I'm liking the tax cuts and the new home buyer tax credit. Rational self interest FTW

2/7/2009 11:38:45 AM

I think its telling what Obama and dems really want out of this bill when they reject McCains proposal that if there is money that isnt yet spent on the stimulus when we show positive growth then we shouldnt spend anymore. I thought it was a rational request.

Someone pointed out how obama wants to give the army corp of engineers 4B dollars in the plan. Then the army speaks up and says the corp has 3B sitting in the bank already. LOL

2/7/2009 9:50:47 PM

In addition to the payroll tax situation that i've heard of, i also heard of doing a moratorium on cap gains taxes in 2009 in the hopes of boosting buying and selling of stocks. not a bad idea.... but i also don't have a very good understanding of what the draw backs could be with it.


i saw the payroll tax rollback mentioned. i think cutting the tax in half (3% back to the employee and 3% back to the employer - at least i think that's the number) would be extra dollars back in the business' pocket and in the employees' pocket. it sounds like a good idea to me.

2/8/2009 8:14:29 PM

Quote :

"Leading Republicans warned Sunday that the Obama administration's $800 billion-plus economic stimulus effort will lead to what one called a "financial disaster." Everybody on the street in America understands that," said Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee. "This is not the right road to go. We'll pay dearly.""

OH KNOWZ TAX N SPEND LIBERAL OBAMA HATES AMURICA AND WANTS TO SPEND ALL OUR MONIES!!

sure the current plan is not perfect and needs a lot of work. Can Republican leaders though get off their fucking partisan hack-wagon long enough to get something done though? I don't doubt special interests are whispering in the ears of our leaders; yet i don't think their decisions is solely a matter of throwing at dart board as to where they want to spend money. Surely they have consultation to some knowledgeable and accredited individuals in economic policy.

Waste of money on many programs; sure! This though is nothing different than the waste of money that has been occuring the last 8 years. "Financial Disaster" though?!?! gimme a fucking break....

Quote :

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week that the measure is likely to create between 1.3 million and 3.9 million jobs by the end of 2010, lowering a projected unemployment rate of 8.7 percent by up to 2.1 percentage points. But the CBO warned the long-term effect of that much government spending over the next decade could "crowd out" private investment, lowering long-term economic growth forecasts by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent by 2019."

fair enough

Quote :

"We need to spend money on infrastructure and on other programs that will immediately put people to work. But this is not it," said Sen. John McCain,"

very true I agree! McCain please encourage your fellow Republicans to act like adults though and not pout the next 2-4-6 years after last Novembers defeat. Let the Dems defeat themselves. If their policies and vision are wrong than the your party will be promptly rewarded in the following congressional-presidential-senatorial elections. Acting like a stubborn 2 year old though and holding up legislation though just to prove your partisan-hackiness will not win any votes.

Franklin Roosevelt is not remembered and revered b.c all his economic policies worked. He goes down a hero in the history books b.c he gave america hope and at least "tried".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/08/congress.economy/index.html

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 10:33 PM. Reason : L]

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : k]

2/8/2009 10:32:24 PM

FDR's programs dragged the depression out longer than it would otherwise have lasted and led to our current culture of entitlement and big government. He did more damage than any other president in history.

2/8/2009 11:09:00 PM

Quote :

"He did more damage than any other president in history."

i'm sure some liberals would like to argue the same for bush. I enjoy gross exaggerations to help support ones arguments.

2/8/2009 11:40:22 PM

They both did unprecedented levels of damage. I don't want either.

2/8/2009 11:41:06 PM

Quote :

"Rankings by Liberals and Conservatives Rank Liberals (n=190) Conservatives (n=50) 1 Lincoln Lincoln 2 Franklin Roosevelt Washington 3 Washington Franklin Roosevelt 4 Jefferson Jefferson 5 Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt 6 Wilson Jackson 7 Jackson Truman 8 Truman Wilson 9 Lyndon Johnson Eisenhower 10 John Adams John Adams ... 30 Coolidge Carter 31 Pierce Nixon 32 Buchanan Pierce 33 Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson 34 Grant Buchanan 35 Nixon Grant 36 Harding Harding"

funny Kurtis636 seems even so called labeled "conservatives" have voted FDR has a top president in US history. This must be one of those liberal biased poll spread by the evil liberal media conspiring to destroy amurica.

