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 don't know how to vote. On the one hand, I think they should stop spending so much. On the other, I wish they'd buy me a new home, car and send me on a cruise!
Seriously, I hope to take advantage of the $8,000 rebate for new home buyers, so it would be hypocritical of me to complain about the stimulus package. Still, I hope there is some end in sight. [FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]
Last edited by justNancy; 04-30-2009 at 12:33 PM..
To provide immediate relief, immediate funding for infrastructure would be needed. Funding for a project that is not related to enchancing infrastructure will not help the economy, it will hurt the economy in the long run. They did not consider AD when forming this bill. They also had the nerve to label funding for projects that will not multiply through the economy as stimulus.
To provide immediate relief, immediate funding for infrastructure would be needed.
Infrastructure projects are underway.
Quote:
Funding for a project that is not related to enchancing infrastructure will not help the economy, it will hurt the economy in the long run.
Patently false. Infrastructure is not the only stimulative activity.
Quote:
They did not consider AD when forming this bill.
What is AD?
Quote:
They also had the nerve to label funding for projects that will not multiply through the economy as stimulus.
It's the spending itself that stimulates the economy. Some activities are more stimulative than others, but when spending in the private sector falls, government becomes the only institution capable of doing so. That's Keynesian economics.
Patently false. Infrastructure is not the only stimulative activity.
What is AD?
It's the spending itself that stimulates the economy. Some activities are more stimulative than others, but when spending in the private sector falls, government becomes the only institution capable of doing so. That's Keynesian economics.
How could you not know what AD is? Don't argue about Keynesian economics if you don't understand the basics.
How could you not know what AD is? Don't argue about Keynesian economics if you don't understand the basics.
I don't claim to be an expert. I'll argue to the extent of my knowledge, which includes the basics. Perhaps you would simply answer the question rather than insult my intelligence?
Care to comment on the other points?
I see. Aggregate demand. How did they not consider aggregate demand? Aggregate demand is spending.
Last edited by nvxplorer; 04-30-2009 at 01:17 PM..
It would be great if you could expound on your thoughts besides just rattling off tired cliches. Much of the new spending is being used to keep the financial system from collapsing -- if that had occurred, unemployment would be much higher, borrowing would be much more difficult and revenues to the government would have collapsed, thus leading to a worse economic scenario than the current spending. Just imagine a world in which Lehman, Merril, AIG, Citibank and Bear Stearns all went bankrupt within the span of a month or two... it would have been devastating and caused further downstream bankruptcies. Then, add the bankruptcy of our two major auto manufacturers and all their suppliers... again, within the span of two months! If that happened over 2 or 3 years, fine, no problem. But the impact to the economy if all those things happened would have been horrific... and you would be among the mob blaming Obama for letting it happen. That's what I call an investment.
The second part of the spending -- the stimulus -- is again designed to invest in infrastructure, health care modernization, green technology and state health care obligations that will hopefully reduce our nation's spend in the long term. You don't have to agree with the premise or the predicted outcome to see that the spending is designed to have a pay-back or stave off a worse outcome.
Actually your side mostly spouts off the tired cliches. I actually try to put some substance in my posts. Let me just say I disagree almost down the line. First of all allowing the very ones who got us into this mess to lead us out is beyond insanity. Most Americans remain woefully ignorant of the power, make that the destructive power of the Federal Reserve Bank, whose nefarious hand has been in almost every economic downturn since the Great Depression. Most Americans have no clue how their government and economy are run, and just rush off to blame whatever President is in office at the time of an economic downturn, particularly if that President is a Republican. Long ago, before all of us here were born I suspect there were two very severe economic downturns of adeflationary nature. The first one is the forgotten depression of 1921. It was a sudden sharp depression in which unemployment rose and prices dropped faster than at any time in our history. It was followed by an even steeper, almost miraculous recovery, which gave birth to what we know as the Roaring Twenties. Contrast that with the Depression that started in 1929, bottomed out in 1933, followed by a slow recovery and another downturn in 1937 that left things almost as bad as they were in 1933. In 1940 unemployment was still almost 15%! Why did the country rebound so quickly in the 1920s and just fall totally in the ditch a decade later? What changed? It couldn't have been the different ways the federal government responded in each case could it? Obama in my opinion is following more closely the model of FDR, the hallowed saint of the left. Do you know anybody that lived through that period? Do you want to repeat it? Last time we had a might sleeping giant of an industrial economy waiting to revive the nation. This time we have a Walmart, Target, hedge fund manager economy waiting to revive and save us from Third World status. I don't expect any of this to change your mind, but don't accuse me of lack of substance. I continually hold back. Most people's eyes glaze over rapidly when confronted with anything that requires a little depth and thought.
You know what I find Ironic... I have not heard one political leader refute that the stimulous budget is just wreckless spending. How come none have come out and said NO THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT SPENDING SPREE THIS IS A GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT INTO AMERICA!
I wonder why none of them have come out and said that?
Ya Think? The scary thing is this poll shows more than 10% must be living on another planet.
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.
