Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tend to agree with Krugman, no surprise, tax cuts for most Americans will be limited and in the face of economic uncertainty, saved or at least spent on current debt. What needs to be done is to put people to work on tangible goods and services. Additionally, I agree with Krugman, that aid to states is far more critical, sense any tax saving from the Fed will be taken by increase taxes on the part of the states.
The US citizen and government is almost bankrupt with debt, yet it's a good idea to create more debt and let government bureaucrats (none of which work in private industry) "spend" it??? Thinking they can outperform the free market? This is USSR nonsense.
What's wrong with people getting some money and paying down their debt with it? or saving it?
My God. Common sense has gone out the window!
Let's just create more debt, print more money, "consume" and party, spend......and then just default on it later. Who cares? That's the new American way, and that's all that Krugman is prescribing.
Maybe they shouldn't have underbid on that government contract...
What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't refering to any government contract. I was refering to private industry providing good and services to the paying public.
Government spending produces nothing but a lowering of the value of the American Dollar. Private enterprises that build factories, stores, or services stimulate the economy while government taxes hold them back from further stimulating the economy. What you want is Communism.
What YOU want is basic textbook in public finance. The above is simply gibberish.
Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved.
Americans in distress — unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc..
He is outright saying it's not good for you to save your money it's better sent to unemployment and food stamps where (since times are rough and food and such is needed) it's guaranteed to be spent. Even the economist are focused in on spend spend spend. Is that not frightening or is that just a sign of the times where savings matter no more?
What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't refering to any government contract. I was refering to private industry providing good and services to the paying public.
What YOU want is basic textbook in public finance. The above is simply gibberish.
The above is what our nation was founded upon. Our nation began it's decline the more it went away from the above form of economy and more and more towards a socialist at best or communist at worse form of economy/government.
Sir, you are the one dwelling in ignorance. Governments don't stimulate anything. Governments don't earn anything. Businesses stimulate, businesses earn, and businesses keep this country working. The question is not what we can do to stimulate government spending but what government not spending can do to stimulate us.
The US citizen and government is almost bankrupt with debt, yet it's a good idea to create more debt and let government bureaucrats (none of which work in private industry) "spend" it??? Thinking they can outperform the free market? This is USSR nonsense.
What's wrong with people getting some money and paying down their debt with it? or saving it?
My God. Common sense has gone out the window!
Let's just create more debt, print more money, "consume" and party, spend......and then just default on it later. Who cares? That's the new American way, and that's all that Krugman is prescribing.
That's just hype. A government can never go bankrupt as long as it as the ability to tax. I don't like debt either. The first political organization I ever joined was the Concord Coalition devoted to paying down the debt. What you basically saying is do nothing. That's not an option for those serious about getting out of this mess.
Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved.
Americans in distress — unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc..
He is outright saying it's not good for you to save your money it's better sent to unemployment and food stamps where (since times are rough and food and such is needed) it's guaranteed to be spent. Even the economist are focused in on spend spend spend.
The bulk of economists are focused on three things -- liquidity, confidence, and aggregate demand. The credit crisis put a huge dent into the first two, in part because the current administration was slow both in recognizing the problem and reacting to it. The various "bailouts" are attempts to make up for lost time there. The stimulus package focuses on that third part, and the question is how do you get the most bang for the buck. What you want people to do is spend, and then you want the people they buy from to go out and spend again. You want that dollar to keep moving from one hand to another. As soon as somebody saves a dollar, a portion of it gets sucked off into reserves, and while the rest can go into new credit, the processing delays cut into the velocity at which that dollar is turning over and thus its effect is diminished. Saving and personal debt reduction might seem like good ideas from an individual standpoint, but that's the worst that could happen from a societal perspective.
I'd agree with Krugman that infrastructure spending is a pure plus. As it's spent, it's put in the hands of people who are very likely to spend it all again. Plus the resulting new and improved infrastructure will be paying social dividends for decades. I'd disagree somewhat in concern over the tax breaks, assuming that as planned, they are implemented via changes to the withholding tables. That gets a steady stream of money flowing into the economy almost instantly, and for a typical individual it will amount to about $40 a month, which I would see as too small an amount to markedly affect people's saving-vs-spending decisions. Of course, I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Is that not frightening or is that just a sign of the times where savings matter no more?
You know, there's an old saying. You save up FOR a rainy day. Not ON one...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
