Should the US government hand out more stimulus checks?

[daggerkobe]

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says YES.

But the last time they sent out stimulus checks in the spring, only $12 billion of $78 billion were spent. The rest were saved or used to pay down debt.

When are we going to start paying down our national debt? Look at how much debt we owe other countries:

Japan: $585.9 Billion
China: $541 Billion
UK: $307.4 Billion
OPEC: $179.8 Billion
Caribbean banking centers: $147.7 Billion

PLUS interest.

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

If they did a stimulus plan again(and im not very economic minded so if my comment is stupid ignore) i would assume the best way to do it would be in gift certificates, make deals with corporations and grocery stores, not only will the money actually get spent in retail benefiting the economy but usually 20% more is spend on the value of each giftcard.

[element1286]

No.

[ipickwinners]

i saw a blurb on yahoo a few weeks ago, that either chin or japan, im pretty positive that it was china, that they have a 586 BILLION dollar stimulus plan in effect to take place in 2010

[wtf]

i live in china, that stimulus package is 100% on infrastructure, nothing goes into the hands on its citizens. zero.

[Dbldown11]

If they did a stimulus plan again(and im not very economic minded so if my comment is stupid ignore) i would assume the best way to do it would be in gift certificates, make deals with corporations and grocery stores, not only will the money actually get spent in retail benefiting the economy but usually 20% more is spend on the value of each giftcard.

wouldnt be a bad idea, in terms of making sure the money is spent on goods or services and not paying c.c. debt or things like that.

However what stores would be in on the deal haha? you cant just us it for a handful of stores. It would have to be like a **** card that cannot be accepted for things like paying down debt...and could only be used to purchase goods.

[Dbldown11]

not too mention then I wouldnt feel bad if I spent it frivolously....if that was my only choice haha

[FreeFall]

stop ****ing with the economy and let people fail. The government is acting like we can't have the four parts of a business cycle.

[wtf]

i agree, they have done more than enough, let it happen now naturally now

[ryanXL977]

no more checks
its stupid
just let gm die and go from there
its gms fault, they didnt adapt, let exxon bail out gm

and no stimulus checks either

[pimike]

Yes by Dec 15 in time for Christmas

[pavyracer]

I turned last stimulus check of $1500 into $3000 by betting on Obama. The next stimulus check will double down on Superbowl if it comes by then.

[The Seer]

no more checks
its stupid
just let gm die and go from there
its gms fault, they didnt adapt, let exxon bail out gm

and no stimulus checks either

I was thinking the exact same thing. US car and oil companies have been in cahoots forever. One makes gas guzzlers and the other makes a killing on oil. Let them bail each other out.

[goldengoat]

another vote for letting the auto companies fail

post the pictures of those most responsible for the collapse on the front page of the paper

can't pick and choose who to bail out

[EBSB52]

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says YES.

But the last time they sent out stimulus checks in the spring, only $12 billion of $78 billion were spent. The rest were saved or used to pay down debt.

When are we going to start paying down our national debt? Look at how much debt we owe other countries:

Japan: $585.9 Billion
China: $541 Billion
UK: $307.4 Billion
OPEC: $179.8 Billion
Caribbean banking centers: $147.7 Billion

PLUS interest.

The neo-cons hate welfare to the poor, embrace welfare to teh rich, so the best way to do that is to earmark funds via military budgets, that was they can justify the immediate spending, then there's no budget left for social welfare. In doing so, starting with fascist Ronnie the GOP has thrown this country into 10.5T debt, it was < 1 T as fascist Ronnie took over.

The best way to enact stimulus is to give it to exclusively poor people. There is a relative proportion between giving it to poor people and the amount spent rather than saved. I say either gove it to poor people or don't give it at all. Social welfare works and has worked, FDR's programs pulled us out of the GD, Clinton's social programs, college credits. etc gave the working class a shot and he curbed 12 years of 250B/yr deficit. Obama will have the same success, but will the idiotic oublic remember what a trainwreck Bush was in 4 years, what a trainwreck the GOP has been 20 of teh last 28 years?

[EBSB52]

If they did a stimulus plan again(and im not very economic minded so if my comment is stupid ignore) i would assume the best way to do it would be in gift certificates, make deals with corporations and grocery stores, not only will the money actually get spent in retail benefiting the economy but usually 20% more is spend on the value of each giftcard.

That's a great idea.

[EBSB52]

another vote for letting the auto companies fail

post the pictures of those most responsible for the collapse on the front page of the paper

can't pick and choose who to bail out

The problem with that is thet we have such a small manufacturing base as it is that it will hurt us. It would be smarter to have let the banks fail and bail out any and all munuf than the other way around. The gov needs to take ownership and control of both industries IMO, since they are gonna bail out, why not have a heavy say?

