http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31548130/ns/business-personal_finance/
So has the recent stimulus package passed by the Obama administration saved us? Accoriding to this new article, out of the $787 billion sent to stimulate the economy, only about $150 billion will be seen this year. So on the one hand we are being led to believe by the Obama administration that the stimulus package has "saved us" even though we have not really seen any of it as of yet. Then we are led to believe that things are worse than the Obama administration first thought so we need to spend even more even though we have not seen the effects of the first stimulus package.
Am I the only one confused here? In short, the economy is beginning to recover without the help of the Obama administration. In fact, it may rebound despite the Obama administration....or at least for a while until the kill it once again with cap and trade and all the businesses they drive away.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDo you not see conflicting messages here? On the one hand, the Obama administration wishes us to believe they have stemmed the crisis through such spending yet, on the other hand, we need to do more even though what they have already done has not even been seen as of yet. Do you not agree that we must first step back and see if what has been done is working or should we simply keep spending our hard earned tax dollars on these huge simulus plans?
It's too early to judge.
These conflicting messages can be seen else where. For example, on the one hand, he used the recent crisis to push his stimulus packages. In fact, there was not enough time for everyone to read the legislation just as we are seeing with his health care plan. We must pass these as of yesterday because time is of the essence. But, on the other hand, he wishes to pass the cap and trade legislation that by all accounts will put a drag on the economy. So which is it? Is the economy on the brink or is it healthy enough to impose the largest regressive tax in US history? I suppose it all depends on what is most convenient at the time.
Originally posted by whodeyThere is no way that pumping money into the economy is not going to stimulate it. The question is: how much is it stimulating, and is it worth lending money for it considering the debt has to be paid off? Answer: I don't know. Do you?
Do you not see conflicting messages here? On the one hand, the Obama administration wishes us to believe they have stemmed the crisis through such spending yet, on the other hand, we need to do more even though what they have already doen has not even been seen as of yet. Do you not agree that we must first step back and see if what has been done is working ...[text shortened]... regressive tax in US history? I suppose it all depends on what is most convenient at the time.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho says the US has any intention of paying off the debt? I think they are only interested in being able to pay off the interest.
There is no way that pumping money into the economy is not going to stimulate it. The question is: how much is it stimulating, and is it worth lending money for it considering the debt has to be paid off? Answer: I don't know. Do you?
Anyhew, the real question is does this young man know what he is doing and how much will it cost us to find out? So are we willing to mortgage the financial well being of our grandchildren as well as their future medical care based upon his own judgement? I suppose I would feel better about it had he not predicted that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8% or that his stimulus plan should have created more jobs by now. For now, I suppose it we will just have to believe him as to whether his universal coverage will save us more money in the long run even though it will cover far more people or that another stimulus package will create another half a million jobs.
Originally posted by whodey"On the contrary, it's because someone knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance... so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about! " - Richard Feynman
Who says the US has any intention of paying off the debt? I think they are only interested in being able to pay off the interest.
Anyhew, the real question is does this young man know what he is doing and how much will it cost us to find out? So are we willing to mortgage the financial well being of our grandchildren as well as their future medical care ...[text shortened]... cover far more people or that another stimulus package will create another half a million jobs.
Amidst all the insolvency and bankruptcy chaos last fall, the biggest concern was that mass panic would cause everyone to pull huge amounts of money out of the markets, sending the economy into freefall -- something akin to a classic "run on the banks". Essentially, the biggest thing we had to fear was fear itself.
At this time, if everyone truly believed that a massive confetti fling in Central Park would fix everything, then that by itself would be sufficient. Most people would again feel confident that they could make purchases and investments, and the economy would resume growth.
Being that most people don't believe in "magic confetti", we needed something more "convincing" -- and this took the form of bailouts and stimulus packages. Whether or not these things actually did anything or will do anything is not the point. It all may well have been merely a bunch of confetti. What is important is that the panic stopped and the markets have regained a lot of lost ground. The economic healing process can now begin.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut I thought we needed yet another stimulus package because the first one was not enough?
Amidst all the insolvency and bankruptcy chaos last fall, the biggest concern was that mass panic would cause everyone to pull huge amounts of money out of the markets, sending the economy into freefall -- something akin to a classic "run on the banks". Essentially, the biggest thing we had to fear was fear itself.
At this time, if everyone truly belie ...[text shortened]... e markets have regained a lot of lost ground. The economic healing process can now begin.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course, once you become an elected official you become an expert on all matters ranging from health care, to energy consumption, to our childrens education. No doubt, it is then a good thing that governments powers are becoming centralized more and more to deal with these issues. In fact, I was thinking of writing Obama for pointers for my nephew struggling in arithmatic.
"On the contrary, it's because someone knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance... so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about! " - Richard Feynman
Originally posted by KazetNagorraElectrifying a corpse may not bring it back to life, but it'll certainly give the maggots a jolt.
There is no way that pumping money into the economy is not going to stimulate it. The question is: how much is it stimulating, and is it worth lending money for it considering the debt has to be paid off? Answer: I don't know. Do you?
Originally posted by whodeyMy point was that no one really knows anything about the extremely complex consequences of long-term socio-economic policy (apart from things that are trivially detrimental to an economy, e.g. randomly killing people). The best we can do is look at the results and then adopt the system that appears to produce the best results. This suggests that Obama should adopt a huge increase in taxes and change the health care system to universal or semi-privatized health care.
Of course, once you become an elected official you become an expert on all matters ranging from health care, to energy consumption, to our childrens education. No doubt, it is then a good thing that governments powers are becoming centralized more and more to deal with these issues. In fact, I was thinking of writing Obama for pointers for my nephew struggling in arithmatic.
The fact that someone like Milton Friedman can win Nobel Prizes in economics shows that economics is in the very early stages of turning into a real science.
It has failed, It was presented as a quick fix.Obama said if we do not act now (dont even bother reading it) unemployment will hit 8%. We are now closing in at 10% and Obama said it is likely to hit 11 or 12 by January.He/them are back peddling now saying it was never meant to be a quick fix.That is a lie.
They could have took that money and sent every tax payer a nice check,lowered taxes,stop the bail outs and we would see a nice turn around to this mess.
The war w/ Bush got the deficit big for sure.But Obamas Lunacy has put us at a point that we will never see the light of day. Now there is talk of more?! It is almost as if they want to see our economy collapse and are doing everything to make that happen.
I don't think we need another stimulus. The panic phase has passed, and the economy appears to be recovering....slowly.
Many people are becoming concerned about the size of the deficits and the debt -- a new stimulus on top of everything else could erode confidence in the future economy, and this would end up making things worse.
I think the Dems are worried about the increased anger over the rising unemployment, and want to be seen as "doing something" about it. Perhaps there's a way to take the existing stimulus money and get it moving into the economy a lot more quickly.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat's the problem, they gave it to the companies that were going under anyways, and the taxpayer's are left a bunch of debt.
I don't think we need another stimulus. The panic phase has passed, and the economy appears to be recovering....slowly.
Many people are becoming concerned about the size of the deficits and the debt -- a new stimulus on top of everything else could erode confidence in the future economy, and this would end up making things worse.
I think the Dems ar ...[text shortened]... y to take the existing stimulus money and get it moving into the economy a lot more quickly.