People don't understand how incredibly harmful "stimulus" is in the long run (Iraq, Afghanistan)

[Taggerung]

Originally Posted by AADAD

"Bring me silver, Bring me Gold... my rainbow is overdue...."

If you have any silver or gold (even just some trinkets), hold onto it for dear life...

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by Taggerung

So there's a certain amount of "stimulus" that's "juuust right." Ok, that's a reasonable argument. What makes you think we're smart enough to know what that amount is? What makes you think we haven't long passed it?

"Cathcart grinned. "He got the cash money the same way we
have gotten all cash money since Roosevelt put the gold back in
the ground-right off the printing presses. But he didn't have to
print much of it. The checks were issued at the Bank and the
merchant and a great many others had accounts at the Bank and
very little cash money changed hands. The bulk of it was mere
bookkeeping entries, made by the bank clerks. Holmes had
implemented what the bankers had known for centuries but
were barred by LaGuardia from doing-taking money out of an
inkwell. What's the matter, son? Still not satisfied?"
"Well, I don't know. Everything you have said seems okay,
but how about this? If you keep pouring money into a country
indefinitely, you are bound to get inflation, fixed prices or no
fixed prices."
"You don't pour it in. You add just enough to keep it running.
Each fiscal period the additional amount is the closest possible
approximation of the amount necessary to prevent a spread
between consumption and production, based on the value of the
nation's inventories."
"But why do you have to keep adding money all the time?"
"I said I would stay away from theory but I'll give you this
hint to chew over: the amount necessary to add each period is
theoretically equal to the amount of savings invested as capital in
the preceding period. And one more hint: Doesn't it take more
money to run the country's industry now than it did when
George Washington was President?"

Robert A. Heinlein
"For Us,The Living"
Written in 1934, but not published until 2001.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Taggerung

With no stimulus, we would pay a massive and immediate price.

With stimulus, we pay a delayed, but even more massive price.

The history of economics indicates you are wrong. EITHER way we pay a long term price. But ignoring a crisis damages us a LOT more. Deficit spending is both cheaper long term, but also short term.

If we pay deficits down, we minimize the damage even more.

[Speleothem]

Originally Posted by greywar

People dont understand how helpful stimulus spending is amidst a crisis. There are literally a ton of economic papers out there discussing this.

What people ALSO truly dont seem to understand is that in the good times we need to pay that down. A major criticism of mine for past presidents such as Obamas last few years, and Trumps first few is that neither did that.

"amidst a crisis" - The key words in your post.
Most of the money will not be spent for years.
How does that address the "current" crisis?

[tijlover]

Push comes to shove, we can always put Alaska up for sale, or island by island, including the Hawaiian Islands.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by greywar

We have owed more then our GDP in the past. We absolutely do. It just takes leadership that understands this.

The only way out is through inflation. Pay yesterday’s debts with tomorrow’s currency.

[YourWakeUpCall]

Originally Posted by greywar

If the government literally threw it out of helicopters all over the country it would be good stimulus spending. While some uses may be better then others, it really does come down to maintaining that cash flow.

Also the median us family paid about 2,800 in taxes in 2018. So yeah, I too pay multiples of that. LOL.

The average federal tax liability is over $10K. Facts are your friends. If you paid multiples of $2K, unless it's on the order of 40 multiples, you have no say in this. Stop spending other people's money.

[YourWakeUpCall]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

To the people against the stimulus, what's your solution? Just let mass evictions and foreclosures happen, and watch homelessness and famine explode?

I'm not against a real stimulus package. I'm against the asinine Biden package, which would more accurately be called a "pork" package. For the most part, I have no problem with stimulus checks to individuals.


Pro Tip: READ. THE. BILL. Most of it has nothing to do with "stimulus".

[branDcalf]

Originally Posted by ipaper

Would you be able to look a struggling family in the face and tell them that. People out there are hurting, and they need help now. The pandemic have effected millions of Americans, of all races and political parties. What do you say to these people who have lost so much.

I would tell them that they are only getting a minuscule amount of the tiny percentage of the stimulus bill that actually goes to help them.

And continue with how much is going to completely unaffected people and pork projects that politicians are giving to friends and political contributors.

I would hope they'd be as angry as I am.

[Mad_Jasper]

Originally Posted by greywar

People dont understand how helpful stimulus spending is amidst a crisis. There are literally a ton of economic papers out there discussing this.

What people ALSO truly dont seem to understand is that in the good times we need to pay that down. A major criticism of mine for past presidents such as Obamas last few years, and Trumps first few is that neither did that.

The only crisis that we face today is an out-of-control federal government.

Any "stimulus" should be restrained within the amount of federal taxes paid by those that were stimulated. If you did not pay $1400 in federal income taxes, you should not receive a $1400 payout. The federal government is not empowered to stimulate anyone.

Period. End of story. And that's a hill that I am willing to die on.