The Stimulus

dhickey · January 30, 2009, 1:49am

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
What does everyone think of the stimulus package? It’s $825 Billion and growing everyday.

Is more spending the answer? Is it do or die if it doesn’t get passed?

The journal obviously think’s it’a a waste of money. If so the amount of money being wasted is staggering.

The IMF says it could be a lot worse and we are probably at the end of the recession.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022672.php

The Congessional Budget Office. The watchdog of congeressional spending also doesn’t hold the bill in high regard.

http://readthestimulus.org/cbo_charts.php

The quote from “read the stimulus” sums it up nicely.

“Apparently, it is a huge crisis which requires swift action (and no time to read bill text) to pass a massive spending bill — but there seems to be no hurry at all to get the money into the American economy anytime soon.”

I would add it doesn’t seem to do much for job creation and consumer confidence…the real problems.

This of course likely means the stimulus will work, as I remember Obama would never win PA.

And the CBO actually said:

The bill, Elmendorf said, “would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation.”

With the bill, CBO figured economic output would be between 1.3 percent and 3.6 percent higher at the end of this year, higher by a similar amount at the end of 2010 and even higher in 2011.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60822.html

Somehow you opted to push the CBO’s analysis of a small part of an outdated stimulus proposal that wingnuts have been duping media figures with for the past several days.

Of course facts never your strong suit. Oh well.

[/quote]

The question that needs to be asked is “at what cost?”. Nobody ever looks past the immediate implications. This money is not free. This money is being put in the discretion of the same people that have wasted trillions already and put us in this situation.

There are much better solutions than this bill. What if we cut income and capital gains tax for 3 months? Still have to cut spending or pay later, but at least the money is in the hands of the consumers and those that create jobs immidiatly.

Immidiatly being spent on goods and services and investments that we all deem most important. Not being spent on projects and programs to buy votes.

you really want a solution, cut taxes permanently and cut spending. Our corporate tax rates are disgusting, even compared to socialist europe. you think that helps keep jobs here? you think that stimulates investment, domestic or foriegn? retarded.

dhickey · January 30, 2009, 1:51am

[quote]100meters wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
If Bush’s drunken sailor spending increases didn’t avoid a recession, how is spending that absolutely puts that and all drunken sailors to shame going to be anti-recessionary?

I had thought “failed Bush economic policies” – such a favorite catchphrase of the left – meant irresponsibly running up the deficit?

By failed bush economic policies, I think we mean policies that predictably bring us to brink of a depression as we’ve been saying for the past 8 years. 8 years of huge deficit spending leading to a depression = irresponsible. Deficit spending to correct or prevent the depression caused by the previous party obviously wouldn’t be irresponsible, just critically necessary.

That’s why folks who care about “economy” vote democratic. (see election results)[/quote]

what do deficites in federal spending have to do with a recession? You ever read a book a economics?

dhickey · January 29, 2009, 9:00pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
The catch is, how do you get others to change their perspective?

Obviously, neither stimulus package has done that.[/quote]

time. leaving them more of their money helps too. show me one recession that didn’t eventually end. gov’t cannot shorten recessions by spending more, they can only prolong them.

The best they can do is reverse the policies that hamper the economy. let individuals buy products and services that need. let them invest the rest.

dhickey · January 30, 2009, 2:02am

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
forlife wrote:
Then again, the market is ultimately a psychological game. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and the more confidence people have, the more the market will prosper. Unfortunately, neither stimulus package seems to have increased confidence to any great degree.

You want restored confidence? How about a change of perspective?

Do we still have:

Food in our kitchen?
Gas in our gas tank?
Working electricity?
A warm place to sleep?
Untattered clothing hanging in our wardrobe?
A source of income?[/quote]

not for long, but most aren’t aware yet.

dhickey · January 30, 2009, 2:09am

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
From The Economist (nice interactive map in link):

[i]FEW now doubt that the world economy is in its most parlous state since the 1930s. Demand is slumping across the globe as firms and consumers are battered by a pernicious, self-reinforcing bombardment of dysfunctional financial markets, falling wealth, higher unemployment and rampant fear.

The IMF?s latest forecasts, published on Wednesday January 28th, suggest 2009 will bring the deepest global recession in the post-war era.
…

Most economists agree that the red ink is both unavoidable and appropriate. To prevent a steep recession becoming a depression, governments must step in to forestall financial collapse and counter the slump in private demand. Financial markets seem to agree. Yields on government bonds in most rich countries are extremely low as shell-shocked investors clamour for the safety of public debt.

