unemployment up to 8.1% - highest level in 25 years. I guess we’ll all have to wait for that stimulus package to impact the job market.
is there anyone on this forum who doesn’t think the stimulus package is a crock of shit?
I’m just wondering if this is a start an argument post or a lets sit around the campfire and be pissed post
=)
I don’t.
Most people agreed something needed to be done, the gov’t has two options, fiscal policy and monetary policy (and two options within each of those). Since interest rates are low and money supply is high, we are out of monetary policy options. Since tax rates are relatively low and the rebate checks of last spring failed, the only remaining options of 4 would be expansionary fiscal policy, gov’t stimulus.
Personally, I would favor gov’t stimulus over most of the options regardless of the situation, but given that the other three options have failed, it was sort the only bullet left in the gun (if you felt something needed to be done, which I did).
is there anyone on this forum who doesn’t think the stimulus package is a crock of shit?
I’m just wondering if this is a start an argument post or a lets sit around the campfire and be pissed post
=)
Crock? you shut your mouth 
Yeah, but the DJIA is up.
So we got that going for us.
How about real tax cuts? How about reducing corporate tax cuts? How about eliminating payroll taxes for the rest of 2009? How about getting rid of the “mark to market” rules?
This is not rocket science.
Yeah, but the DJIA is up.
So we got that going for us.
great! let me cash out now, so that Obama Claus can get his greedy fingers on those capital gains taxes…
It was pointed out well before the stimulus package was signed that there is two ways to create deficit spending. Increase spending, or decrease income.
The “decrease income” portion of the stimulus package was A) minimal B) what was largely touted as decreased income is really increased spending via “Tax breaks”/credits to those that don’t pay taxes and C) “Targeted” tax breaks, which is really no tax break at all, just government telling you how you should spend your money.
The stimulus package contains very little, I may be wrong but possible NO, actual tax rate reductions.
On top of that there is also very little, in the neighborhood of 15% of actual “Positive investment” spending. In short the majority is “Welfare”.
If we want to look at something that “Doesn’t work” we should look at welfare.
~Matt
Have you considered that perhaps we were all living beyond our means and need to face that fact rather than delay the inevitable?
Our economy was growing on credit and our REAL productivity wasn’t growing fast enough to pay that credit off.
We just need to be poor for a while. Tax and spend won’t help, not taxing won’t help, playing with interest rates, won’t help!
in my humble opinion =)
I don’t.
Most people agreed something needed to be done, the gov’t has two options, fiscal policy and monetary policy (and two options within each of those). Since interest rates are low and money supply is high, we are out of monetary policy options. Since tax rates are relatively low and the rebate checks of last spring failed, the only remaining options of 4 would be expansionary fiscal policy, gov’t stimulus.
Personally, I would favor gov’t stimulus over most of the options regardless of the situation, but given that the other three options have failed, it was sort the only bullet left in the gun (if you felt something needed to be done, which I did).
Have you considered that perhaps we were all living beyond our means
Yes, I have considered that and I agree with that. With that said, I still agree with the stimulus plan.
16% where I live, as of last month.
At a high level can you describe why you think any sort of stimulus plan would be helpful?
The way I think of it at a high level, we all just need to quit buying stuff for a while, pay off our debt, and be back on our way.
A stimulus plan taxes the consumer, and then the government decides what to spend on. How is that better than letting the consumer decide what to spend it on?
Have you considered that perhaps we were all living beyond our means
Yes, I have considered that and I agree with that. With that said, I still agree with the stimulus plan.
Seeing as how most of the stimulus hasn’t even been doled out, let alone spent, economists had no expectation that it would impact this months unemployment numbers. But don’t let a little logic get in the way of your tomfoolery.
so are you suggesting, then than a trillion dollars of social programs that only start taking affect 3+ years from now won’t help our economy in the short term? I think you are and you would be correct. And then you can clearly see that the entire package was a brutal waste of tax payer money!
Because the consumer isn’t spending. Consumer doesn’t spend, not only is it bad for business, it’s bad for the gov’t as it doesn’t collect sales tax. When that business goes out of business because of a lack of sales, the gov’t also can’t collect income tax on the employees. So people don’t have incomes because they are laid off and the gov’t doesn’t have an income because you can’t tax the non-existent income of someone who has been laid off.
I am not a spend, spend, spend person (I have minimal debt, a bit of savings, no mortgage, took my money out of the market around 12k, etc.) yet I still agree with the stimulus.
