Originally Posted By dshyates After looking at this stimulus package that the Dems put together, I have to say WTF!?! Only $5B on real infrastructure? The rest is just pork. And not even the right kind of pork to really stimulate the economy. Obama has his work cut out for him just wrqangling the members of his own party that don't get it.
Originally Posted By alexbook What I don't get is how throwing the budget further out of balance by lowering taxes is "fiscally conservative," while throwing the budget further out of balance by spending money is "loading debt on our children's backs." Seems to me, an out-of-balance budget is an out-of-balance budget however you get there.
Originally Posted By mawnck Megadittos, alexbook. They still just don't get it, do they. Where's that third party when you really need 'em?
Originally Posted By hopemax The problem with infrastructure is that there is a limited amount of "shovel ready" projects. Most infrastructure that we need to work on, still needs to have their feasibility, environmental impact, etc studies. It's one of the things the GOP was complaining about. "We need stimulus now, not a year from now. And I don't believe $5 billion is correct for total infrastructure. I think I heard that is what the Army Corps of Engineers total is. I also think I saw somewhere $90 billion for infrastructure. Probably, still less than what people would like, but there is that "shovel ready" problem. Yes, according to Glenn Beck's website, of all places, he lists $90 billion for infrastructure. But he was the first one I found that had quick & simple summary. <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/" target="_blank">http://www.glennbeck.com/conte...8/20639/</a> And he had a link to the Committee of Appropriations summary. <a href="http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf" target="_blank">http://appropriations.house.go...5-09.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <After looking at this stimulus package that the Dems put together, I have to say WTF!?! Only $5B on real infrastructure? The rest is just pork. And not even the right kind of pork to really stimulate the economy.> When the Republicans were in control and spending too much money, some posters would say the Democrats couldn't do worse. I would disagree. This is why. <Obama has his work cut out for him just wrqangling the members of his own party that don't get it.> You're assuming he does.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What I don't get is how throwing the budget further out of balance by lowering taxes is "fiscally conservative," while throwing the budget further out of balance by spending money is "loading debt on our children's backs."> Lowering tax rates when the rate is too high actually generates more government revenue, because the lower rates generate more economic activity. When people know they can keep more of what they earn, they are more willing to work harder and take more risk.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Lowering tax rates when the rate is too high actually generates more government revenue, because the lower rates generate more economic activity.*** Not in this economic environment it doesn't. The GOP stalwarts are foolish to assume that the same old remedy will yield the same results on this one (I'm not saying that a Democrat pork sandwich is any better either...I think a new, creative approach is necessary).
Originally Posted By dshyates Douglas, while I disagree on the tax cut theory, I do agree that I am stunned at the lack of logic with some of the Dems preposals at stimulating the economy. I think Obama may get the issues, but the house dems seem stuck in the '08s. I like that Obama called them and said WTFs up with the condoms. Get that outta there. While I have no problems with teens getting condoms, I don't see how that will stimulate the economy.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not in this economic environment it doesn't.> Maybe, maybe not. There's little evidence a bunch of pork spending will help us out of this environment.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***teens getting condoms, I don't see how that will stimulate*** >insert crass joke here<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <While I have no problems with teens getting condoms, I don't see how that will stimulate the economy.> The way I remember my teen years, the stimulus came first, and the condoms later.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<Not in this economic environment it doesn't.> Maybe, maybe not. There's little evidence a bunch of pork spending will help us out of this environment.*** Which is what I said. Right?
Originally Posted By hopemax The problem, this time, though, may be that Americans have greater debt than the savings a lower tax rate provides. Let's say you owe 20,000 and the government says, here, keep this $3000 in taxes from now on...so, great, someone only owes 17,000. Still no money to spend on stuff. And then why would very many businesses invest in upgrades and more workers, if there isn't an immediate market for their products? I don't see how, this time, tax cuts trickle down. I see them getting stuck in business and personal savings accounts, and many consumers paying off existing debt. Meanwhile, I can see how giving someone with no income, a job, gives them the ability to buy stuff, pay taxes, If stuff is getting purchased, then businesses start loosening their purse strings and invest.
Originally Posted By hopemax Why are we even talking about condoms, it got taken out of the bill? I have my theories that stuff was put in, just so the Republicans could demand it be taken out, and the Democrats could agree. See, bipartisanship!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which is what I said. Right?> yes. Personally, I prefer that President Obama announce he's just going to let the market correct itself - leave tax rates and spending levels at their current levels.
Originally Posted By hopemax > Meanwhile, I can see how giving someone with no income, a job, gives them the ability to buy stuff, pay taxes, If stuff is getting purchased, then businesses start loosening their purse strings and invest.< Or, prevents someone currently with the ability to buy stuff, not lose their job, and therefore their ability to buy stuff, which causes businesses to have to cut back, because less people are buying their stuff. Which is where we still are...we have to stop the bleeding.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Personally, I prefer that President Obama announce he's just going to let the market correct itself - leave tax rates and spending levels at their current levels.*** I'm not sure if that is wise, mostly because I think it's too late for that. That's something that should've been done back in late 06, before the government kept meddling in a bizarre effort to orchestrate a "soft landing" (which served only to prolong the inevitable, and still does). What NEEDS to happen is that the failed companies need to go ahead and fail. Transparency needs to be a priority going forward. And, if there IS a government intervention I believe it should be a multi-national, coordinated effort..not just a bunch of countries sitting around asking when America is going to fix this mess.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I don't see how, this time, tax cuts trickle down. I see them getting stuck in business and personal savings accounts, and many consumers paying off existing debt.*** Yup. Just look at what the banks did with all that bailout money. They horded it. There is an atmosphere of fear and panic out there now, and nobody is going to head back towards irrational exuberance anytime soon.
Originally Posted By hopemax And another thing, I've been wondering...I'll call it the "government spending paradox." This is the time to spend on stuff. Labor and supplies are at bargain basement prices. However, it's also when the tax receipts are lowest, so the government is least able to afford it. Vice versa, if you are collecting a lot in taxes, it's gonna cost more. (Plus, you know someone is gonna say it's time to cut taxes). So should government spend when you get the most bang for your buck, or when you have the bucks?
Originally Posted By avromark Well it is Free Enterprise afterall. We all know Corporations have Americas interest at heart. We all know Corporate America is more important than Americans afterall. They are America!
