Economic Stimulus

['97ventureowner]

One of the things being tossed around in Washington to help the economy is another round of stimulus checks, similar to the ones we received this past spring. Another option also being mentioned in place of issuing checks would be to take that money and put it towards public works projects to improve this country's infrastructure ,(roads, bridges, other public projects.)
Some say that the infrastructure project would be better in the long run in improving the economy as it creates more jobs,and the need to produce more goods to meet the increase demands for products for the capital improvements.It would also have a longer term effect in improving the economy over just the issuance of checks to households in an attempt to spur spending on goods and services. The last round of checks issued earlier in the year seemed to "miss the mark" in improving the economy as hoped for. Many households used the money to pay existing credit card and other bills,(as I did), or to save the amount for a later need and not spend it right away.
The question is: "What form of economic stimulus would you like to see,( checks to families, or capital improvement projects? And what are some of the other pros and cons of each option that you see in implementing each one?

[BNaylor]

If you post issue(s) such as this at least post a link(s) so we can see what is being tossed around by the politicians. Here is one on the Pelosi plan.

Click here

Does anyone have any data claiming the previous one worked? Obviously not since the economy tanked. Where are they going to get the money for these programs? Rob the social security trust fund again.

As far as dumping the money into public works, etc. we pay enough through federal tax, state tax, property tax and gasoline tax, etc. so that is a non starter.

['97ventureowner]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

If you post issue(s) such as this at least post a link(s) so we can see what is being tossed around by the politicians. Here is one on the Pelosi plan.

I had to Google the issue to get a link for you as I based this thread on a bunch of different media outlets mention of the idea over the past few weeks. (When I posted this thread I had hoped respondents would already know of this without links as we seem to be a very educated, up-to-date group.) Here is a link that I found that sums most of it up:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27328484/

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Does anyone have any data claiming the previous one worked? Obviously not since the economy tanked. Where are they going to get the money for these programs? Rob the social security trust fund again.

If you're talking about the one that they just did back in the spring, it obviously didn't work or at least do it's intended purpose. It may have caused a small spike in sales or delayed some from losing their jobs, but in the end I believe it may have been a good idea that just failed in it's purpose. Perhaps those that proposed the idea at first thought we'd all (or at least most of us) run out and go on a buying spree, but many ended up using the money to pay our bills or to put into a savings account where it would have a lesser effect on stimulating the economy.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

As far as dumping the money into public works, etc. we pay enough through federal tax, state tax, property tax and gasoline tax, etc. so that is a non starter.

While I agree with that, I still think that since they want to go ahead and do something along these lines, ( you know they are and will get the monies from wherever they can ) public works projects can be a good thing. If they were to base it on the program instituted during the Great Depression :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_P...Administration then I am for it. I had uncles back then that were part of the program and it did a lot to get people to work , learn a new skill or skills, and communities benefited from the work that was done. Yeah we pay taxes to do such projects, but if they are going to go ahead and do something like this, then we can get more projects done than if we just relied on what monies were available from tax revenue.

Some of the problems I see in implementing such programs are an issue unions may have with using "non union" ,lesser skilled labor for these projects, and politicians fighting over available funds for projects in their districts, and cutting deals to get more funding similar to what goes on now in the House and Senate to pass a simple bill :.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Where are they going to get the money for these programs? Rob the social security trust fund again.

Bob, where have you been? They'll just print more or steal it from all the "rich" people.

['97ventureowner]

One idea that I had thought of after posting this thread was a way for the government to get more people to use that stimulus money for it's original intent.
Instead of issuing paper checks or directly depositing the money into an account, they should issue a debit (or similar type ) card that can be only used to make purchases. The immediate effect would be that the money could not be saved or used to pay bills. People could buy their flat screen televisions, make a down payment on a car, or even buy groceries, as long as they are making purchases. I'm sure retailers would also come up with their own programs as they have in the past to entice those cardholders to use their card in their store, ( such as making the value of the card worth more, offer free financing on any left over balance, etc.)
This could work well as in our state those who get certain forms of public assistance,( food stamps, etc.) are issued a card for their purchases.
In order for this to work, certain restrictions would need to be enacted such as not allowing the card to access cash at an ATM, card must be used at a store that accepts credit/debit cards, or online to make purchases. I'm sure that there will be those that find a way around the system, such as making a purchase and then returning it for a cash refund. But overall, implementing a system of a pre-filled card for purchases is one other way to put money in the hands of individuals to stimulate the economy, ( and that of China's as well )

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Bob, where have you been?

I've been LMAO the last week, working and paying my taxes. In my leisure time watching NCAA and NFL football and getting the cars ready for the winter.

It is all "pie in the sky" for now. I smell a filibuster or lack of votes to bring these programs which amounts to nothing but more socialism into law after the inauguration.