True the conservative size of 50 is kinda low but that still a fairly high ranking for a destryer and perpetrator of economic depression. Evil FDR spreader of gov't subsidizes and today's welfare generation grrr...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_presidents

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason : k]

2/8/2009 11:42:30 PM

Quote :

"This though is nothing different than the waste of money that has been occuring the last 8 years."

Yup, I didn't agree with Bush doing it either. Bush was not a fiscally conservative president.

Quote :

"The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Mr. Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office -- a period during which his party controlled Congress -- he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Mr. Bush's second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275512887811775.html

2/8/2009 11:57:00 PM

The difference between a "conservative" and a "liberal" is so minimal that it can be ignored. Both major parties are in favor of more taxation, more spending, and more regulation of personal freedom. The only things they differ on is which segment to tax more, what to spend it on, and which freedoms to regulate.

We only have one party, and it's the party of big government. They want us to be dependent on them. As much as people like to think Obama will change things he simply won't, at least not in the way they think.

2/9/2009 12:29:56 AM

^Agreed completely.

...Except for that last sentence. I doubt smaller government even registers as an option on the table to most people when it comes to change in government. I'd call it black and white thinking, but it's more like black and a different shade of black, with white never even being mentioned.

2/9/2009 12:36:23 AM

Quote :

"funny Kurtis636 seems even so called labeled "conservatives" have voted FDR has a top president in US history."

Of course they do. He grew the size of government, militarized American society, and waged a world war to put the war on terror to shame. If conservatives liked George Bush Jr then logically they would love FDR.

Quote :

"Franklin Roosevelt is not remembered and revered b.c all his economic policies worked. He goes down a hero in the history books b.c he gave america hope and at least "tried"."

I am curious. You are president. I tell you that if you do nothing then the country will right itself in a year or two but you will be hated for ignoring the suffering of the people. Or, you can 'try' through bold, persistent experimentation, which will plunge the capitalist system into disarray and cause a generation to languish in poverty, but you will be revered for giving America hope and at least "tried".

It is easy to give America hope when it has none. If something is a bad idea in good economic times then it is likely to be a disaster in bad economic times. The stimulus is a bad idea because it makes Americans poorer both by expectation through higher future taxes and absolutely by diverting resources away from the private sector into the public sector which is dominated by negative sum games.

2/9/2009 1:06:56 AM

Quote :

"I tell you that if you do nothing then the country will right itself in a year or two but you will be hated for ignoring the suffering"

You could pull it off I think with a combination of excellent communication skills and a willingness to actively deny yourself most of the perks of power-to suffer along with the populace.

2/9/2009 1:14:49 AM

when this plan makes economic conditions worse, it will be easier for Obama and his cronies to enact more and more socialist policies because most voters don't understand what they are giving up to have a few crumbs that the government is tossing to them. when the Peters are broke, where will the politicians get the money to promise to the Pauls?

2/9/2009 1:29:27 AM

Quote :

"I tell you that if you do nothing then the country will right itself in a year or two but you will be hated for ignoring the suffering of the people."

Biggest election blunder of all time. Had American voted back Hoover the great depression would never have been and everything would have been back to business by 1931

2/9/2009 8:52:37 AM

^ LoneShark thinks that the Great Depression and whatever we're in now are just "normal business cycle" repressions, contrary to every single point of evidence about what got us into this mess.

Of course, the great thing about his argument is that he can never be proved wrong, so he always wins! For him, anything that happens to get us in our out of a recession could have happened better or faster if the government hadn't touched it. If a recession lasted 4 months, he would claim it would have lasted 3 if the government didn't do ___. If it lasts 12 months, it could have only lasted 9 of the government didn't ____.

