I'm just wondering since the first one didn't do anything good for the economy...why would there be another one?

11/7/2008 3:10:55 PM

We could use the same rationale for your threads.

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : this is a legitimate question. either contribute to discussion or don't say anything. --duke]

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : Isn't there an expectation that somebody put a reasonable amount of effort into making a thread?]

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : Rather than just shooting from the hip?]

11/7/2008 3:13:21 PM

what in the fuck?

11/7/2008 3:28:53 PM

some say that there was a benefit from the last one and that we didn't dip as far down as expected during the summer as a result. i don't think it was ever intended to be the end all solution. now i'm not saying that i agree with those, but that is a position that some people on the right and left postulated.

11/7/2008 3:29:11 PM

Well it just seems to me that the idea of this is to get money back into the economy by giving people more money to buy things...but I would think someone was being irresponsible if they got the check and went and bought something rather than saving the money. No?

11/7/2008 3:34:05 PM

Quote :

"We could use the same rationale for your threads"

gold

11/7/2008 3:38:39 PM

^^but the point of it was so that people would spend it. that was precisely the intent. in fact one of the reasons why they think it didn't work as well as intended was because some people did save it. when it was getting passed some people had some foresight and realized that they should this time do with intent do what was a mistake with the katrina victims, and that is give them prepaid visa debit cards, or something of the like. that way that which wasn't spent would be reabsorbed and reduce the cost of the package to the country and force the money to get spent.

11/7/2008 3:40:40 PM

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2008 3:50:07 PM

Boone, you're a tool, much like St8idiot

^^I know what the idea of it was, but it didn't work because people saved it and I'm saying that in these times, with market taking a shit and diminishing people's worth, they're gonna hold on to any money they get...and probably aren't gonna reinvest in the market because no one wants to be the idiot that put more money into a failing investment... Add to that the unemployment numbers and it would be irresponsible for someone who doesn't have money to pay next months rent or to pay an outstanding bill, to then go shopping for new clothes. Am I missing something?

11/7/2008 4:13:17 PM

Yeah, irresponsible spending got us into this mess in the first place, and I really don't think that another stimulus package designed to spur consumer spending is the way to go. We need to get people investing again, and the best way to do that is by encouraging it with business-friendly policies and low interest rates.

11/7/2008 4:17:05 PM

Quote :

"Well it just seems to me that the idea of this is to get money back into the economy by giving people more money to buy things...but I would think someone was being irresponsible if they got the check and went and bought something rather than saving the money. No?"

The whole point of the check is to encourage people to spend it, rather than save it. If the gov. is giving what amounts to a pittance and say "hey save this", it's a slap in the face. The stimulus is enough to make people want to spend it, but not really enough worth saving.

The majority of stimulus checks, I would bet, go directly to corporations and retailers. Circuit City, Best Buy, and Wal-mart benefit the most from the things.

I am against it though, and I think it's sad that Bush set the precedent for it, and the Obama admin is following in these steps.

Quote :

". We need to get people investing again, and the best way to do that is by encouraging it with business-friendly policies and low interest rates."

Cutting peoples' taxes is also a good way to get them to invest, because then they'll actually have something to start with.

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2008 4:20:41 PM

here's a crazy idea. instead of the government over taxing us, why don't they just let us keep that money in the first place.

amazing I tell ya.

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ^didn't see your post]

11/7/2008 4:25:12 PM

Quote :

