Stimulus?

The Coffee Shop
1

It’s interesting watching the realities vs the rhetoric. It looks like the dems are using fears during a poor economy to increase the number and funding of govt programs. (similar to GWB getting his way just after 9/11) The “stimulus” effect is but a hopeful result, and I’m not sure how hopeful. Barack has already said there may be years of trillion dollar deficits…how will he be able to justify that kind of spending WITHOUT the economy remaining in peril? No, dire times require out-sized responses, and it’s this springboard from which he will remake America.

A WSJ piece from today has a few similar sentiments:
“The spending portion of the stimulus, in short, isn’t really about the economy. It’s about promoting long-time Democratic policy goals, such as subsidizing health care for the middle class and promoting alternative energy. The “stimulus” is merely the mother of all political excuses to pack as much of this spending agenda as possible into a single bill when Mr. Obama is at his political zenith.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292987008414041.html

2

Come on dave, what the hell does the Wall Street Journal know about economic policy? Big O needs to visit the editor and give him a magic dose of “Hope, Change and Believe”

3

Oh my. Partisian politics? Not in our fair country. What next? We really didn’t win the war in Iraq and the mission was not accomplished? C’mon.

The big picture is if the stimulus package fails most of us non-milionaire types can expect a decade or more of hell we have never come close to tasting. Let me tell you as a survivor of the 70’s and 80’s you don’t ever want to be in a situation like those decades brought upon us. You want your President’s policies to succeed regardless of what party he is from. If things fail compared to today the 70’s and 80’s will feel like days at Disneyland.

GW is never going to feel the pain the rest are/will feel. He is too well insulated. But just about everyone here will. Be it personally, professionally, family friends… Try comprehending that your bright future has ended today or a year or two from now. Your economy has failed and there are little if no jobs available to the starving massess. You have no healthcare and your kid has leukemia. What are you going to do? What jobs are available there are a 10000 candidates for. What do you think will happen here? It will be the same as anywhere else when things go bad. History is littered with evidence that shows people don’t usually rise to the occasion, they sink to the situation and do whatever it takes to survive. The “it can’t happen” here" crap is really a bunch of crap because we are not above it all just because we are Americans.

But back to your point. Yes, the Democrats won the election and they now get to bail out the Titanic the way they want. How lucky are they? And instead of everyone pitching to help some are sitting on lifeboats waiting for the ship to sink completely so they can say they were right. They are the same genuises that got us in this mess and could not find anything wrong with GW’s policies for the previous 8 years. Nothing partisian there again, eh? Just wonderful.

4

And instead of everyone pitching to help some are sitting on lifeboats waiting for the ship to sink completely so they can say they were right. They are the same genuises that got us in this mess and could not find anything wrong with GW’s policies for the previous 8 years. Nothing partisian there again, eh?

No. Just because Bush’s policies had flaws doesn’t mean Obama’s are correct. And, no, I don’t think the OP is really hoping for a depression so he can feel better about himself.

Economic stimulus is supposed to be just that: not expanding a welfare state.

Build Hoover dam, you get a gift that keeps on giving. Addict more people to the government tit, you become the gift that keeps on giving.

5

what the hell does the Wall Street Journal know about economic policy?

Well, considering they missed the entire housing crisis that led to the problems we are in, apparetly not much.

6

So the WSJ is just now figuring this out? He spent 2+ years campaigning on things like universal healthcare and alternative energy, was elected, and they expected him to drop those things? Perhaps they thought once elected he’d take a hard turn to the right and start chanting “drill baby drill”?

7

Do you have a better idea? Our monetray policy gun is pretty much out of bullets, so if not some sort of fiscal stimulus then what?

8

Hmmm… How about backing off and letting the markets work? I know crazy talk and “People would suffer” and all that… Can’t possibly work.

Also there are MANY ways to create “Fiscal stimulus”. It’s not so much the “Stimulus” as much as type of stimulus and the way it’s being implemented.

~Matt

9

And instead of everyone pitching to help some are sitting on lifeboats waiting for the ship to sink completely so they can say they were right. They are the same genuises that got us in this mess and could not find anything wrong with GW’s policies for the previous 8 years. Nothing partisian there again, eh?

No. Just because Bush’s policies had flaws doesn’t mean Obama’s are correct. And, no, I don’t think the OP is really hoping for a depression so he can feel better about himself.

Economic stimulus is supposed to be just that: not expanding a welfare state.

Build Hoover dam, you get a gift that keeps on giving. Addict more people to the government tit, you become the gift that keeps on giving.
Let’s agree on something, the days of the govt. being hands off are way past us now. Blame FDR if you want… You don’t get back what you give up… What happen in Wall Street and with the banks showed us all that perhaps with just a little more regulation (or common sense) we could have prevented this mess. Think about this, if people would only have purchased homes they could afford none of this would be happening, but when people were getting the American dream for zero down, and banks and mortgage houses were making $$$ of loans, and the Humvee lots were buzzing, who was going to step in and kill that buzz? There was nobody, on any side of the isles in govt saying this is a house of cards and we are doomed, with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul, and who paid attention to him? He was right, all the geniuses were wrong and now we get to see if more govt. is the answer or not. It’s bleak any way you look at it and there are no sure answers about anything we do. None.

10

How about backing off and letting the markets work?

Isn’t that how we got here in the first place?

11

:now we get to see if more govt. is the answer or not. It’s bleak any way you look at it and there are no sure answers about anything we do. None."