2/9/2009 9:19:23 AM

here's a breakout of the package

2/9/2009 9:42:46 AM

2/9/2009 10:05:07 AM

double fail

2/9/2009 10:07:41 AM

Quote :

"Biggest election blunder of all time. Had American voted back Hoover the great depression would never have been and everything would have been back to business by 1931"

Pay closer attention. Thankfully, Obama is acting more like Hoover than FDR. Afterall, Obama has not actually declared war upon the capitalist system as FDR did. Obama is trying to tweak it by raising spending and buying American, just like Hoover. Afterall, Hoover increased federal spending by 40%, about the same as Obama is proposing, but nothing close to FDR's 100+% increase in federal spending. And Hoover stamped out world trade, while Obama only wants to stamp out trade for ~30% of the U.S. economy instead of Hoover's ~95%. Overall, FDR lowered trade barriers, the exact opposite of what Obama is proposing.

As such, other than rhetoric Obama is a close match with Hoover and a poor match with FDR.

Quote :

"LoneShark thinks that the Great Depression and whatever we're in now are just "normal business cycle" repressions, contrary to every single point of evidence about what got us into this mess."

Wait, are you suggesting this is the first banking crisis to be caused by a housing bubble in American history? What evidence do you have that this time it is special, other than that politicians are clamoring to do the same crap they do every recession? Anyone remember Bush Jr's stimulus bills (plural)? And Nixon's?

Quote :

"Of course, the great thing about his argument is that he can never be proved wrong, so he always wins! For him, anything that happens to get us in our out of a recession could have happened better or faster if the government hadn't touched it."

Well, yes, but if you bothered to think about it that complaint goes both ways and is normal for any sufficiently complex system. Anything that happens to get us in or out of a recession could have happened better or faster if the government had only done more, as Obama and Congress are arguing right now. If only the government does more then the recession will end, if it does not do more then the recession will drag on forever. Which is indefensible in American history: every recession where the government did no more or did even less (pre 1929) ended within three years. The first time the government did more every year of the recession it drug on for 12 years, only to be truely ended by a world war. If our goal is to avoid a great depression, then don't do what was done during the great depression.

2/9/2009 10:36:01 AM

town hall on c-span right now

2/9/2009 12:31:57 PM

Quote :

"sure the current plan is not perfect and needs a lot of work. Can Republican leaders though get off their fucking partisan hack-wagon long enough to get something done though? "

Are you paying attention to this at all? There's bi-partisan support...AGAINST the bill. I imagine that's what you'd call the 11 Democrats in the House that voted against the Bill. Maybe you should admonish them for not going along with the plan?

2/9/2009 1:16:23 PM

2 public opinion polls just released today.


Gallup - Do you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following has handled the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill?


President Obama: 67% approve, 25% disapprove
Democrats in Congress: 48% approve, 42% disapprove
Republicans in Congress: 31% approve, 58% disapprove

CNN -
Obama - 76% approval rating; while only 23% dissaproved
64% of American's of American's feel the stimulus, will help a little or a lot, comapred to 36% that won't.

-----------------------------------------

Ha! So much for the conservatives trying to grandstand and spin the media PR war. Seems like it's not working. This all comes down to in 4 years, is our economy doing much better or is it not? Proof will ultimately be in the pudding.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM. Reason : -]

2/9/2009 2:12:27 PM

at some point you guys are gonna have to host that pic on tww

2/9/2009 2:23:09 PM

Quote :

"Ha! So much for the conservatives trying to grandstand and spin the media PR war. Seems like it's not working. This all comes down to in 4 years, is our economy doing much better or is it not? Proof will ultimately be in the pudding."

I, for one, love to see how we've evolved into post-partisan America now that Obama's in charge, and not simply a role reversal of the same petty partisan bickering that Democrats bitched about for the last eight years under Bush.

Yup, sure is nice to see how things have, uh, changed.

2/9/2009 2:25:23 PM

No one is saying it's a post-partisan America, but the idea that we have a rampant super socialist hyper latte sipping liberal is a a complete fallacy and people can see that. Deflating that theory cuts the biggest piece of ammo that conservatives have on him as a leader. You con continue that line of attack, or in your case, your zero sum cynicism for the next 8 years for all I care. Excuse the rest of us as we try to get something done.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : -]

2/9/2009 2:36:00 PM

The Washington Post made a good point this morning about how the government is ill-equipped to handle such a rapid influx of money. Acquisition personnel, which has already been lacking to begin with, are now going to be asked to handle an even larger number of projects and tasks.

