So How's The Stimulus Working For You?
Krieg
Posts: 5,188 ✭✭✭
Not all that well, huh?
Have you gone from recognizing that the stimulus isn't working to actually trying to figure out why? Allow me to help.
Economists will tell you that the economy will really start to recover when people start spending money. Thus far, that isn't happening. The only stimulus money was actually put into the hands of the people was that pitiful $400 for individuals and $800 for families. Most of these people used the extra money not to buy something, but to either save or pay down some bills. They're scared, remain scared, and aren't in a buying mood right now. A one-time check doesn't really do it. They need to see a long-term and permanent increase in their take-home income, and thus a long-term increase in their ability to spend. How do you do that? Simple - tax cuts. Not just a one-time check, but a real tax cut. And not just a tax cut for the poor (who don't pay taxes anyway) and the middle class; but a tax cut for everyone, businesses included. Let the people who create the jobs keep more of the money they earn - and what happens? Do you think that somehow more jobs might be created?
President Hopenchange went the opposite way. Instead of a promise that people will be able to keep more of what they earn, his administration (and the entire Democrat party, for that matter) delivers a cacophony of rhetoric about increasing taxes on the very people we need to start the economic recovery. How smart his that? In the meantime they dump billions of dollars into idiotic government pork projects and call it economic stimulus.
It's the old Bill Clinton "You won't spend your money the right way" bit revisited. Just how long are we going to sit around and let these so-called "leaders" in Washington play us for such fools? When do the majority of Americans wake up and see this as the government power play it is? With so many Americans being government educated, there's not much real hope out there. Let's face it, the Republican Party sure isn't doing anything worth mentioning. They can't even come up with a counter-offer to Obama's socialized medicine.
Economists will tell you that the economy will really start to recover when people start spending money. Thus far, that isn't happening. The only stimulus money was actually put into the hands of the people was that pitiful $400 for individuals and $800 for families. Most of these people used the extra money not to buy something, but to either save or pay down some bills. They're scared, remain scared, and aren't in a buying mood right now. A one-time check doesn't really do it. They need to see a long-term and permanent increase in their take-home income, and thus a long-term increase in their ability to spend. How do you do that? Simple - tax cuts. Not just a one-time check, but a real tax cut. And not just a tax cut for the poor (who don't pay taxes anyway) and the middle class; but a tax cut for everyone, businesses included. Let the people who create the jobs keep more of the money they earn - and what happens? Do you think that somehow more jobs might be created?
President Hopenchange went the opposite way. Instead of a promise that people will be able to keep more of what they earn, his administration (and the entire Democrat party, for that matter) delivers a cacophony of rhetoric about increasing taxes on the very people we need to start the economic recovery. How smart his that? In the meantime they dump billions of dollars into idiotic government pork projects and call it economic stimulus.
It's the old Bill Clinton "You won't spend your money the right way" bit revisited. Just how long are we going to sit around and let these so-called "leaders" in Washington play us for such fools? When do the majority of Americans wake up and see this as the government power play it is? With so many Americans being government educated, there's not much real hope out there. Let's face it, the Republican Party sure isn't doing anything worth mentioning. They can't even come up with a counter-offer to Obama's socialized medicine.
"Long ashes my friends."
0
Comments
and HERE is the republican official platform on health care.
here are a few lines:
We will continue to advocate for simplification of the system and the empowerment of patients. This is in stark contrast to the other partys insistence on putting Washington in charge of patient care, which has blocked any progress on meeting these goals.
Republicans believe all Americans should be able to obtain an affordable health care plan, including a health savings account, which meets their needs and the needs of their families.
Families and health care providers are the key to real reform, not lawyers and bureaucrats. To empower families, we must make insurance more affordable and more secure...Republicans propose to correct inequities in the current tax code that drive up the number of uninsured and to level the playing field so that individuals who choose a health insurance plan in the individual market face no tax penalty.