…
Unfortunately, the political cost of bailing out bankers and the huge sums involved mean that many politicians in rich countries are loth to spend heavily.

History suggests that is a mistake. Failure to mend a broken financial system quickly means a longer recession; it also renders fiscal stimulus much less potent. Contrast Japan, which had numerous fiscal-stimulus packages in the 1990s, but failed to emerge from its slump until its debt problem was finally dealt with, with South Korea in 1997, which spent 13% of GDP on a large, speedy bank-rescue package.
…

Less sensible, however, is the distribution of stimulus between countries. America?s fiscal package, at $800 billion or more, will be by far the biggest in absolute terms and one of the biggest relative to the size of its economy. Lamentably, rich creditor countries, such as Germany, are doing much less.

In the emerging world China?s boldness is laudable, and fat reserve cushions have also given other emerging economies more room.

But many will find their ability to borrow constrained by investors? flight from risk?and the surge in public debt in the rich world. In its latest estimates, the Institute of International Finance, a bankers? group, expects private-capital flows to emerging economies of only $165 billion this year, down more than 80% from 2007.

If politicians dither over bank rescues, if countries that can stimulate safely do not do enough, and if fearful investors shy away from emerging markets, the odds of a lasting recovery of the global economy seem slim. And that, in turn, will mean far bigger rises in public debt. A multi-year downturn could easily send government-debt ratios up by 30% of GDP or more. [/i]

[/quote]

what happened to the Economist? Even being a Brit publication, it used to be a good resourse. Red ink should never be encouraged. Cut taxes = more spending. gov’t spending is not the same as leaving more money in the hands of individuals. this is really sad.

dhickey · January 30, 2009, 2:14am

[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
I think the first stimulus was a joke, and this doesn’t seem much better. We are already deeply in debt thanks to Bush, and it isn’t doing us any favors to add another $1+ Trillion to the docket.

Then again, the market is ultimately a psychological game. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and the more confidence people have, the more the market will prosper. Unfortunately, neither stimulus package seems to have increased confidence to any great degree.

No it’s not. Perspective has not shit to do with it. Actual flow of money does. When money flows economy is good, when it stops, it’s bad.

Actually the worst thing people can do is save. But you have to unless you want to be fucked in the end.

Hey wait, this isn’t a gay thread…What are you doing here?[/quote]

unless saving means putting cash in your matress, money would normally still flow. money in the bank traditionaly means that it is being invested somewhere. If a bank fails to invest prudently, it fails. Well unless we bail them out so they can hold on to money and not make prudent investments.

Every step made so far is a step in the wrong direction.

Sloth · January 30, 2009, 3:46am

Billions more in entitlements.

dhickey · January 30, 2009, 5:43am

The unemployment insurance doesn’t bother me that much. I would rather pay for temporary unemployment than create permanent gov’t (redundant) jobs that will forever steal productive labor from the market.

I would even give current gov’t workers a years severance if we could trim by 10 or 20 percent. They should offer early retirement packages with the positions volentarily vacated never to be filled again. At least the number of positions.

NealRaymond2 · January 30, 2009, 5:46am

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Setting aside the fact that I’d drop dead of shock if I ever heard a governmental agency claim that the best solution involves less government…

I think you could post a bounty, a reward, on that one. If anyone can document where a governmental agency EVER advocated less government…
[/quote]
I don’t remember who it was, but didn’t President Reagan appoint someone who believed that a particular federal department or agency should not exist to head that same department or agency, possibly for the purpose of winding it down (not that it necessarily worked out that way)?

NealRaymond2 · January 30, 2009, 5:50am

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s not deficit spending once you get the credit card.

Huh? Spending money one doesn’t actually have – worse than that, spending money that doesn’t even really exist – is always deficit spending whether it is done by individuals or by the government.[/quote]

I think that was meant ironically, as in: the Democrats think it’s ok now that they have the “credit card”.

lou21 · January 30, 2009, 7:44am

[quote]dhickey wrote:

what happened to the Economist? Even being a Brit publication, it used to be a good resourse. Red ink should never be encouraged. Cut taxes = more spending. gov’t spending is not the same as leaving more money in the hands of individuals. this is really sad.[/quote]

It’s always had an agenda of it’s own. It never claimed to be a neutral commentator on the news. It does seem to be more full of opinion than fact these days though.

And the calibre of some of their new writers is distressing.