This is what makes me so cynical about government. What happened to Yes We Can! I don’t remember Obama speaking about a bleak future.

I don’t blame FDR. I don’t blame Obama. And I don’t blame Bush. I blame the American people who don’t have the courage to listen to the truth.

If we are really willing to address these problems, why not invest money into our future; on things that will increase our tax base, rather than throw it at social programs that will only beg for more, thereby reducing our ability to fund the government we may want in the future?

12

Isn’t that how we got here in the first place?

No.

~Matt

13

I think Matt was talking about letting free markets work (which, of course, would require that we would first have to have free markets). But in a sense you’re right: We got here by letting interventionist markets work exactly the way they’re supposed to according to economic theory.

Edit to add: As you well know, we’ve been through this exact discussion several times already on this forum.

14

Edit to add: As you well know, we’ve been through this exact discussion several times already on this forum.

Which is why I went for the short answer :slight_smile:

~Matt

15

:now we get to see if more govt. is the answer or not. It’s bleak any way you look at it and there are no sure answers about anything we do. None."

This is what makes me so cynical about government. What happened to Yes We Can! I don’t remember Obama speaking about a bleak future.

I don’t blame FDR. I don’t blame Obama. And I don’t blame Bush. I blame the American people who don’t have the courage to listen to the truth.

If we are really willing to address these problems, why not invest money into our future; on things that will increase our tax base, rather than throw it at social programs that will only beg for more, thereby reducing our ability to fund the government we may want in the future?
We are in agreement about many things I think. We want more straight talk and less pie in the sky. I always say just tell us the truth, don’t sugar coat the facts. I would much rather go into a situation understanding as much as I can then have information unraveled slowly before me, you too I guess. So if “O” had said it’s going to take us 5 - 10 years to undue what happened in the the previous 8, your homes will continue to fall in value, the job market is going to be in the tank for a long time and in the end we are not sure, nobody can be sure, you will be better off or not would he still have won? I highly doubt it. The same thing can be said for McCain. Had he broken with GW, talked straight to us from the beginning, he would have gotten my vote, but he so wanted to be President that he put the very things that appealed to me, straight talk and his no BS approach on the back burner.

So we have taken major steps backwards. I agree that less govt programs, especially the social programs, is a good thing. I am for forcing everyone that wants a handout to work for it. I would cut back on every single entitlement program, including farm subsidies, bailouts…until we are at the bare bone. In times like these what can be overlooked? I say nothing.

Concurrently we must be planning for our future. That future includes significant improvements to our infrastructure, how we use and develop energy, and SSI reform. Here is something nobody wants to tackle, limiting the amount of children a woman can have. Instead, we end up paying for all kinds of social programs that don’t end poverty, they just prolong it. Why not pay women, all women, not to have children, or to have them at a later time in life, or just have one? Or give credit towards college tuition instead of cash so people can get trained? We allow children to be used as deductions but paying people not to have children is a bad thing? We will start hearing about God given rights…and the politicians will cave on both sides of the isles.

Finally, last time I looked there were about 130 million taxpayers in this country and over 300 million residents. Approximately 40% of the workers pay income taxes and that number is dwindling daily. You want full access to govt. services you must be a citizen of this country to enjoy it’s services. So stop the foreign worker programs and stop immigration procedures too, not deportations, until we are through this mess because frankly we don’t need more bodies here, we need less.

16 
   Let's agree on something, the days of the govt. being hands off are way past us now. Blame FDR if you want... You don't get back what you give up.... What happen in Wall Street and with the banks showed us all that perhaps with just a little more regulation (or common sense)  we could have prevented this mess. Think about this, if people would only have purchased homes they could afford **none of this would be happening**, but when people were getting the American dream for zero down, and banks and mortgage houses were making $$$ of loans, and the Humvee lots were buzzing, who was going to step in and kill that buzz? There was **nobody**, on any side of the isles in govt saying this is a house of cards and we are doomed, with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul, and who paid attention to him? He was right, all the geniuses were wrong and now we get to see if more govt. is the answer or not. It's bleak any way you look at it and there are no sure answers about anything we do. None.
 
A good assessment of what is happening, but I'm not sure it HAS to happen.  That was kind of my original point.  The limited stimulus of the package that is being laid out is my example.  It's just that "crisis" is good for govt, it empowers them.  9/11 did that for GWB, and some might argue he abused the power he was given.  The poor economy is empowering Obama in a huge way, and the dangers of abuse are just as great.  My secondary point is that Obama (and of course Rahm) realize this, and need this economy to remain in peril.
17

Following are some facts about the stimulus from the House Committee On Appropriations. I know some will say that it is from the Republican members but I do not belive that changes of the validity of these statements.

Link: http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=64

• In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clinton’s proposed stimulus legislation only contained $16 billion in spending

• The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

• This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills.

• If you had a stack four inches high, you’d be a millionaire. A trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills would measure just over 63 miles high.

• In $20 bills, a trillion dollar stack would be 3150 miles high. That’s about the distance between DC and Trujillo, Peru.

• President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.

• This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.

• This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

• Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.

• Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances.

• For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand.

• And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.

• Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit – the largest in history – would already be rescuing the economy.

• $800 billion more will not change that.

• Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway “stimulus” can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs.

• But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector.

• The private sector then loses or forgoes roughly the same number of jobs.

• Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 “stimulus” bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world). Their economy remained stagnant and their per capita income went from the second highest in the world to the tenth highest.