West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(84 posts)

What's in this Stimulus Bill?

Started 3 years ago by Sky2625
Latest reply from JanS

Sky2625
Member Profile

I want YOU to review the Stimulus Package!

Welcome all! I'll open with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

Are YOU well-informed? What have our representatives done and said in the last few weeks? If it all goes "so far wrong," will you know it?

I want responders to this topic to provide a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on something in the stimulus package. Work hard a making "economic recovery, job creation, and meaningful impact" major criteria. If you have to work at finding a up or down point, then guess what? You're informing yourself!

This is not about Bush, this is not about those loony liberals and those kooky conservatives, it's not about Obama.

This is about keeping a wary eye on those you've given power to, and making sure they stick to the principles YOU find important.

So start investigating what's in this bill...

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf

...and inform your fellow citizens here!

I'll start:

Thumbs-up: Page 4 - Cleaning Fossil Energy - $2.4 billion for carbon sequestration demonstration projects. Though not really the government's role, hopefully this can lead to an industry breakthrough, one that will allow guilt-free carbon-sequestered coal plants, and put us on the road to energy independence.

Thumbs-down: Page 4 - GSA Federal Fleet - $600 million to replace older government vehicles with more fuel-efficient versions. Wait til the older vehicles break down, THEN replace them with fuel-efficient vehicles, because that expense *should* already be planned for.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ken
Member Profile

Federal fleet vehicles usually get replaced in groups and by age. I am pretty sure this bill does not plan to replace all in-service vehicles owned by the gummint since 600 mil would not be enough and many of them are already hybrids or types of vehicles which do not have more fuel efficient versions.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter07.pdf

This page shows the previously passed acts which this appropriation will take from the PR/Window dressing stage into reality.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html

Also note: Federal whistleblower protection was amended into the bill a couple of hours ago.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/government-oversight/go-so-20090127.html

Posted 3 years ago #
Zenguy
Member Profile

I like the overall theme of investing in this country's severely neglected infrastucture, roads, bridges, a new power grid and most importantly making sure the next generation can compete on a global scale.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

sky2625...

that was a lot more than 8 pages... i know because i printed them out to read and highlight:(

there are a few things in there that bother me... the first is giving all money to the CDC to build facilities when the institution itself is in serious need of reform... i say reform first and rebuild later...

the second is putting money into the smartgrid for electrical service without regulating energy traders who drive up the cost of electricity...

but overall, i was struck by the intention to spend money in areas that would create long term infrastructure benefit and/or would increase America's competitive scientific stature to lure investment...

I was also struck by how small a dent the investments in infrastructure would make in our overall need.

Our tunnel project may well qualify for federal funds since it was rushed through to become an existing program... but we have no existing plan for a public transit program that could compete for federal dollars.. the backlog of approved programs is simply too large.

If nothing else, this document showed me how great the need is for America to invest in itself...

after all.. we aren't going to find any other country willing to fund a Marshall plan or anything similar for us...

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

what's not in the stimulus bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/bank-of-america-hosted-an_n_161248.html

or this..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/obama-officials-tells-cit_n_161202.html

but republican's approved the bail out plan for banks....

not the stimulus package

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/house-gop-stimulus-plan-h_n_161564.html

this is disappointing at best...

"Republicans said the bill was short on tax cuts and contained too much spending, much of it wasteful and unlikely to help laid-off Americans."

You have to wonder if they actually read the bill...

Posted 3 years ago #
beachdrivegirl
Member Profile

Shocking! All the missing stuff came from a liberal based news source. Who would have guessed???

and Sky2265 i look forward to reading all 13 pages and reporting back to you later!!

Posted 3 years ago #
Ken
Member Profile

BTW: the "Cleaning Fossil Energy" demonstration money is a dare to put up or stfu to the "Clean Coal" lobby.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

killing the messenger doesn't change the message...

the first article cited contains actual audio clips of the phone conversation cited...

the second was sourced by an ABC news report

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=6740011&page=1

if you have conflicting information, post it...

that's how conversation happens.

Posted 3 years ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

Moody's investor service came up with an analysis of the effectiveness of government spending in terms of the economic activity for dollars spent.

Food stamps return $1.73 in economic activity for every dollar.

Infrastructure projects get $1.59 per dollar.

Tax cuts can work, $1.03 per buck.

