information that is contrary to your preconceived notion. No wonder why this country is going bankrupt (or print money like Central African nation whose inflation has made everyone billionaires. "You can be rich too. But everything from the daily necessities will cost like luxury items).

 

[xsited1]

This is the Obama plan:

“If your canoe springs a leak, drill a bigger hole to let the water to drain out.”
Arapazowee (extinct tribe)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As a brainless Obama supporter, I agree with it because Obama says we need it and he's always right.

Just because your guys Paulson & Bush stole $350 billion and gave it to the banks and no one can say where that money went, does not mean Obama will do the same thing.

And we elect Presidents and Senators to make these decisions for us fuck face. If their decisions suck, then we vote them out of office.

So now is the time for you to shut the fuck up and hope the new government knows what it is doing. The last one clearly did not. Hell, they caused the crisis. The only thing we aren't sure of is if they did it on purpose or not.

And big mouthed cock suckers like you said the exact same thing when Clinton laid out his economic plan, and you were wrong then too. Today is almost no different, so why don't you shut the fuck up now?

So I'm sorry, but we tried things your way, and it failed miserably. So who should we be listening to? You? Newt? Bob Barr? Rove? Ann Coulter? Hannity? Drudge? Rush? Foley? Vetter? Abramoff? McCain? Boehner? Mitch McConnell? Pahleez!!!

Bunch of scum that like this crisis because they can lower our wages and their taxes even more. Fuck that. They've emptied the treasury. Time to fill it back up!!!

Fill the treasury back up by putting ourself further in debt by $819 billion? Does that even make sense?

 

[midcan5]

WWII was the final stimulus package for the first GD, let's pretend we are being invaded and spend spend spend. But then see which spend spend spend works as FDR did.

The Great Depression, to 1935