Every patient must have access to legal remedies for malpractice, but meritless lawsuits drive up insurance rates to outrageous levels and ultimately drive up the number of uninsured. Frivolous lawsuits also drive up the cost of health care as health care providers are forced to practice defensive medicine, such as ordering unnecessary tests. Many leave their practices rather than deal with the current system. This emergency demands medical liability reform.
so, you see, its not that the republicans dont have a plan, its that the media refuses to cover it and then say over and over that they dont have a plan. when you tell a lie often enough, people will start to believe.
iduno... i kind it hard to believe that in the United States of America people are even considering a socialist system. why should anyone have to offer a solution to socialism? that should just be out right rejected. unfortunately, too many people have the "something is better than nothing" attitude. this is dangerous, especially when legislation is being pushed so fast that even the people voting on it cant read it. socialism, or any other system that represses individual rights, is way worse than doing nothing.
... not to mention more expensive as well.
the stimulus isnt workin so well for me. my house budget has seen some major cut backs.
not on cigars though. HA!
my guitar building hobby has been put on hold because the "extra" money is being saved for a worst case situation.
Socialism is ok.... when it's voluntarily. The very principles for which this nation was founded are dying.
The Federal Government quite often causes more problems than solutions and it certainly has no business making many of the decisions it makes. The answer is not more government and intervention but that's what we're guaranteed to get because We The People are too **** lazy to stand up and do something as simple as email our representatives on Capitol Hill.
Washington wants to spend our way out of debt...........pure genius.
"Long ashes my friends."
Rob
I also find it ironic as the people who you voted for and I guess support, took a surplus and made a deficit and saw the collapse of the economy not to mention other acts of genius. You're beloved Reagan pushed the policies that brought this country here, and with the help of bush sr, clinton, and W bush, and we'll be lucky to have this country stabilize, and even if it does, we'll be even luckier if this country survives as other governments are looking to other currencies than the dollar to set the global market due to the run-away policies this country has made over the last 30 years.
For the record, I'm not a Republican.
Bawhahahahahahah ....
Auto companies had to deal CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, emissions standards and, federal safety standards . this doesnt even mention that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. This "regulates" business out to other countries. the people running corporations dont want to pay higher taxes. they want to make a profit. how do you help make a profit? cut costs. Taxes are a cost that are very easy to cut by moving away from the country that imposes the tax.
Manufacturing as a generic industry has had to deal with increasing environmental regulations, safety regulation, and even regulation in hiring.
you can say that they are "justified" with this regulation, but you cant say that deregulation didnt happen.
the housing crisis is another government caused problem that goes back years with the regulations.
Given the broad scope of government intervention in the U.S. home mortgage sector through the GSEs, the maze of other agenciessuch as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)and the cascade of Congressional actssuch as the Fair Housing Act (1968), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), the National Affordable Housing Act (1990), the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994), and the American Dream Down Payment Act (2003)it is simply ludicrous for anyone today to speak of the U.S. mortgage sector as having been a fully free market before the latest crisis. Only more ludicrous is the claim that the few free elements still remaining, but not the interventions, caused the crisis. Armed with its allegedly noble goal of increasing home ownership for the needy, the U.S. government has riddled the mortgage market with perverse incentives and unjust interventions that either compel or induce banks to lend to less-than-creditworthy borrowers, and thus to put themselves at greater risk of insolvency.
Every housing-related measure taken by Washington has made the standards for home ownership looser than they would be in a free market. Government has stepped in to override private companies aversion to undue risk. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. FNMA and FHLMC were created to encourage the issuance of mortgages that would not be prudent in a free market. The FDIC anesthetizes depositors against risks taken with their funds. And the entire Federal Reserve exists to pump paper money into the economy, and to keep interest rates artificially low--often below the rate of inflation--so that more lending occurs. Yet when this house of cards collapsed, it is capitalism that was denounced, and more government power that was demanded.
this is a giant disconnect. regulation has and is happening, and in many cases its causing unforeseen externalities
i am upset with the stimulus for two major reasons:
1) History has shown that stimulating the economy in the way that we trying to now fails.
