Originally Posted By DAR <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090707/pl_nm/us_usa_economy_stimulus_6" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...imulus_6</a> Suprisingly and thankfully Harry Reid was one of the more reasonable voices in saying a second stimulus isn't needed. But for it to be even suggested when we don't know how this first stimulus is working out is just beyond ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Mr X Screw Harry Reid, I say go for 5 or 6...whatever it takes. Depression level economics call for depression era solutions...time for some BIG, BIG, BIG government here...and I say, screw the Republicans...they are toothless anyway. Spend away. It's necessary (and smart).
Originally Posted By dshyates Less than 1/3 of the first stimulus pkg has actually been paid out. So talk of a second seems premature.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But for it to be even suggested when we don't know how this first stimulus is working out is just beyond ridiculous. >> What we do know is that first stimulus was based on a certain level of economic activity and employment figures. It turns out that both unemployment and GDP numbers are worse than envisioned when the first stimulus was put together. So, it's not ridiculous to suggest that the first stimulus is insufficient in scope to cause a correction in the numbers that are already worse than what was envisioned. There's really only 2 ways to go here: 1) Continue the stimulus activity and hope that you get the figures right to create some employment and inflation numbers that will ultimately overcome the debts that are being incurred. The American people will pay a hefty price in inflation if the stimulus path ultimately succeeds. 2) Let the economy deflate naturally with continued unemployment, reduction in wages, bankruptcies, etc. The American people will pay a hefty price in suffering to make ends meet under this scenario, too. Either way, bursting bubbles result in painful consequences. There aren't any smooth paths out of this mess.
Originally Posted By andyll It's premature. But the talk is a result of the public getting nervous that the economy has not been fixed. It's amazing that the original projections of a multiple year bad recession has been revised to the beginnings of growth in the late 3rd or 4th quarter but people are more pessimistic then before. I wonder why that is?
Originally Posted By mele I blame the press for nearly all of the public's perception about our economy. They're doing a lot of damage with their constant harping on how bad things are.
Originally Posted By DAR Trust me I've been to about 11 Brewers games this year and the crowds haven't been below 35,000, beer and food sales are steady and the gift shops are always packed. And people are buying things in there because there's always a line. The point is if we really want something even if we don't need it we're gonna find a way to get it, it's the American way.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I blame the press for nearly all of the public's perception about our economy. They're doing a lot of damage with their constant harping on how bad things are. >> No. Things are bad. Every week when I go out to the local bar to meet up with friends, it seems someone new is out of work. And there are no new jobs to be found. Some people are making do on jobs that pay less than half what they were making before, and they weren't making huge sums to start. Unemployment in my part of New England is about 12% right now. Things are falling apart and not getting better.
Originally Posted By mele I didn't say things weren't bad. I said the media is making it worse. Two different things.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I said the media is making it worse. >> Honestly, I think the media has been way behind in reporting this story from the outset. They aren't even peeling back the layers on how bad the economy is or has been.
Originally Posted By hopemax That's basically how I feel. I thought the reporting over the last quarter was basically giving people a false sense of security.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Screw Harry Reid, I say go for 5 or 6...whatever it takes. Depression level economics call for depression era solutions...time for some BIG, BIG, BIG government here...and I say, screw the Republicans...they are toothless anyway. Spend away. It's necessary (and smart).<< The fact that our current Administration's plans have our deficit being more than the previous 43 Administration's combined, has me a bit concerned. We cannot spend our way out of this, we are far too much into debt for that to happen, and if it continues, the dollar will more than likely be destroyed.... A second stimulus is the last thing we need....Besides, how much more infrastructure does Chicago really need?
Originally Posted By Mr X How much infrastructure does America need to FIX is the real question. Or, more to the point, how many more train crashes are we ready for? Bridge collapses? Power outages? etc...
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf We've had a SPENDING package, but not a STIMULUS package yet as far as I can tell. That's the problem. But unless they can figure out what they're doing, I'd rather they not spend any more of my great-great-great-great grandchildren's money. Bigger (as in more spending) is not always better.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The Stimulus, it seems is only going to help those that supported our current President during the election. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...ue_N.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ That should balance out the first $700B or so that went directly to Wall Street in the last months of the Bush administration. Can we characterize those folks as supporting the last President and getting their handout from government in the same way?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 ^^ That should balance out the first $700B or so that went directly to Wall Street in the last months of the Bush administration. Can we characterize those folks as supporting the last President and getting their handout from government in the same way<< Sure, why not but what happened to the "change" we were promised, I guess whats good for the goose is good for the gander... We still have a corrupt Presidency, just a different set of Americans are benefiting from this corruptness.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's a pretty quick and blithe assumption. From your link: "That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation." (snip) "Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says. "Most of what they're doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out," Hughes says." (snip) "Jake Wiens, an investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, says it's too soon to draw meaningful conclusions about whether the type of aid in the stimulus favors Obama's constituents. But, he says, "it will be important to pay close attention as the data come in to ensure that political favoritism plays no role." And note that this "imbalance" is only looking at the 17 billion (out of 787 billion) that was allocated to specific locales - a small fraction of the stimulus as a whole.
Originally Posted By DAR Had something like this come out about Bush, guys like Olbermann and Maher would be so excited about the possibility of this bringing Bush down they'd have to rub one out.