As to any ridiculous social programs we can't even get our kids to attend school and get good grades let alone see them go happily into a something like the WPA, conservation corps, peace corps or even the military, etc. As to people already on welfare and government hand outs they are a lost cause.

[2strokebloke]

How about they just cut taxes in half for a month?

[BNaylor]

Here is a proposal that makes sense to me. Supposedly one of the reasons why the majority elected Obama into office is because he was touted as the one to better handle the economy and made specific campaign promises. We all know what his tax and economic plans are since it has been discussed over and over, especially his redistribution of wealth tax plan.

Let him put his money where his mouth is and get his proposal(s) into law. Then see if it works. .......

[HotZ28]

I want "Ice Cream" not a "pie in the sky"

A teacher friend sent this:

They want ice cream;

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade in 2000. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, 'If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.' She sat down. The class went wild. 'Yes! Yes! We want ice cream. ' She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and 60% percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 40% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow.

[KustmAce]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

I've been LMAO the last week, working and paying my taxes. In my leisure time watching NCAA and NFL football and getting the cars ready for the winter.

It is all "pie in the sky" for now. I smell a filibuster or lack of votes to bring these programs which amounts to nothing but more socialism into law after the inauguration.

As to any ridiculous social programs we can't even get our kids to attend school and get good grades let alone see them go happily into a something like the WPA, conservation corps, peace corps or even the military, etc. As to people already on welfare and government hand outs they are a lost cause.

Hey Bob, what do you call it when the government buys public debt?

ZOMGWTFBBQ socialism

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by KustmAce

Hey Bob, what do you call it when the government buys public debt? ZOMGWTFBBQ socialism

Hey Tim.



Does the government really buy public debt? What specifically are you referring to?

If you are referring to the 700 billion dollar bailout it sounds more like a "get out of jail free card" to me or state capitalism. IMO obviously not socialism based on redistribution of wealth or socialism in the political sense of the word.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

If you are referring to the 700 billion dollar bailout it sounds more like a "get out of jail free card" to me or state capitalism. IMO obviously not socialism based on redistribution of wealth or socialism in the political sense of the word.

Looks more like an outright gift to the banks, with no way to tell where it all goes/went.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470824,00.html

Where'd the Bailout Money Go? Shhhh, It's a Secret

Monday, December 22, 2008

WASHINGTON — It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they either can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,"' said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Georgia-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Alabama-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.

"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.
..................................

I'd call it unbelievable, but it's consistent with clueless congress and an even more clueless populace.

Damn it, we're gonna crash, and we're gonna crash hard, and it's all about greed. The hell with it, those guys need to be in jail. Congress needs to be thrown out on its ass for abject irresponsibility in giving away that money.

And they wonder why we've all simply stopped spending money? It's going to take a lot more than cheap gas to save this economy.

Merry Christmas.

[fredjacksonsan]

The best way to insure the success of a capitalistic system is to let bad businesses fail and good ones succeed.

The bailouts as I see them are short term solutions... terms like "infusions of cash", "emergency measures", etc have been used ad nauseum; these helping hands won't, by themselves, make long term improvements.

I'm in no way close to being an economist but I'd think that allowing businesses to fail when they've shown they can't operate responsibly will, in the long term, make for a better overall picture. {However I agree that the long term would be pretty far out, and those of us over, say, 40 might not be able to retire as planned}

I'm not saying that letting Chrysler, Ford and GM fail won't have repercussions throughout the economy; it will. I'm simply saying that if you operate irresponsibly and run your business into the ground, Unca Sam shouldn't be paying you money.

It's like the child that runs up the credit cards to some huge amount. Parents bail them out, saying "never again" but 5 years later they're paying it again, because of irresponsibility.

Maybe the Big 3's head honchos should voluntarily reduce their salaries to the level of Toyota's, and take a class on how to NOT waste money.

Corollary: The US National Debt, this week, exceeded the value of everything IN the US. Who's going to bail us out? I mean if the US Gov can bail out the automakers, then some other entity can bail out the US Gov.





/rant.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Who's going to bail us out? I mean if the US Gov can bail out the automakers, then some other entity can bail out the US Gov.

Before recent economic events, I would have answered "China", but I'm not so sure they'll be of much help now that we've all dialed back on our widget purchases.

I think the only people doing well right now are the bank execs who got their bonuses after the bailout money hit their coffers.

(I'm only half joking here)

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I'm not saying that letting Chrysler, Ford and GM fail won't have repercussions throughout the economy; it will. I'm simply saying that if you operate irresponsibly and run your business into the ground, Unca Sam shouldn't be paying you money.

Technically "We The People" are paying the bill. The taxpayer. If the U.S. big three automakers don't make it after this first freebee then I say let them sink. The problem I see is it doesn't make sense throwing good money into what amounts to bad companies and delaying what is inevitable. And the Unions can get screwed.