6
   

Is the Stimulus Plan going to do America More Harm than good?

 
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 10:57 am
Obama's plan just passed in Congress and awaits his signature, however, he got no support from Republicans in the House, and not much more in the senate.

We are going to spend Hundreds of Billion in the upcoming years that our kids, and the children of our kids will be paying for. Yet how much of this spending is really necessary? How much of it will really aid the economy?

I think the stimulus plan will not be good for the United States, and I think it will send us deeper into recession, if not send us into a full blown depression.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 3,302 • Replies: 41
No top replies

 
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:01 am
@oneandone,
Welcome to a2k. I'm sorry to say, but your first thread will quickly devolve to a shouting match.

You're correct in your assessment, unfortunately.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:05 am
@oneandone,
How much do you know about economics?

Since the finest economic minds in the world are at a loss as to how to deal with this problem...how in the world can you come here an post this kind of drivel?

Why don't you give us the benefit of your incredible economic knowledge...and tell what should be done!
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Since the finest economic minds in the world are at a loss as to how to deal with this problem...how in the world can you come here an post this kind of drivel?


Frank, just out of curiosity, how many of these "fine" economic minds were accurate in predicting our current predicament and when did they realize what was happening right before their eyes?
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:19 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Frank, just out of curiosity, how many of these "fine" economic minds were accurate in predicting our current predicament and when did they realize what was happening right before their eyes?


MY POINT EXACTLY, Maporsche.

The finest economic minds in the world were not up to the job of correctly predicting this coming...and cannot correctly figure out what to do about it...cannot accurately say what should be done to correct it...cannot accurately say what is being done that will help or hurt...

...and then this guy comes along and make this childish prediction based on what???

Great economic knowledge...or just some asshole conservative getting in a shot where he thought he'd be able to do so?
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
I think the problem though Frank, and I don't think you need to be an economist to figure this out, is that our entire country from the President to the sewer workers have engaged in spending more money than they have, and they've massively borrowed money to live a life they couldn't afford to live.

The solution to this problem CAN NOT be more of the same borrowing and spending. It defies logic.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:37 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
I think the problem though Frank, and I don't think you need to be an economist to figure this out, is that our entire country from the President to the sewer workers have engaged in spending more money than they have, and they've massively borrowed money to live a life they couldn't afford to live.

The solution to this problem CAN NOT be more of the same borrowing and spending. It defies logic.


Honestly, maporsche...there are lots of things that defy logic.

Spending one's way out of this kind of problem seems to be the way most economists...liberal, middle of the road, and conservative...seem to think has the best chance of working.

Will it work? I have absolutely NO IDEA WHATSOEVER.

I suspect neither you nor Oneandone so either.

My comment to Oneandone...was motivated by that supposition.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Spending one's way out of this kind of problem seems to be the way most economists...liberal, middle of the road, and conservative...seem to think has the best chance of working.


These are the same economists who couldn't predict the mess we're in now right?

The American public does like to award incompetence doesn't it? I mean even Bush won a 2nd term.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:54 am
@maporsche,
They are the only economists we have, maporsche.

Obviously I am not saying they are correct....although since they are all over the place on the issues and some of them are going to be correct, even if accidentally.

I merely was commenting on the presumptuousness of Oneandone's analysis.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:54 am
@maporsche,
I did like that Bush being reelected comment, though!!! Wink
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 01:17 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Spending one's way out of this kind of problem seems to be the way most economists...liberal, middle of the road, and conservative...seem to think has the best chance of working.


These are the same economists who couldn't predict the mess we're in now right?


Do you think the ability to predict how bad certain large institutions leveraged themselves is directly related to how much they know about how economics works?

They didn't predict it because they didn't know the banks were leveraged the way they were, and if they were not leveraged the way they were this economic crisis would not be what it is.

That doesn't mean they are suddenly also wrong about basic economic concepts.

And step back and use your own argument, you didn't know any of this either, so why should we listen to you now when you claim the bailout is bad? Just because some prophets of doom, who always predict doom, say so?

A stopped clock is right twice a day, how do you know you aren't touting the advice of a stopped clock just because some of the doom predictions came true (do note that your prophets of doom have made many other predictions of doom that did not take place).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 02:47 pm
Simple fact since 1948 in the US.