[element1286]

I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing poorly run banks/auto companies or UAW.

[Igetp2s]

Like all "stimulus" packages, this one would fail. It is simply a transferring of money from 1 person to another. It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.

As Obama will soon find out (as most people did in Econ 101), growth only comes about when people have incentives to invest and take risks, for the sake of profit. Punishing people for taking chances to get wealthy and being successful is counterintuitive and will only worsen the current problem.

The best stimulus would be extending the Bush tax cuts, while eliminating the massive wasteful spending that has been going on. Of course, Obama cares much more about "fairness" in the economy than about growing it.

[wtf]

ebs, you have a very interesting point, but i think wwII brought us out of the depression not necessarily FDR's new deal.

so you could war is good for development for the greater good?

[Tchocky]

We definitely need a robust stimulus program but I don't think handing out tax rebate checks is the answer.

[element1286]

Like all "stimulus" packages, this one would fail. It is simply a transferring of money from 1 person to another. It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.

As Obama will soon find out (as most people did in Econ 101), growth only comes about when people have incentives to invest and take risks, for the sake of profit. Punishing people for taking chances to get wealthy and being successful is counterintuitive and will only worsen the current problem.

The best stimulus would be extending the Bush tax cuts, while eliminating the massive wasteful spending that has been going on. Of course, Obama cares much more about "fairness" in the economy than about growing it.

And then you have to pay the interest after borrowing it from China.

[tmoney]

Hell No Work More And Stop Whining.all These Americans Want A Handout Bunch Of Lazy Asses

[The Seer]

I think Halliburton and all of the defense contractors should bail us out. They've made all of the money since 9/11. Hell, they (along with the think tanks) will just get us in another war if they need money.

[Igetp2s]

The neo-cons hate welfare to the poor, embrace welfare to teh rich, so the best way to do that is to earmark funds via military budgets, that was they can justify the immediate spending, then there's no budget left for social welfare. In doing so, starting with fascist Ronnie the GOP has thrown this country into 10.5T debt, it was < 1 T as fascist Ronnie took over.

The best way to enact stimulus is to give it to exclusively poor people. There is a relative proportion between giving it to poor people and the amount spent rather than saved. I say either gove it to poor people or don't give it at all. Social welfare works and has worked, FDR's programs pulled us out of the GD, Clinton's social programs, college credits. etc gave the working class a shot and he curbed 12 years of 250B/yr deficit. Obama will have the same success, but will the idiotic oublic remember what a trainwreck Bush was in 4 years, what a trainwreck the GOP has been 20 of teh last 28 years?

Your revisionist history is incredible. There's a reason the rest of the world calls the 1930's The Depression, while the US calls it the GREAT Depression. FDR's idiotic social policies extended the Depression here much, much longer than everywhere else. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the economy, the Internet is what caused it because of enormous increases in productivity and employment opportunities. And of course, the economy has been doing incredibly well the past 28 years in comparison to prior extended stretches.

[tacomax]

But the last time they sent out stimulus checks in the spring, only $12 billion of $78 billion were spent. The rest were saved or used to pay down debt.

Hopefully that's a reflection that people saw that the stimulus wasn't free money, but rather further future tax liabilities.

[EBSB52]

I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing poorly run banks/auto companies or UAW.

I agree, but that's probably what they said leading into the Great Depression. Neccessary evil...

[EBSB52]

Like all "stimulus" packages, this one would fail. It is simply a transferring of money from 1 person to another. It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.

As Obama will soon find out (as most people did in Econ 101), growth only comes about when people have incentives to invest and take risks, for the sake of profit. Punishing people for taking chances to get wealthy and being successful is counterintuitive and will only worsen the current problem.

The best stimulus would be extending the Bush tax cuts, while eliminating the massive wasteful spending that has been going on. Of course, Obama cares much more about "fairness" in the economy than about growing it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.


Oh please, how do tax cuts do that? Use your theory, but please back it up with historical application as well, and not just, 'well it seemdd to work.........." I would liek to see data that supports the assertion that tax cuts create growth.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As Obama will soon find out (as most people did in Econ 101), growth only comes about when people have incentives to invest and take risks, for the sake of profit.


Funny how you infer Obama lacks intelligence, as the neo-con trash elected is generally at a severe deficit of education/intelligence over their Dem counterparts. Agin, love your chalkboard rendition, pls show some kind of data as evidence or counterevidence.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Punishing people for taking chances to get wealthy and being successful is counterintuitive and will only worsen the current problem.


As when Clinton raised taxes and the economy came around? As when Reagan and GWB cut taxes and everything went to hell, debt tripled under Reagan, doubled under GWB; can you now make a logical argument?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The best stimulus would be extending the Bush tax cuts, while eliminating the massive wasteful spending that has been going on. Of course, Obama cares much more about "fairness" in the economy than about growing it.