2)this stimulus bill was forced through so fast nobody could read it. it was done so because of the crisis at hand. yet most of the spending was not going to happen till 2010. thats not a "fast acting bill" like they were making it out to be.
funny how 2010 is an election year. ... well, I'm sure there are no politics going on here what-so-ever.
even Stimulus one was a fairly poor idea.
Given that almost 80% of all taxes brought in is from the top 20% of wage earners, the tax money was taken out of the pockets of the rich and given to those making less than $87k ($86k would have given you $50) this sounds like a classic Obama redistribution of wealth plan to me.
however, it was W that made that move. that is one of the many reasons why i cannot support him on that policy. ill call my reps and governor. Ill call them and tell them NOT TO TAKE ANY MONEY so that my state isnt under the thumb of the federal government.
...oops, too late.
dont forget carter in that mix.
voted for (when old enough): yes.
Supported: not exactly.
i have felt like im trying to figure out the lesser of two evils in every presidential election. Next election i am voting for whoever is the closest to my actual views instead of voting for whoever i think will do the least amount of damage. im guessing it will probably be whoever is running in the libertarian party.
Reagan did some good and some bad. the economy that he inherited from Carter was as bad as, if not worse, than the economy Obama walked into. he turned that around by making permanent stimulus via tax cuts that people felt. consumer confidence went way up. spending started to happen.
however you are right on one thing, his deficit was large. it was so large, in fact, that the entire deficit form his 8 years in office was about what Obama did in 8 months. (before health care reform)
Graphic i too, am not a Republican. (im a registered libertarian) i dont watch fox news. none of my above links are to fox news.
I would like to also say that its nice to hear all sides of the story. It seems like anyone who opposes Obama has been either denounced or ignored by the Media. Yet when W was in office there wasnt a day that went by were the headline wasnt effectively:
BUSH **** UP AGAIN!!
Bush was not perfect. I pointed that out today already (and there are many other ways he was not perfect). Obama is not perfect either. The media is just in deep smit with him. they love everything Obama, almost unquestionably.
nobody should ever be denounced for displaying their disgust with any administration.
I mean, H.R. Clinton said it best:
"WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!"
amen to that.
Thanks Gmill; my sentiments EXACTLY...
Rob
we are above (or should be) ridicule of the free exchange of thoughts.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081006_republican_economic_theories_dont_add_up/
thats the last time i stand up for you in a political debate. the others seemed to be laughing at your ideas (with no referenced links to point out these "facts" as you claim them to be, BTW) and i was saying that you have a right to your opinion. (although poorly supported)
this is the second time in two different threads that i, and others with different views than you, have been attacked or mocked by you. ( this page has the other time ) If you want to continue to have a debate please leave emotions out of it and keep it respectable. if you or anyone else cannot handle this in a civil manor, please refrain from posting in a political debate.
if you are claiming that my views are flawed in some way i encourage you to make an argument on how it is. please make it a more solid argument by referencing and linking me to articles so that i can read as to why i have made mistake in my thought process. that is the point of debate.
if you look back at the second to last post on the first page of this thread you will see a post of what i think of the topic at hand, with links and reference guides. I am fully aware that the facts are all around me.
this link was added after i started my last post
the only part of that article that was not opinion this:
Which president produced:
1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?
2. The highest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?
4. The highest growth in industrial production?
5. The highest growth in hourly wages?
6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?