I have no problem with spending large amounts of money to restart the economy through infrastructure spending, tax cuts, "green jobs" and whatnot, but I do have a big issue with the question of whether or not the money will be spent properly. We already had enough of that under the second Bush administration. The last thing I want to see is this stimulus bill become TARP 2.0: a giant black hole where money disappears into without any real accountability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802367.html

Quote :

"The Obama administration's economic stimulus plan could end up wasting billions of dollars by attempting to spend money faster than an overburdened government acquisition system can manage and oversee it, according to documents and interviews with contracting specialists. The $827 billion stimulus legislation under debate in Congress includes provisions aimed at ensuring oversight of the massive infusion of contracts, state grants and other measures. At the urging of the administration, those provisions call for transparency, bid competition, and new auditing resources and oversight boards. But under the terms of the stimulus proposals, a depleted contracting workforce would be asked to spend more money more rapidly than ever before, while also improving competition and oversight. Auditors would be asked to track surges in spending on projects ranging from bridge construction and schools to research of "green" energy and the development of electronic health records -- a challenge made more difficult because many contracts would be awarded by state agencies. The stimulus plan presents a stark choice: The government can spend unprecedented amounts of money quickly in an effort to jump-start the economy or it can move more deliberately to thwart the cost overruns common to federal contracts in recent years. "You can't have both," said Eileen Norcross, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center who studied crisis spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "There is no way to get around having to make a choice.""

A piece I heard on NPR only helped reinforce those feelings...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100304449

Quote :

"...When this bill passes, a Niagara Falls of money will flow out of Washington and into the accounts of state highway commissioners, governors and legislatures, local school boards, county executives — even mayors, [Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution] says. "It raises a whole host of questions about how efficiently money can be spent, how effectively it will be spent, how quickly money can be spent, just because there's no set process here for determining how money will get out the door to create jobs or, as the president said, to save jobs," she says..."

Quote :

"As it stands now, says David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general, the bill appears to have no mechanism for directing spending. It's left up to those state and local officials, who may or may not have the ideas or the means to spend it appropriately. And that will lead to "a series of disappointments that it's too late to do anything about," Walker says. The bill does make it possible for lawmakers and the public to track the money — but only after it's spent. And that, he says, will lead to bad surprises. Take, for example, the giant bank bailout known as TARP. That spending has gone all wrong, Walker says. Though the inspector general and the Government Accountability Office are keeping track of the billions spent there, "they're basically reporting on what didn't happen," he says. "Well, it's a little bit late," he says. "And so the question is, what are you going to do on a prospective basis? I mean, you can't change history. What are you going to do on a prospective basis to minimize the possibility of being disappointed again?""

To be fair, Rep. Obey (D-WI) states that the bill has "more oversight built into this package than any package in the history of man," but it as mentioned by Walker, the oversight doesn't give us much visibility until after its spent.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM. Reason : bolded text]

2/9/2009 2:43:52 PM

Opinion polls of John Q Public are not a valid source to determine the legitimacy of an economic plan.

If Obama shoots down the pork he'll gain a huge amount of trust in my eyes. Otherwise hes no better than the last 8 years.

2/9/2009 2:43:57 PM

Quote :

"You con continue that line of attack, or in your case, your zero sum cynicism for the next 8 years for all I care. Excuse the rest of us as we try to get something done."

Ah yes. The magic logic of "DO SOMETHING!11!!!" triumphing over all. Which has already brought us such success stories as:

-The Iraq War
-The PATRIOT Act
-The Bank Bailout
-The Auto Bailout

With such a stellar track record, how could one not deny the efficacy of that logic? I mean, doing something must therefore be automatically better than doing nothing at all, no matter how ill-structured, rent-seeking, or the like. Because you see, something is always better than nothing, as the track record above shows.

And remember, kids - if you point out anything to the contrary, why you're just a hyper-partisan obstructionist cynic. That is, now that it's the right person pressing that we DO SOMETHING!11!!!