"NOVEMBER 7, 2008 Pelosi Pushes Two-Part Stimulus Speaker Seeks up to $100 Billion Now, Tax Cut in '09, as Economic Transition Begins By GREG HITT and JONATHAN WEISMAN »WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a two-stage effort to boost the shaky U.S. economy: a $60 billion-to-$100 billion stimulus package this month, followed early next year by a companion measure that would include a "permanent tax cut." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, right, at meeting with auto executives Thursday. In an interview Thursday, the California Democrat pointed to weakness in the nation's job market, and urged the White House, long skeptical of Democratic-led stimulus efforts, to work with Congress in the waning days of President George W. Bush's term. She said the U.S. can't wait for President-elect Barack Obama to be sworn into office. Rep. Pelosi's call for aggressive action came as Mr. Obama scheduled a meeting Friday with members of his economic transition team. Taken together, the twin moves signaled that the flagging economy will receive immediate attention from a Democratic Party fresh off huge electoral wins Tuesday, but anxious about turmoil in the stock market, a shriveling job market and plunging home prices. In the two days since Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats racked up big victories, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen more than 900 points. New U.S. unemployment figures will be released Friday morning. "The economy needs something sooner" than next year, Rep. Pelosi said, adding that any measure enacted in a lame-duck session of Congress this month would be a down payment on additional stimulus enacted later. "Let's see if we can't do something, working together now, that gives us a two-month jump," she said. "We'll take the longer view as soon as we take over in January." .In the long term, Rep. Pelosi said a capital-gains tax cut, as pushed by congressional Republicans, should be considered as part of a "tax simplification" bill, not a stimulus package. Rep. Pelosi did stress, however, that the "second piece" of the Democratic stimulus agenda should include a tax cut and would be part of a bill moved early next year. Details have yet to be determined and will depend on further discussions with Mr. Obama. But the speaker prefers a tax cut over a tax rebate. The speaker said a tax cut would have a more immediate impact on the economy, especially if the government speeds dollars into worker paychecks by adjusting tax-withholding tables. "The impact is faster than a rebate, which takes a few months to get into people's hands." Mr. Obama will meet with his top economic advisers in Chicago on Friday, including former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, a top candidate for a second stint at Treasury, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, also a candidate, and Robert Rubin, another former Treasury secretary with an outside chance at a return engagement. Also invited are other advisers who could play roles in the Obama economic team, such as billionaire investor Warren Buffett, Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Roger W. Ferguson, a former Fed vice chairman who now heads the giant public-employees pension fund, TIAA-CREF. Those advisers were all named Thursday to Mr. Obama's 17-member transition economic-advisory board. Other members include Time Warner Inc. Chairman Richard Parsons and Xerox Corp. CEO Anne Mulcahy. Obama economic aides said the emergency meeting -- and the all-star cast -- was meant to project urgency for a president-elect who knows the economy will be his most pressing issue. Bill Clinton waited until December 1992 for his economic summit in Little Rock, Ark. George W. Bush waited until January 2001. Speaker Pelosi's two-stage plan dovetails with planning within the Obama transition team. Even before Election Day, economic aides were saying Congress would likely take up a small economic-stimulus plan during a lame-duck session this month, but leave the bulk of the economic-recovery efforts for the first days of the Obama administration. Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders foresee an initial burst of legislation that they believe will have broad bipartisan support, beginning with an economic plan, a previously vetoed measure to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program and another to fund stem-cell research "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122600310456906045.html

I can't believe Pelosi is actually doing something, or wants to do something that I agree with!

11/7/2008 4:39:53 PM

^ maybe her blind hatred of Bush has been clouding her judgment the past few years.

11/7/2008 4:44:29 PM

Quote :

"Cutting peoples' taxes is also a good way to get them to invest, because then they'll actually have something to start with. "

Man, looks like you've got the Preaching To the Choir Award nailed down for '08!

11/7/2008 5:11:31 PM

Obama '08

11/7/2008 5:20:59 PM

The last stimulus package apparently did a fair job at helping the economy. Note that it didnt solve the worlds problems but no amount of money divided by several millions during a tanking economy will do that. It helped stop the slide and was worth it (in my opinion). Plus, any sort of rebate check system like that will not have its effect immediately, the benefits will be spread out over months/few years.

This upcoming package pisses me off. Any stimulus for infrastructure is good in the long run but falls flat in the short run. It takes forever to plan these things out and get them enacted. We are looking to rebound and get a boost, not look 10 years down the road. You dont clusterfuck during a recession and solve it by making projects that take forever to plan. In addition, it only helps a select group of workers and firms really. Im not wild about this idea given these restrictions.

11/7/2008 5:41:11 PM

locking, since there was already a thread on this.

11/7/2008 5:44:20 PM