The answers: 1. Harry Truman, 2. Bill Clinton, 3. Lyndon Johnson, 4. John F. Kennedy, 5. Johnson, 6. Truman, 7. Truman, 8. Clinton. In the Economic Sweepstakes, Democratic presidents trounce Republicans eight times out of eight!
im not saying any of that is not true. but that list of questions was made for democrats. what if the questions would have been: what president saw the longest stretch of monthly job growth in history? that would go to W
what about the question: what president saw the largest inflation rates in the last 75 years? Carter.
what president saw the highest interest rates in the last 75 years? carter
and what if we look deeper into question 8 (8. The largest reduction in the deficit?) ? why did he balance the budget? because he was forced to by a republican house.
what if the question was: who was president for the majority of the great depression? FDR.
wo was president during the recession of 1937-38? FDR
Recession of 1945 and 48?Truman
Recession of 1960-1? JFK
Recession that W walked into? clinton.
suddenly the democrats dont look so good anymore.
answering a series of questions specifically designed to make one side look bad does not a fact make. there are ups and downs to every person and situation. sometimes, a recession is not caused by a president. the early 70s recession was caused by OPEC and a 400% increase in oil
and quit calling me a republican.
Clinton's economy was better. While the RWNM only focuses on the tech bubble in the stock market, they have yet to give any credit to the breadth of Clinton's economic accomplishments. Political hubris is the most obvious reason for this denial. Clinton proved many important points. The two most obvious are you can balance the budget and grow the economy. Most importantly, this was part of Clinton's plan from the beginning. It was not a "happy accident" or the long-term result of Reaganomics. In fact,it was Clinton's undoing of Reaganomics that was a strong part of the reason for his success. * bonddad's diary :: :: * First, let's start with the balanced budget, which was part of Clinton's plan from the beginning of his Presidency. The following is from On the Edge, by Elizabeth Drew, page 60: Following the election [during the transition], Clinton realized there was little he could do about raising spending for his investments if he didn't tackle the deficit.....He [Clinton] gradually came to see that the debt posed a threat to what he wanted to do to spur competitiveness and economic growth, as well as to revive the economy, and was using up capital that could otherwise go to public and private investment. (from page 73)The result was an economic program that was bold by conventional standards and did seek to reverse Reagonomics and redirect the country's economic resources from consumption to longer-term investment, and at the same time to take a major bite out of the federal budget deficit. Clinton proposed deficit cuts of $493 billion over 5 years; increased spending, most of it on longer term investments such as job training, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, education, and promoting high-tech; tax increases of $246 billion over five years; and net cuts in federal spending of $247 billion. Clinton's economic team of Robert Rubin, Lloyd Bentson (RIP), Leon Panetta and Alice Rivlin were all deficit hawks. All continually argued for a balanced budget. They won. Clinton came to realize the importance of balanced budgets. But, why is a balanced federal budget so important? It prevents crowding out. This is a fancy way of saying money that would finance the federal budget deficit is instead invested in private capital. Let me use the current situation as an example. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US had a $318 billion budget deficit in 2005. That means $318 billion dollars was not invested in the private economy, but instead invested in US government bonds. The larger the deficit, the less money available for private investment. Psychology and uncertainty. A budget deficit detracts from individual's confidence in the market and the overall economy. As individual's look to the federal deficit, they understand that at some time the government must pay back the money it borrows. That means the government will probably have to either raise taxes (more likely) or decrease spending (far less likely whichever party is in control of the government). Deficits create psychological uncertainty. The larger and more persistent the deficit, the less happy people are and the less prone they are to take economic risks. Interest rates. The government is the largest borrower in the credit markets. The treasury market is the base interest rate for other credit market borrowers. If the government has to increase the amount of debt it issues, it has to ask for a higher interest rate. The reason is simple supply and demand. When you sell more of a good, you usually have to drop the price (price and yield are inversely related). Therefore, if the government issues more debt, it has to ask for a lower price and higher yield. The inverse is also true. Lower interest rates helps anybody who wants to borrow money because they will borrow at a rate based on the US Treasury curve. Let's coordinate three sets of data to illustrate the point. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficits/surpluses for years 1993-2000 were (respectively and in billions) $-255, -$203, -$164, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128. So, the budget deficit continually decreased from 1993-1996, the budget surplus increased from 97-99 and the budget showed a surplus in 2000 although this was lower than the preceding year. In other words, the record indicates a clear path towards balancing the federal budget. This was not the result of a happy accident; it was deliberate. One of the prime reasons why the 1990s economy was so successful is the incredible amount of confidence this gave private investors. They could look at Washington with confidence, knowing politicians managed national finances were maturity. There was no talk to the deficit - was it too high, could it be maintained at current levels, will they ever get around to fixing it etc..... Simply put, investors had a sense of certainty and confidence about the economy. This encouraged them to take risks which helped everybody. Jobs From an overall jobs perspective, the Clinton team created 22,759,000 from January 1993 to December 2000. This breaks down to 2.8 million jobs/year. The labor participation rate increased from 66.2% in January 1993 to 67% in December 2000. The unemployment rate decreased from 7.7% in January 1993 to 3.9% in December 2000. The Clinton team was focused in opening up new avenues of job creation that would benefit the middle class. Previously, manufacturing was the primary economic sector the helped the middle class. Total employment in this area increased from 16,790,000 in January 1993 to 17,181,000 or an overall increase of 391,000. This isn't bad, but it certainly could be better (Under Bush, the manufacturing sector has lost 2.8 million jobs). However, the Clinton team's focus on high-tech provided new avenues of wealth creation. Total information jobs increased from 2,656,000 in January 1993 to 3,706,000 in December 2000, or an increase of 1,050,000 million (Under Bush, information services have lost 560,000 jobs). In addition to the beneficial effects of balancing the budget, Clinton's economy was geared toward helping the middle class attain a better life. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly pay for non-supervisory workers increased from $10.63 in January of 1993 to $14.26 in December 2000 for an increase of 34.14%. Over the same period, the inflation measure increased from 138.1 to 174 for an increase of 25.99%. Therefore, the inflation adjusted hourly wage increased 8.15%. Looking deeper in the data provided by the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances for 1998, the change is apparent: In the 1998 survey, inflation-adjusted mean and median family incomes continued the upward trend between the 1992 and 1995 surveys; they also surpassed the levels observed in the 1989 survey toward the end of the previous expansion.... From 1995 to 1998, the proportion of families with incomes of $50,000 or more rose from one-fifth to 33.8%, while the proportion with incomes below $10,000 fell about one-sixth to 12.6%. And from the 2001 survey: Between 1998 and 2001, inflation-adjusted family incomes rose notably faster than they did in the 1995-98 period. The median rose 9.6% percent (2.5 percent during the 1995-98 period) and the mean rose 17.4% (12.2 during the 1995-98 period). Compare this to the 2004 survey: The survey shows that, over the 2001-04 period, the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising 1.6%, whereas the mean value fell 2.3 percent....These results stand in contract ot the strong and broad gains seen for the period 1998 and 2001 surveys and to the smaller but similarly broad gains between the 1995 and 1998 surveys. Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995, 33,400 in 1998 and 39,900 in 2001. Over the same period inflation increased 28%, making the total inflation adjusted gain 15%. Average income increased from $44,000 in 1992, to $47,500 in 1995, to $53,100 in 1998 to $68,000 in 2001 for an inflation adjusted increase of 23%.
Also FDR inherited the problems in his day, then the War happened. Also Bush had a SURPLUS when he got into office, and manged to put this country into a deficit and put us in 2 wars, and saw the collapse of the economy and brought billions of dollars to corporations.