If the consumer isn’t spending at all, which they aren’t and the gov’t giving money to the consumers to spend in the form of rebate checks also doesn’t work because of a lack of consumer confidence, the best way to stimulate growth is for the gov’t to act as the consumer.
Again, I am not in love with the option, but I certainly think it is the “least bad” of our options.
I am not sure what you mean by “at a high level” so I can’t clarify anything there, sorry.
The good news is that your new President hasn’t missed a beat when it comes to selling the virtues of his own administration led by him. His rah-rah go America salesmanship is really still one of the best.
OK American idol. Is it me or is there one constant in every city they audition at? It seems that every year, in every audition, amongst the individuals who audition, the very worse ones, the geekiest with the most excruciating painful voices, are also the ones who are the most adept at talking the talk. Saying things like how much talent they have, how even though they are the under dog the judges and people are just going to be blown away by what they have to offer etc, etc.
The really good ones, although they know they are good and have a quite confidence, also seem to realize that there are other talented people who will audition so they just go out and humbly do their best and hope it’s enough. As the judges periodically say, some of them who are really so talented don’t even fully realize it themselves.
Do you think maybe this translates to Politicians too? The ones who spend so much time polishing their rhetorical presentation might really not have much substance to them at all?
Don’t think He’s actually posted here
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/30/pimcos-gross-to-president-obama-double-the-budget-deficit/
.
I’m not sure you and I disagree on the fact that the program is a waste of taxpayer money, but it really is rounding error here. What you suggested was that it was having no impact on unemployment, and it isn’t. Even if it does help in the short term, and it well but short term is 3 months from now, the gains made will be offset by the mass layoffs in our uncompetitive manufacturing sector and contracting service economy. Unemployment will reach 10% - 11%, so it is going up no matter what the stimulus. It is possible however that the program will help us avoid reaching 12% or greater.
The consumer isn’t spending because the consumer doesn’t have money. The consumer doesn’t have money because the consumer has been living on credit and performing service oriented jobs for too long.
The government taxing the consumer doesn’t change that.
at least I don’t see how.
the biggest farce is a lot of this stimulus is being doled out to failed companies. I can’t see how that is good. We are just too scared to let some big banks and car companies die, but those companies failures are other companies opportunities.
Because the consumer isn’t spending. Consumer doesn’t spend, not only is it bad for business, it’s bad for the gov’t as it doesn’t collect sales tax. When that business goes out of business because of a lack of sales, the gov’t also can’t collect income tax on the employees. So people don’t have incomes because they are laid off and the gov’t doesn’t have an income because you can’t tax the non-existent income of someone who has been laid off.
I am not a spend, spend, spend person (I have minimal debt, a bit of savings, no mortgage, took my money out of the market around 12k, etc.) yet I still agree with the stimulus.
If the consumer isn’t spending at all, which they aren’t and the gov’t giving money to the consumers to spend in the form of rebate checks also doesn’t work because of a lack of consumer confidence, the best way to stimulate growth is for the gov’t to act as the consumer.
Again, I am not in love with the option, but I certainly think it is the “least bad” of our options.
I am not sure what you mean by “at a high level” so I can’t clarify anything there, sorry.
I am not sure what you are talking about with regards to the gov’t taxing the consumer. The gov’t isn’t paying for the stimulus through taxing, it is borrowing the money for the stimulus. The eventual goal is that if the stimulus works and the economy grows, the gov’t would therefore increase its own revenue as even if tax rates remain the same, if the number being taxed (the “economy”) grows, so does gov’t revenue and therefore the money borrowed for the stimulus, and hopefully the rest of our debts can be paid off.
It’s sort of a self-replicating cycle…in both directions, positive and negative. Right now it is in the negative direction, consumer loses job, consumer doesn’t spend, consumer doesn’t spend, businesses close, businesses close, more people lose job, etc. The goal of any expansionary economic policy is to turn this cycle around. Again, I am not sure it will work, I certainly hope it will though. And I supported its passage because in my opinion something needed to be done and this was sort of our only option.
With regards to taxing the consumer, yes, Obama has pledged to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Actually, Obama is just carrying out the Bush tax policy plan, these cuts were set to expire in 2010 anyway (so I suppose you could blame Bush for that). Anyway, so with this increase the top marginal rate will go from about 36% to about 39%. So that only means the dollars you earn above $250k will be taxed an extra 3%. So if you make $300k, you are going to see an extra $1500 in taxes. I am Ok with that as a means to raise gov’t revenue. As much as everyone loves to bitch about the gov’t it does provide a lot and needs money to operate.