I know, 8 years of crookedness was so much more fun. The idiocy of the RW is that they keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. Well, sorry, finally idiot America has had enough; expect several terms of D's.

[EBSB52]

I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing poorly run banks/auto companies or UAW.

Don't worry, there's no direct, not even indirect refelction of your tax dollars and any payouts.

[EBSB52]

ebs, you have a very interesting point, but i think wwII brought us out of the depression not necessarily FDR's new deal.

so you could war is good for development for the greater good?

Nah, FDR's policies led to the immdiate betterment of the US fiscal health. Support for that is found with the GDP declining every year of Hoover's term, increasing every year of FDR's 4 terms.

http://www.measuringworth.org/usgdp/

Type in years 1929 to 1960 to see what I'm saying, goes from Hoover to Eisenhower.


War is not greater good, it use to be thought it was good for teh economy, yet the debt went thru the rook all the while, so no, war is not greater good.

[EBSB52]

Like all "stimulus" packages, this one would fail. It is simply a transferring of money from 1 person to another. It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.

As Obama will soon find out (as most people did in Econ 101), growth only comes about when people have incentives to invest and take risks, for the sake of profit. Punishing people for taking chances to get wealthy and being successful is counterintuitive and will only worsen the current problem.

The best stimulus would be extending the Bush tax cuts, while eliminating the massive wasteful spending that has been going on. Of course, Obama cares much more about "fairness" in the economy than about growing it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like all "stimulus" packages, this one would fail. It is simply a transferring of money from 1 person to another.


Show me where the legislation, the framework, hell, anything that transfers wealth from 1 to another. You can't, that's silly RW rhetoric. In fact, the funds are tacked right on to the debt, so it is funded by rubber checks, not transference.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.


If it is spent it creates temporary stimulus. Tax cuts....let's see; who is taxed? The people with money? Yes. SO tax cuts let the rich keep more of their money, which they generally save or spend very selctively. If you give money to teh poor they have no option but to spend it, so that stimulates the economy.

[EBSB52]

I think Halliburton and all of the defense contractors should bail us out. They've made all of the money since 9/11. Hell, they (along with the think tanks) will just get us in another war if they need money.

It would seem that way, but the Bush war profiteers only got a small sum of the booty. The war has cost about 700 B, teh debt has increased 5T, so the war accounts for 15% of the total debt increase, not a huge amount. Where the rest went is corp tax breaks, essentially uncollected taxes.

[EBSB52]

Your revisionist history is incredible. There's a reason the rest of the world calls the 1930's The Depression, while the US calls it the GREAT Depression. FDR's idiotic social policies extended the Depression here much, much longer than everywhere else. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the economy, the Internet is what caused it because of enormous increases in productivity and employment opportunities. And of course, the economy has been doing incredibly well the past 28 years in comparison to prior extended stretches.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your revisionist history is incredible. There's a reason the rest of the world calls the 1930's The Depression, while the US calls it the GREAT Depression. FDR's idiotic social policies extended the Depression here much, much longer than everywhere else.


Look at the site posted and explain 4 years of GDP declination under Hoover, yet immediate and constant growth under FDR for all of his terms until and after his death in 45. I would say you're the revisionist.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the economy, the Internet is what caused it because of enormous increases in productivity and employment opportunities.


The dot.com boom was a beautiful thing, however Clinton raised taxes immediatley, as well as GHWB's tax increase, which both started the healing from fascist Ronnie. You can't be serious thinking if GWB was pres during the dot.com boom that he wouldn't have found a way to fvck it up. So Clinton was fortunate to have presided under such great times, but a neo-maggot Republican would have found a way to funnel it back to the rich and the debt would never have been nearly curbed as it was under Clinton.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And of course, the economy has been doing incredibly well the past 28 years in comparison to prior extended stretches.


This is how you avoid talking about what a disaster your neo-con trash presidents are. You want to lump in Clinton's success to the neo-crap trio, yet will never talk debt. What does this ambiguity mean: ...the economy has been doing incredibly well ... That's like listening to Sarah Palin being interviewed by Couric. A lot of flowery bullshit. Here's data, I know the neo-cons don't like it: http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

There's your incredibly well.

[Robyn]

I'm still waiting for my first stimulus check!

[andywend]

The vast majority of left-wing lunatics like EBSB52 have failed miserably in everything they've ever tried and are extremely jealous of those that have experienced financial success.

They can't make it on their own so they elect socialist politicians like Barack Obama in hopes that a few crumbs might fall their way.

However, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who is in charge. The rich will still be rich and liberal democratic fools will continue to whine about how unfair the world is.