First of all I can only speak for myself. As far as I am aware I still have the right of freedom of speech. I sir have infringed on no ones right to express their opinion and you give this forum way to much credit if you think anything said here could dis suade someone from doing so. . My re action to the comment about liberals and progressives versus the good 'ol repub's was the same re action you would have got standing in front of me...a hearty laugh. Why ??? Because having been involved in county govt myself albeit for a short time and in a low level seeing things first hand and rubbing elbows with ALL parties ( not just reading about them or watching tv or reciting some useless stat) you would be amazed at what comes outta there mouth versus whats really in their heart . This goes for Repub's/ Dems/Lib's alike and you would be dumbfounded to hear these peoples views behind closed doors. I find the argument of who ruined the country totally hilarious/insanly sad/madingly complicated and of no particular value or use if you could figure it out . So damn what if you could hang it on the Republican Party , the Democratic Party or the Liberals. What then ? I have said this in several different threads if you find things so bad then become politically active at least to whatever degree you can ; thats what I did and was blessed with a thorough re evaluation of how I thought. It was rewarding , fulfilling , disdainful, distressing , amusing , and sometimes I was just plain pi-ssed off all at the same time but definitly worth the time . It was most definitly an education. Evening Gentlemen ...
btw 1968 LBJ. democrat. 1974, 1975 Ford. Republican. 1977 Carter. democrat. 1990 clinton democrat. 2003 Bush. Republican.
i can see that it isnt just bush here. its a few other people; and believe it or not, many were democrats.
as history has shown this type of stimulus wont work, unless the goal is to take over more of the private sector. then by that definition, it is working.
we are 6 months into a stimulus that was passed and signed into law so fast that nobody could read it. this was done because it was an emergency. we arent rushing to spend that money are we? most of it wont be spent till 2010. its not working 6 months in because by design it wont spend the bulk of the money until two years have passed. i guess it wasnt that much of an emergency was it? or maybe there is another motive here.... im not upset that he is trying to fix a problem. i am upset at the methodology of said "fixes"
the rights of the individual are everything. Infringing on my rights is what i am against.
i agree that both Democrats and Republicans had a hand in destroying the country. but the only one that seems to be taking the blame is the republicans.
it also seems that the democrats are gnawing away at individual rights as much as Bush did when he was in office. its a disgrace to both parties what they've become.
you keep saying that corporations are bad.
could you develop this thought further for me please? what makes them bad? what makes government better? im just not seeing your point of view on this at all.
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-1.gif
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-2.gif
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-3.gif
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-4.gif
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-5.gif
But higher taxes and more government regulation is STILL always the answer from the left... Bush did have a hand in the mess so don't think that I will defend him to the end. He spent too much money! So did Clinton and so did Reagan. Yet in the 8 years Reagan was in officer, he spent about what Obama has spent in his first 8 months. Cuttting taxes AND government spending are what we need to be focusing on right now, not Cap and Tax or some Communist Healthcare bill.
I would like to second this question because I have wondered the same thing. Why do you constantly attack corporations as some kind of evil empires out to take over the world?
I would never and have never called anyone on here names or ' in my opinion ' mocked anyone. I'm too old and maybe a better word is experienced for such non sense. I have however HAD A GOOD LAUGH at some of the opinions expressed as anyone reading can feel free to have the same response to my opinions. If this hurts anyones feelings then a political discussion thread is not where you belong.I do understand what you are trying to say and am I being disrespectful ? By definition words , acts , omissions that are synonymous with contempt and amount to behavior or language that detracts from the respect due to the authority " . I have no contempt felt and am not sure (myself included) that anyone on here is an authority of what is being discussed so I do not believe so. That , as well as everything being discussed is just an opinion and only an opinion. As I said I do understand your underlying context. And by the way I agree totally with your last two statements in your reply post to my post.
Every word of your above post is correct Kuzi IF, IF I had been involved in the debate. Having been involved in more than one political sit-down I am very aware of what constitutes and enhances productivity. I was not attempting to sway anyone in any direction therefore cannot be called a combatant in this debate. I was only expressing my OPINION of the mentioned expression of another. I understand the point of a debate but am not involved other than as a bystander to this one ...next time I'll laugh a little softer ...