Headhunter · January 30, 2009, 9:43am

“You can’t make the irrational work.”
— Ayn Rand

No matter what any of the ‘experts’ say, you can’t have a peaceful and rational society that operates from gunpoint. Any system originating in violence (taxes) cannot be rational and peaceful.

Order can be kept for a while but irrationalists cannot succeed. This is why societies/government collapse at regular intervals. Violence can’t endure forever.

hedo · January 30, 2009, 2:24pm

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:

The IMF says it could be a lot worse and we are probably at the end of the recession.

Where the hell did you get this from? Oh, a blog…

Bother checking the IMF website? (biggest link at the very top)

[i]World Growth Grinds to Virtual Halt, IMF Urges Decisive Global Policy Response

January 28, 2009

*  IMF revises world growth down to lowest rate since World War II
* Stresses need for stronger international policy response to the crisis
* Banking sector must be unclogged to get economies moving again

[/i]

Funny stuff. Sadly though you expect to be taken seriously.

The IMF quotes you selectively edit don’t say anything about the stimulus.

Selective editing might have worked for you when the media was in your pocket but it falls short now.

If you can’t add to the conversation why don’t you and the rest of the sheep get back to your circle jerk.

The question remains is this a stimulus or a spending bill that answers liberal desires while weakening the economy and prolonging the downturn like the New Deal did.

Providing for increased spending for medicare and unemployment benefits, while noble, isn’t going to create jobs. Spending money on highway projects that may begin in 2 years likewise doesn’t do anything right now.

Tax cuts have an immediate effect. Spending is what got us here. Psuedo-economic theory that doesn’t work in practice will only make things work.

Regardless the Democrats own this now 100%. The media will have nobody to blame but the Dems in two years. They’ll try but only the most foolish moonbats will buy it.

Did you even try to read the link?
It’s one thing to say, “I don’t agree with this point.” It’s quite another to have some ideological blinders on that you just skipped that part. (psst. in the part you quoted above it was in the “policy response” part

[i]2. Macroeconomic stimulus?both monetary and fiscal?to support demand.

On monetary policy, many central banks have taken strong actions to cut interest rates and improve credit provision. The IMF still sees some room to lower interest rates, as inflation pressures are subsiding, but the room is diminishing rapidly, and has disappeared altogether in some countries. Moreover, deflation is now a risk. In present circumstances, the effectiveness of low interest rates to support activity is likely to be constrained as long as financial conditions remain disrupted. Therefore, central banks will need to rely increasingly on unconventional measures to unlock key (high-spread, low-liquidity) credit markets.

On fiscal policy, many countries have announced and are already implementing sizeable stimulus. The key here is to design packages that provide maximum boost to demand, which argues for measures to increase spending. However, fiscal deficits are widening sharply because of the cyclical downturn and the impact of asset price declines on revenues, as well as stimulus measures and the cost of financial sector rescues. To prevent an adverse market reaction, the IMF says policymakers need to strengthen fiscal frameworks and commit to credible longer-term policies that reverse the deficit buildup as economies recover.

Space for easing

Blanchard also stressed that there is no “one-size-fits-all” policy mix. Some countries have more fiscal and monetary space than others. “In this respect, it is welcome that some emerging economies now have more space for policy easing than in previous downturns and are making use of it,” he said.

[/i][/quote]

Idealogical blinders…from you. Your satire is rich.

It’s not a stimulus bill it’s a spending bill. The “Pelosi, Reid, Obama spending bill” nothing more.

hedo · January 30, 2009, 2:24pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aN1OnWuR4C4k&refer=worldwide

I still haven’t seen how the largest spending bill in history will stiulate the economy? It’s a pork spending bill and nothing more. The voters are starting to come to their senses and support is dropping. That’s why the Congress and the dear leader want to rush it thru.

Business investment is way down. It’s down because consumer demand is down and customers aren’t starting projects and placing orders. That is going to happen because nobody, whether they voted for Obama or not, has any confidence that he or the congressional leadership will do anything but fuck this up and waste money.

Gambit_Lost · January 30, 2009, 3:00pm

[quote]hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:

The IMF says it could be a lot worse and we are probably at the end of the recession.

Where the hell did you get this from? Oh, a blog…

Bother checking the IMF website? (biggest link at the very top)

[i]World Growth Grinds to Virtual Halt, IMF Urges Decisive Global Policy Response

January 28, 2009

*  IMF revises world growth down to lowest rate since World War II
* Stresses need for stronger international policy response to the crisis
* Banking sector must be unclogged to get economies moving again