Corporate tax cuts are losers, $0.30 per $1.00.

1/3 of the bill is tax cuts. They are fast acting, at least the ones that work, but fixing our bridges and roads are better investments.

A civil engineering society estimates that the US would need to spend 2.2 trillion in the next five years to get the infrastructure up to snuff. The piddling hundreds of billions in the stimulus bill won't do much to fill that bill.

Increase unemployment payments and provide people with food. These seem to be the fastest, and most effective ways to prime the pump.

Posted 3 years ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

Does everybody know that this Stimulus Package is another 819 Billion dollars on top of the 700 Billion dollar "bail out"? 1.5
Trillion more dollars. OMG. This is additional money. Just wanted to make that clear.

I don't understand the hurry in getting it done when I believe only 3 percent will have any affect this year and the next year 16 percent. Historically, when government passes bills too fast they don't work as well.

I have a problem with the terminology because they NEED to pass it NOW but it won't really be available NOW. If they really want to stimulate the private sector, drop the corporate tax rate. I believe ours is one of the highest in the world at around 35%. If you feel the need go to this link http://www.worldwide-tax.com/ then scroll down to the United States link and you can see all tax rates.

I am still reading all of your links. Once I have time I will gladly tell you what I think. I already have a problem with ...stay tuned

Posted 3 years ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

Nice Post CatlBob

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

HMCRich...

The problem with the first bailout is that it went to corporations.. who didn't use the money to retain employees... or loan money.. or do anything else that would actually help our economy...

i fear the same would happen with a tax cut given to corporations...

now if that tax cut were given to manufacturing companies with plants in the United States... employing Americans... i might be willing...

you get the most bang for the buck when you give the money to those who need it the worst.

imagine that... the compassionate course is also the most effective..

Posted 3 years ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

The banks aren't lending either. Yes the first bailout was a partial bust wasn't it? Although I think I heard Chrysler sees light at the end of the tunnel.

I had a thought. The automakers CEO's were trashed for flying in private jets and made alternative means on getting to DC the second time. So...I wonder how many of our elected officials in congress have "American Made" cars. How many of them have vehicles that get 35 mph? I was just curious. Personally, I like Mazda's. I think if Congress demands certain things then they should be representative and accountable. Ha.. that won't happen!

Don't get me wrong. I like free markets but I do not trust some of these Corporations that received the money. They have screwed up big time (Along with Barney Frank and W) But I also know all these regulations from the Federal Government in some of these industries makes everything cost more. Read John Stossel's book about Lies, Myths etc.

I do not disagree with your post JoB. Thanks for the invite the other day. It was great to see a few of you at Full Tilt. My son is ruined. He will be an Ice Cream Fiend Pinball Wizard.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

I was looking forward to President Obams's economic stimulus spending even though I didn't vote for him.

Now it seems as though the spending has very little to do with economic stimulus.

For example:
How is one third of one billion dollars of spending on STD (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) an economic stimulus?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashsb.htm

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Here is a URL current as of 1:57am PST for a Washington Times article about whether it should be $335,000,000 (335 million dollars) or $400,000,000 (400 million dollars) for STD (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) federal spending for an "economic stimulus":
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/economic-stimulus-bills-allot-millions-for-std-pre/

Posted 3 years ago #
Ken
Member Profile

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2006/05/30/john-stossel-is-a-pathological-liar/

Stossel is not a fool, he is however, not a journalist either.

And the moonie times? WTF?
The states are already spending it, this just puts some federal dollars back in each state budget.

If you don't spend money on fighting STD's after the Bushco war on sex education, it's both the poor (Democrats) and the willfully ignorant (Republicans) who will pay the price.

Hey! I found the bipartisanship in the bill.

Posted 3 years ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

A falsehood that has been spread widely since 1/20 states that a CBO analysis of the economic recovery plan was a full analysis of the bill and goes on to falsely suggest that in that analysis, the CBO found that the majority of the money in the plan would not get spent within the first year and a half. In fact, that CBO report was only a partial analysis and addressed only a component of the proposal, not the overall package.

The CBO subsequently released its "Cost Estimate" of H.R. 1, an analysis of the entire recovery plan as introduced in the House of Representatives, and concluded that 64 percent of the package would be spent by the end of the fiscal year 2010: "Combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $169 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in 2010, by $174 billion in 2011, and by $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period."