2/9/2009 2:48:47 PM

Duly noted. I don't believe that obstructing or holding pat during some times is always a bad thing....but I do believe that the economy is in such a bubbling shithole, that this isn't the time to do nothing.

All signs point toward a depression unless we do something. Unifying to say no with no real alternative isn't going to cut it.

2/9/2009 3:01:17 PM

Apparently you haven't read anything else that was posted. Most everyone against the current bill wants a much more limited stimulus plan focused around tax cuts and immediate infrastructure improvement. Without any of the extra crap tacked on.

2/9/2009 3:03:38 PM

2/9/2009 5:40:45 PM

Quote :

" All signs point toward a depression unless we do something."

What signs would those be?

2/9/2009 10:05:12 PM

I'm no economist snark, but it's clear to see the indicators like a broken banking system and bank failure rates, raging unemployment - in some areas approaching 20% (great depression was what - 25%?), shrinking of the middle class, consumer confidence completely shattered and not think - how bad could this get?

I'm sure you're going to give me some insightful counter commentary but how the shit can you deny these problems, and be real in addressing it will you?

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason : -]

2/9/2009 10:15:06 PM

Quote :

"Unifying to say no with no real alternative isn't going to cut it. "

I'm fairly conservative and I agree with you that our gov't can so some things to help. ..mostly in the form of tax cuts.

Obama is quick to point out that tax-cuts alone are not the answer to any problem. This bill is 1/3 tax-cuts and 2/3rds new gov't spending...most of which is irreversible. Polls show that the people want more tax-cuts than spending.

He has made a big mistake in allowing the most radical people in his party write this bill.

2/9/2009 10:26:53 PM

^i don't trust the electorate to understand what will and will not work in an issue as momentous as this. we elect 535 representatives and a leader so that they can make decisions that we cannot effectively make ourselves. making a decision on proportion of tax-cuts to spending only on the will of the people is downright dangerous

2/9/2009 10:38:22 PM

Quote :

"Polls show that the people want more tax-cuts than spending. "

Of course people want tax cuts. But we saw with the last round of stimulus checks, the people won't necessarily use that money to stimulate the economy. They'll use it to pay off their debts. Paying off debt is great, but it doesn't boost the economy.

2/9/2009 10:45:26 PM

Quote :

"raging unemployment - in some areas approaching 20% "

Look, I'm not a huge fan of U3 getting all the attention, but did you even take a minute to look at where the highest rates of unemployment are? California, just like we'd expect. And even most of these areas are topping out at around 15%. That's pretty reasonable considering the housing boom is what caused all this mess. Hell, even the San Diego area is coming in right about average.

2/9/2009 10:46:01 PM

Quote :

"raging unemployment - in some areas approaching 20% (great depression was what - 25%?)"

nice logical fallacy there. apples and oranges comparision. NATIONWIDE unemployment was 25% in the great depression, right now its around 8%.

2/9/2009 10:49:21 PM

Quote :

"Polls show that the people want more tax-cuts than spending. "

What poll shows this?

And I wonder, has there ever, in the history of polls, been a poll where people DIDN'T want tax cuts?

2/9/2009 11:40:16 PM

Quote :

"Paying off debt is great, but it doesn't boost the economy."

And building a butterfly garden does? I thought some of the "Change" was that gov't would stop reckless spending.

Quote :

"What poll shows this?"

What's the point? Polls only count when they support Obama, right? Oh well, here you go anyway...

Quote :

"With the Senate poised to vote Tuesday on an $827-billion version of the economic recovery plan, 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending. Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) would be happy to pass it pretty much as is, and five percent (5%) are not sure. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20090209/pl_rasmussen/stimulusplan20090209

Yes surprise surprise... people want to hang on to their hard-earned money.

2/10/2009 12:06:31 AM

Using tax payer money to subsidize the oil barons, give gov't contractsour buddies in Halliburton, bail out the CEOs and big corporations is part of capitalism and the "American Way"

Using tax payer money to help out its own people and bail out mortgage owners deceived by the banks (granted many were just irresponsible) is evil liberal socialism

2/10/2009 12:11:17 AM

^^

Quote :

"Polls show that the people want more tax-cuts than spending. "

This is not what those polls are showing. Unless you meant more tax cuts added than spending. But the poll doesn't really ask about the preferred ratio of overall spending/tax cuts. The earlier Fox News poll IIRC had a very slim majority wanting more spending overall than tax cuts.