Deficit spending by the government tends to increase GDP growth in the civilian sector.

Basically what that means is if you take the median GDP growth and the median deficit spending as % of GDP you will find that statistically the largest growth years also have the largest deficit spending. This would tend to point to deficit spending helps grow the economy.


What is interesting is that the tax rate as % of GDP has little effect on civilian GDP growth when you account for deficit spending. What that means is that deficit spending is more likely to affect the economy than will tax cuts.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:11 pm
@parados,
What is more galling is all these guys predicting doom and gloom when our government tries to save our economy, and these very same complainers didn't complain when Bush spent billions on the Iraq war. (Which BTW is now costing ten billion every month.)

The stimulus plan is to help the American people, and the Iraq war just increases the debt for our children and grandchildren while Bush spent more than revenue - while also cutting taxes.

Common sense and logic doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

OGIONIK
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
the problem is that any monetary economic system will FAIL.

it is value based on nothing, most people cannot wrap their minds around this concept.


what do you do for work? how does this benefit society?

who really benefits off of your labor?

in the end, who really owns your property?

are we free or more along the lines of surfs?

how does your money get to you in the first place?

do we need banks, the "fed"?

why does our money "need" to come from a bank?


why cant we carry more than 10 thousand dollars on us in cash any ******* way?

is that akin to forcing us to put our money in a bank?

how can the government tell us how to properly hold our "currency" if its not innately immoral or even illegal, are they in essence telling us we can have too much cash?

we must put "our property" into someones elses "control"?

wake up, see beyond your training. think with logic, dont give in to dogma and rhetoric.

were all slaves.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 11:23 am
@OGIONIK,
OGIO, There wouldn't be any economic system without money. Bartering can go just so far; how do you trade without money? How would you buy your clothes and food?

What I did for work were varied throughout my life; and I was paid in US dollars. After I got married, we saved and spent some of our earnings.

Society benefits from the very fact that what I did added value to the economy by providing an important service. It was through my manual labor or my ability to manage finances for several companies. All my bosses thought I added value, because I always received a pay increase and promotions to higher levels of management.

It doesn't matter who "owns" our property; we occupy it and it's totally paid for; no mortgage, only property taxes. Our children will inherit our property when we are gone.

Our savings far exceeds what we put into it even after this bear market; and I still have faith in our long-term economy. My wife lost 11%, and I lost 18% through the end of last year; not as bad as many of our friends and family.

The standard of living we have enjoyed for most of our lives is satisfaction enough for this senior citizen who calls the US home.

0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 12:08 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote :

Quote:
The solution to this problem CAN NOT be more of the same borrowing and spending. It defies logic.


do you offer any solution to the problem , mp ?
let the economy crash and burn ?
how many million unemployed will the american economy be able to tolerate ?
those are simple questions - do you have simple answers ?
hbg

perhaps hooverville is an acceptable solution ?
(i imagine you've read about it and the great depression ) .

http://www.utwatch.org/images/hooverville.jpg

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 12:11 pm
@hamburger,
I don't think maporsche has any idea what the great depression was like - or has much knowledge about economics. He thinks doing nothing is the best solution.

0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 01:59 pm
@hamburger,
Robert had mentioned in another thread that the main problem was unemployment also.

This bill spends $240,000 for every job it claims to save or create. It seems like there would have to be better options out there to save/create jobs.

I know that not all of this bill was allocated to creating jobs (a few hundred billion for tax cuts for example), but really this is what most people claim is the biggest issue (including Obama), but we're spending way too much to solve it. This bill is just way too expensive for the relatively few jobs that it creates/saves.

I think the tax cuts were a horrible idea (and I believe they will have little to no impact), and I would have supported raising taxes on the higher income levels as Obama promised in his campaign.

As far as umemployment, history shows us that 10%-12%, while not ideal, also does not cause society to break down and cease functioning.

Why not allocate all those tax cuts to an unemployment fund or retraining fund?


And yes, given the option of doing the wrong, expensive thing, and doing nothing, I tend to lean toward nothing (which could also be the wrong choice, I just don't know, and neither do you.)
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 02:58 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche, You simple mind cannot grasp the macro-economic effect of "saving jobs."
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 03:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I have to remember that it's not worth my time to converse with you and your one liners.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the Stimulus Plan going to do America More Harm than good?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 12:53:03