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

ScottB...

i admit that i haven't downloaded the actual bill passed by the House to go over it with a highlighter as i did the link sky2625 provided....

but in that bill i didn't see any money targeted to STDs...

i did see 3 billion to fight preventable chronic diseases... and it is entirely possible that that money was provided under that to fight STDs.. which by the way covers a broad range of diseases ... including HPV .. which left untreated can lead to cervical cancer... and death.

The problem with letting pundits do our reading for us and define the issues is that they tend to skip over the big picture and focus on headline producing details...

Posted 3 years ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

The Stimulus Package won't work. Creating jobs long-term works. It's just more wasteful spending by the government who obviously can't run their own business effectively.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ken
Member Profile

Jiggers. Please explain how giving billions to Saudi owned banks with no oversight or hope of repayment is good for any business other than the banks involved and their shareholders. Extra points for explaining how shared risk is capitalism but shared reward is socialism.

No republican worried about where the money was going until it looked like the American worker might get a little.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Ken wrote:

"No republican worried about where the money was going until it looked like the American worker might get a little."

I agree that if the current "stimulus" is passed, then the American worker might get a little of it.

It is also increasingly evident that the "stimulus" is not a stimulus, but is merely a tranfer payment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment
with earmarks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics).

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

ScottB..

Here we are again on the rhetoric train...

do you read Moody's investor service?

It's apparent that the republican leadership doesn't... or maybe they just don't believe anything they don't want to hear...

catlbob did a great job of detailing their report on stimulus efforts in post #9.

If you did.. you would know that some of those entitlement programs that you object to the most are the most effective at actually stimulating the economy.. that is.. compelling people to spend on goods and services.

i know it's going to be hard.. but our government is once again actually looking for evidence based decisions ..

that is when they aren't busy pandering to republicans ...

who are too busy making their point to actually contribute anything to the process.

Posted 3 years ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

"If they really want to stimulate the private sector, drop the corporate tax rate. I believe ours is one of the highest in the world at around 35%."
.
There is a difference in 'tax rate' and what corporations are actually paying. If ANY company is paying 35% or anything near that amount, you need to fire your accountant. No one is paying 35% and staying in business long.

Besides, about 2/3 of US corporations pays $0 in corporate taxes.
.
And if you are to use examples of other countries... many have 'socialistic' governments, most have universal health care systems... yet we never hear the right tout those benefits.
.
some short read links:
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016642.php
.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/29/irish-tax/
.
"rather than “create jobs,” corporations retained their extra profits, invested little in new commercial structures such as factories and office buildings, bought back their own stock, and “increased dividends rather than expand capacity.”
.
the last thing we need right now is more corporate tax breaks.

Posted 3 years ago #
Traci
Member Profile

I don't understand this stuff, so I'm mailing my dad this link (he's in Texas) so he'll explain it to me.

I mean....I understand the stimulus in theory but not practically. That probably makes no sense, I'll get back to you after talking to the dad.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Traci,

If you are in the Seattle area, I suggest you listen to radio AM770 occasionally.

Rush Limbaugh (9:00am -12:00noon) is funny and smart.

I like Michael Medved (12:00 noon - 3:00pm), especially for his support of Israel, and he is extremely intelligent. I can't get behind his belief in Bigfoot, but maybe he is like Agent Mulder in the X-Files. His "Conspiracy Day" shows when he takes calls from whackos on days with a full moon are very amusing.

I like David Boze (3:00pm - 6:00pm) because his show emphasizes local politics.

Michael Savage (6:00pm -9:00pm) is more extreme.

The guy in the morning before Rush Limbaugh (something Beck?) is iffy.

If you are curious about what the big deal is regarding "right-wing-talk radio," then listen to Rush Limbaugh. Many liberals listen to his show, too.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

Posted 3 years ago #
Traci
Member Profile

Thanks Scott

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Traci,

AM770 on the weekends is lame.

If you want to try out "right wing talk radio" then wait until Monday - Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm.

Posted 3 years ago #
Magpie
Member Profile

I work in the financial sector and (not in a place where there was any bail outs. We are conservative, financially strong and still lending $) but I have seen the devastating affect of this current economic crisis first hand. A bailout where you give out a bunch of cash isn't going to help.People who don't need it are just going to sock it away.