2/10/2009 12:16:10 AM

^
It's both evil socialism..although not restricted to just liberals.

We seperate Church and State. We should seperate The Economy and State too.

2/10/2009 12:16:51 AM

Quote :

"I'm no economist snark, but it's clear to see the indicators like a broken banking system and bank failure rates, raging unemployment - in some areas approaching 20% (great depression was what - 25%?), shrinking of the middle class, consumer confidence completely shattered and not think - how bad could this get? I'm sure you're going to give me some insightful counter commentary but how the shit can you deny these problems, and be real in addressing it will you?"

Bank failure rates are not impressive: in 2008 25 banks failed. In 1989 550 banks folded, 20 times more. Unemployment is not yet impressive; it was higher in 1991 I believe. The shrinking of the middle class is not impressive, I suspect it was smaller in 2002. The loss of consumer confidence is substantial, but it was much worse in 1980 when everyone honestly believed the world was coming to an end (anyone remember a fixed rate mortgage for 20%?)

That said, how bad could this get? Where, we are never so bad off that we cannot make it worse. But I suspect Obama and his ilk are not stupid. They will keep the impact of the stimulus bill small enough for the American people to absorb the shock. As such, while it will rob every man women and child to make lobbyists filthy rich, it will not cause another depression. As such, it is my opinion that this recession will end within the year. The world economy is just no longer structured in such a way to sustain a prolonged recession without gross government intervention, no matter how much capital the government eats up, and nationalizing a handful of companies is simply not gross enough in my opinion (but there is widespread disagreement over the impact of Zombie Corporations, a feature that has never existed before on the American landscape).

[Edited on February 10, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/10/2009 12:18:02 AM

^ we're still on the downward slope of job losses, which is a bad place to be at a 16 year worse.

You also have to look at bank failure rates in terms of $$$ not just pure number of banks. I don't have the exact numbers, but it's similarly as bad.

Things are pretty bad, and we haven't hit bottom yet, but we may be close (or maybe not, I don't know).

2/10/2009 12:29:21 AM

I agree to a point. I have no doubt it will get worse in 2009. But for every recession there is always this point where it looks dreadful.

But just as people had a hard time understanding that house prices would not always go up, people today are having a hard time understanding that unemployment will not always go up. After awhile companies will feel secure in their balance sheets and stop, and then we will have no where to go but up.

2/10/2009 12:40:56 AM

Quote :

"and then we will have no where to go but up"

Eh, or sideways maybe?

Quote :

"You also have to look at bank failure rates in terms of $$$ not just pure number of banks. I don't have the exact numbers, but it's similarly as bad"

That and the fact that banks are more regional in scope thanks to the interwebs, atms, and transportation than they were in the 30s. Also, we've had 9 (or 10?) failures thus far in 2009.

2/10/2009 8:46:07 AM

Quote :

"Of course people want tax cuts. But we saw with the last round of stimulus checks, the people won't necessarily use that money to stimulate the economy. They'll use it to pay off their debts. Paying off debt is great, but it doesn't boost the economy."

That stimulus of $500 checks was a joke. That's a tiny drop in the bucket for most people. It didn't even register a blip in my budget. That's totally different than really having a lot more money to work with. Let's say the federal government suspended, for two years, all income tax. That's a huge sum of money that is no longer being taken from the people. Sure people will pay off debt. Won't that money given to credit card companies and other banks then be further put to work in the economy in the form of loans to other people? Additionally, given that huge tax break people will spend more money as well on goods. I realize this would create a huge budget deficiet at the federal gov't, but isn't borrowing $1 trillion from the Chinese and Japanese for a "stimulus" doing the same thing?

That being said, I'm no economic guru so correct me if I'm making horribly wrong assumptions.

[Edited on February 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : b]

2/10/2009 10:11:42 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

"This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. "

Healthcare for all! (Or just the people that the government sees fit to live.) Real stimulus here.

2/10/2009 11:47:05 AM