westguy76 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 articleThis debate had peaked my interest lately and I have found myself listening to Cspan radio with both disgust and intrigue.Does anyone have any hope that the fat will actually be trimmed from this thing and undisputible stimulous boosting spending will win out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Now, this article just came out. Uncle Obama is really taking it to them.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_...t_executive_pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy76 Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 (CNN) -- On Monday, Congressional Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated: The Senate is currently debating the nearly $900 billion economic stimulus bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Reposted from a different thread: Maybe not the right place for it, BUT, if Obama's economic stimulus package goes through, do you all think the Corps. will be spending that $$$ on new projects or pretty much just doing damage control? i wonder if there is some sort of stipulation regarding the bail out. Thoughts?m. According to today's Chronicle, the provisions of the bailout as they affect money-losing corporations may look somewhat like this: MONEY-LOSING COMPANIES: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flipper Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I just registered stimulose.comflipper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 articleThis debate had peaked my interest lately and I have found myself listening to Cspan radio with both disgust and intrigue.Does anyone have any hope that the fat will actually be trimmed from this thing and undisputible stimulous boosting spending will win out?I am less inclined to quibble about which programs provide a better stimulus, if I were convinced that the stimulus would achieve its goal. Most everyone agrees that the recession was caused by the flood of easy credit that created unsustainable consumer spending (70% of GDP). As easy and cheap mortgages flooded the market, housing prices shot up. The paper equity in people's homes allowed them to buy bigger homes or take out home equity loans to buy more consumer goods. Credit cards became easier to get as banks used credit default swaps on credit card balances as well. The massive availability of consumer credit created a bubble, a false economy that could not be supported by stagnant or decreasing real wages. Eventually, this bubble HAD to burst, and consumer spending had to shrink. Tighter credit and lower home equity guaranteed the lower spending.Now, economists tend to agree that increased government spending can spur the economy. The question is spur it to what? If easy credit and inflated home values caused a false economy, will the stimulus push the economy back into false territory? Will the stimulus push the economy back into unsustainable spending? What happens then? It is entirely possible that the "recovery" will not look like a recovery at all, but merely a slowdown in the GDP freefall. If the spending of the last 10 years is indeed unsustainable, then we will never get back to those days, nor would we want to.The Democratic proposals clearly follow the Keynesian model of increased government spending to spur economic recovery. The Republicans are generally complaining about individual programs, but not the overall stimulus. A few are throwing out a proposal to lower taxes even further, but NO ONE is addressing the question of whether we can or should recover to the days of 1998-2007. Not that you could blame them. Can you imagine the outcry if a politician predicted that there was nothing that we can do? In light of this, I am merely watching the debate, with no real opinion on the stimulus or the "pork". The interesting part to me begins later when we see what the recovery looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 NO ONE is addressing the question of whether we can or should recover to the days of 1998-2007.I don't think that there is any question that GDP will recover to previous highs. It's just a matter of time. The appropriate question is how long will it take. As for whether we should...well I suppose that be an individual preference driven by individual morality. I say that yes, economic growth should be preferred as a general condition.A secondary question more applicable to the so-called stimulus package is whether we want to mortgage away future consumption in order to maintain current levels of consumption. That's really the bottom line, and whereas "stimulus" that was more oriented at productivity-enhancing investments could generate sufficient benefit to make up for and exceed the capitalized cost, it seems to me that most of the "stimulus" being proposed is intended to induce immediate consumption for its own sake. Even proponents of Keynesianism cannot possibly be happy with much of the proposed "stimulus". Transfer payments do absolutely nothing to put idle resources to any productive use! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 This whole thing is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 articleThis debate had peaked my interest lately and I have found myself listening to Cspan radio with both disgust and intrigue.Does anyone have any hope that the fat will actually be trimmed from this thing and undisputible stimulous boosting spending will win out?I've been listening to c-span radio too. Maybe you just heard this. A senator just gave us some ideas to show us how much money this really is. This one bill costs more than everything already spent in the war in Iraq. If you spent a million dollars everday from the time Jesus was born to today, it would not add up to 1 trillion dollars. If $100 bills were connected together and strung around the world, it would take 40 times to add up to 1 trillion dollars.I don't really agree on the bill in the first place, but if we're going to do it and spend this amount, for goodness sakes, do it on stuff worthwhile and will actually do what they said they're doing it for...creating/saving jobs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If the spending of the last 10 years is indeed unsustainable, then we will never get back to those days, nor would we want to.I'm guessing that the act of introducing a trilliion dollars into the economy (irrespective of where it goes) will loosen up the credit jam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieDidIt Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm guessing that the act of introducing a trilliion dollars into the economy (irrespective of where it goes) will loosen up the credit jam.Ok, I haven't read the package...but is the movie producer film tax break a joke? I'm assuming it is.There's so much filler in this package, no wonder it's not passing. What a joke. Why don't they just try tax cuts across the board first and get on with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 My understanding is that doing so would be like the Bush tax rebate thing in that it would result in a bump in consumer spending (not saving) causing another temporary mini-bubble with nothing to show for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 . ...and don't forget the $700 billion bailout of big finance.While Congress argues over spending, and while Treasury tries to figure out how to spend the next installment of the TARP money ($350 million) the taxpayer return on investment seems to be uh, not meeting expectations: (from The Big Picture)Time magazine looks at the TARP, and does some quick number crunching.Since the Tarp was jammed through in October, Treasury has invested $165 billion into the nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm guessing that the act of introducing a trilliion dollars into the economy (irrespective of where it goes) will loosen up the credit jam.Not if they finance it with more treasury debt, it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.