I rarely agree with the Republicans in Congress, but I think this $ should go to job training, small businesses,etc to get people back to work. I am seeing single people with over 60k incomes going bankrupt because they need to get out of their other debts so that they can pay their 100k plus in student loans (not dischargeable in banko unless can prove extreme hardship). Give some relief to students. I have seen the crazy mortgages that force people in to bankruptcy when they reprice (negatively amortizing when the value of the house is 50k less than when they bought it). It's crazy out there.

My father and 2 uncles worked for the CCC during the depression. They used the skills they learned their entire work life. I am for job training, and rebuilding our infrastructure (think underground electricity = no trees breaking electric wires and no massive influx of overtime = less cost for electricity in the future..at least in theory) but I think even the last economic stimulus package just delayed the inevitable and that might be the case with the bailouts, too.

Anyone want real news? Watch Worldfocus on KTBC at 6 pm. Their website is http://www.worldfocus.org Bill Moyers Journal on KCTS at 9 on Fridays. Both of those programs have opened up my world and my mind.

Posted 3 years ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

I'm confused, Magpie. What is it that you are agreeing with the Republicans relating to education aid in the stimulus bill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html?hp

Posted 3 years ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

JamminJ, I read your links and yes there are many loopholes for businesses. I believe the rest pay between 15 and 35 percent. I guess their accountants aren't as good. Seems to me you are complaining about our (unfair) tax code. Maybe it should be changed.

If what you say is true, then we cannot afford the stimulus (spending program) because only 1/3 of the corporations are paying the full amount of taxes. Add to that the amount of people paying federal income tax is about 62%, we probably cannot pay for everything that we already owe besides all the new or "needed" spending.

Additionally 5% of the top individual tax payers pay for 59% of all federal income. The Wealthy do seem to be paying their share. Maybe the rest of us need to make more money! I wish I could but not at the expense of others.

Excuse me, but plenty of corporations have been or were building infrastructure. Now they are cutting back. True, their job is to make money and some really screwed you and I. Others wanted to expand businesses but ran into intrusive government rules and regs, plus lawsuits. I am amazed anything can be built in King County. Tried to get something done in Bellevue lately? Amazingly I still see some cranes.

Oh yes, all Republicans just want people to die and pay too much for health care so that insurance companies can make a profit for their shareholders. Predators in business get caught eventually but too many people get hurt.

How intrusive and innovative do we want our health care system? I think ours stinks because it should be an individual care system rather than employer based concerning insurance. Switzerland has a decent system. It is still a market driven system but involvement is mandatory. Everyone benefits and pays. http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/stories/DN-swisshealth_07bus.ART0.State.Edition2.21730ee.html

Whether market driven or tax driven, government or private, you have to pay. I just believe a government run health system would be less efficient.
Look at what our poor veterens have to go through at Walter Reed.
I am willing to be open minded because we all need more and more care as we age. Show me a system that works better. Give me examples please.

Posted 3 years ago #
Magpie
Member Profile

I guess I had too much to talk about. I was agreeing with much of the bill, but I also agree in part with some of what the republicans are saying that throwing money at people isn't a good idea and that small business relief is a good idea. I guess I wasn't clear to anyone but myself!

Posted 3 years ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

When the Fed cut the prime rate to, effectively, zero, it did not spur the economy as intended. That ran the Chicago school, supply side economics theory into the ground. There's nothing left in their quiver to shoot at the failing economy.

So, expecting business to re-ignite the economy is a very long term view. We are now at the point where the Keyesian solution of govenment spending to raise aggregate demand and reduce unemployment needs to be applied.

We've had 28 years of supply siders pooh-poohing Keynes, but he was right before and I think the approach he put forward in 1937 will prove right in our present circumstance. Keynes scolded FDR for applying too little stimulus to the economy until the US started the buildup for WWII. Keynes postulated that the Great Depression could have been shortened by that level of govenment spending, applied earlier.

Very few think deficits are what we should be worrying about right now. Keeping people from standing in bread lines is.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

bisinesses only add employes when there are customers for their product/service...

unless you add customers.. businesses aren't going to add employees...

the way to add customers is to get money to consumers...

you can do that by creating new govt sponsored jobs.. but that takes time and in the meantime small businesses go out of business.

giving money to taxpayers short term is more likely to help keep smaller businesses in business.. and keep at least some of their employees working.. long enough for them to benefit from the increased wages from government sponsored jobs...

if giving money to corporations had worked to even retain jobs, citibank wouldn't have bonused executives and laid off employees...

