Economists say massive dem pork bill (aka, the "stimulus") will not work (poll, highway)

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

The so-called fiscally responsible Repubs ***** themselves out - why? I was completely against the first, and the second needs tweaking for my approval. The ultimate aim should be to gas the Middle-class, they are the ones who drive the economy.

Yes, they are... what does this have anything to do with my or your previous post but thanks for including me...

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by saganista

Yeah! I remember when it was also working so well back in the day when gee, the economy was growing by leaps and bounds because corporate profits went through the roof while median real household wages sank like a stone. That was cool...

Those were the days, werent they?

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by The_Mo's

Thanks for posting.

Translation: "lalalala I cant hear you lalalalala"

[Who?Me?!]

S and H

[compJockey]

For some perspective...

The federal government has borrowed $1.6 trillion from 2001-2008 to pay for the bush tax cuts

The Debt has grown more than $4 trillion under Bush, with little tangible results.

But when the economy needs help fast - and this stimulus will create millions of jobs - almost half of us think its a bad idea.

I'm gonna take a few minutes away from the computer - trying to understand how uninformed opposing views are not monumentally dumb.

Where's that republican plan? I haven't found a link to it. Is it this one by Mitt Romney?
A Republican Stimulus Plan by Mitt Romney on National Review Online

Curious, because the description of it bears some resemblance to the one going through congress.

So that can't be the republican plan.

If someone can point me at it I'll go read that, or an analysis of it - if a non-partisan analysis can be found. Or is it a "secret" plan?

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by compJockey

For some perspective...

The federal government has borrowed $1.6 trillion from 2001-2008 to pay for the bush tax cuts

The Debt has grown more than $4 trillion under Bush, with little tangible results.

But when the economy needs help fast - and this stimulus will create millions of jobs - almost half of us think its a bad idea.

I'm gonna take a few minutes away from the computer - trying to understand how uninformed opposing views are not monumentally dumb.

Where's that republican plan? I haven't found a link to it. Is it this one by Mitt Romney?
A Republican Stimulus Plan by Mitt Romney on National Review Online

Curious, because the description of it bears some resemblance to the one going through congress.

So that can't be the republican plan.

If someone can point me at it I'll go read that, or an analysis of it - if a non-partisan analysis can be found. Or is it a "secret" plan?

Here's some info on the Republican plan.
Eric Cantor :: Office of the Republican Whip (http://republicanwhip.house.gov/blog_012309.htm - broken link)

[compJockey]

Originally Posted by paullySC

Here's some info on the Republican plan.
Eric Cantor :: Office of the Republican Whip (http://republicanwhip.house.gov/blog_012309.htm - broken link)

Sweet, thank you.

This stood out:

House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.

Is it possible to do that? By reducing government spending, doesn't that mean a loss of jobs? If I take a quarter out of one pocket, and put it in the other... its still just a quarter.

I think its commonly agreed the package needs to be big to have an affect, so reducing government spending (even if that doesn't mean a loss of jobs) can't possibly cover the cost, can it? Military and defense spending has grown a lot since 2001, while discretionary spending has actually decreased. I haven't picked through the budget, but I don't know where the reduction in spending will come from.

Everything else in there looks ok to me, but I don't see where the jobs are going to come from. I guess they want to leave it to the free market. I'd much rather be sure we're going to create new jobs.

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by compJockey

Sweet, thank you.

This stood out:

Is it possible to do that? By reducing government spending, doesn't that mean a loss of jobs? If I take a quarter out of one pocket, and put it in the other... its still just a quarter.

I think its commonly agreed the package needs to be big to have an affect, so reducing government spending (even if that doesn't mean a loss of jobs) can't possibly cover the cost, can it? Military and defense spending has grown a lot since 2001, while discretionary spending has actually decreased. I haven't picked through the budget, but I don't know where the reduction in spending will come from.

Everything else in there looks ok to me, but I don't see where the jobs are going to come from. I guess they want to leave it to the free market. I'd much rather be sure we're going to create new jobs.

I would think they could save some money with out costing a lot of jobs. Not sure if it could pay for all of it, who knows.

I think maybe they want the free market to create the jobs because they are sustainable. Creating jobs to fix the roads and stuff are great and I personally have no issue with that but what happens when all the roads are fixed? Massive layoffs is all I can see.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by compJockey

Sweet, thank you.

This stood out:

Is it possible to do that? By reducing government spending, doesn't that mean a loss of jobs? If I take a quarter out of one pocket, and put it in the other... its still just a quarter.

Can I ask which person loses a job with reduced government spending? I think I know but I just want to be sure....

[compJockey]

Originally Posted by paullySC

I would think they could save some money with out costing a lot of jobs. Not sure if it could pay for all of it, who knows.

I think maybe they want the free market to create the jobs because they are sustainable. Creating jobs to fix the roads and stuff are great and I personally have no issue with that but what happens when all the roads are fixed? Massive layoffs is all I can see.

I wondered about that too.

I think the intent is to use the stimulus as a jump-start - forcing the creation of 3-4 million jobs. Those 3-4 million jobs will boost spending/demand, thereby creating demand for the sustainable free market jobs.. pushing the snowball down the other slope.