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

for those of us who are the smallest of small businesses - sole proprietorships, in a service industry, working at the whim of other people's spending (except for health insurance payments), giving corporate tax cuts is going to do nothing...I repeat, NOTHING, to stimulate my business. There is no tax break for me. Put the money in the hands of the taxpayers? That may help a bit more..

I guess it's all in how you look at things...and there is no one easy answer...

Posted 3 years ago #
Magpie
Member Profile

I agree that there is no easy answer. I have done a non-scientific poll of my friends and co-workers. The ones who make the most money have all said they would put any stimulus $ in the bank or they would rather not get it because they don't need it. The ones who make the least money would pay on an existing bill. Neither of these options will really help the economy. I guess we will all have to wait and see.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Magpie..

those who make the least money don't even have money to spend it on a bill.. they will spend the money on luxuries like food.

According to Moody.. Food stamps actually have the largest return for stimulus dollars...

the disconnect between the haves and the have nots has become very large if that basic fact escapes those who can still do something short term to help keep businesses open and people employed.

No.. spending won't work long term.. there need to be other programs that step in to provide more jobs to keep any recovery going...

but what good will new jobs do if those who currently have jobs become unemployed because there are no customers for their goods and services?

If those who receive stimulus checks choose to save them or send them back, they defeat the purpose which is to keep as many businesses alive and as many jobs intact as possible.

Your friends may choose to hoard any money they receive in a stimulus package.. that is their choice..

but in doing so they may well provoke the loss of their own jobs.

When small businesses fail, those who supply and help with management services fail, and the companies who supply and help with management services for those businesses fail.. and it keeps right on moving up the network. Ultimately, it affects most of us.

Any business which survives by servicing other businesses will be affected by the failure of small businesses... and as those businesses fail those who depend upon the income from their employees will fail...

I don't know what it is going to take to get it through the heads of those who have means that we are all in the same boat... and that our indifference to those who have already lost out on the economic lottery will ultimately contribute to our own failure.

The words Obama spoke about our financial recovery requiring effort from all citizens weren't just words.

In the short term, what ordinary citizens choose to do with their money will have more impact on the ability of our economy to recover than any other intervention.

I don't advocate spending wildly.. but i do advocate investing in those goods and services you think you might want to have around if the economy recovers.. because if you don't, they won't be the only businesses to fail.

Beyond that, i advocate spending for renewable and sustainable resources...

We are buying our farm share from local farmers...

now is a very good time to invest in people who can actually grow food.

Posted 3 years ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

How about your friends who are unemployed? You'll have a lot more of them, maybe you yourself, before long.

Posted 3 years ago #
Magpie
Member Profile

Funny, I made the same remark when folks were dogging Yvonne at PCC.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Magpie...

I fail to see the connection between your remarks about Yvonne at PCC and the stimulus package.

Posted 3 years ago #
beachdrivegirl
Member Profile

Magpie, I understand exactly where you were comign from you have been quite clear.

The problem with what you are doing is that you arent agreeing with the others on here therefore they will either 1) call you a troll or 2)put words in your mouth whichever is easiest for them?

And two other quick questions.
1) Didnt we first have the stimulus checks sent out before the bailotu to boost the economy? didnt that not work??
2) What is wrong with individuals saving their stimulus checks? they are preparing for their future and at some point the money will be spent. If there is somethign wrong with saving those checks I believe you are implying thier is something wrong with saving in general which I very strongly disagree with.

Posted 3 years ago #
clark5080
Member Profile

A great article with some info as to why the stimulus bill is having a tough time of it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

clark5080..

Yes, that article did illustrate why the stimulus bill is having a tough time of it.. it was full of emotional rhetoric and insinuations, but little substance.

the insinuations about the Obama cabinet would carry far more weight if a similar analysis of the Bush cabinet had been printed in their newspaper so that readers could assess them in context.

but that would have destroyed the insinuations.

At worst, the article accuses Obama of being an adroit politician...

letting Pelosi craft the first draft of the bill in the House... letting special interests (representatives) change wording to gain support... lobbying the opposition...

Obama didn't have to encourage Pelosi to work with house Republicans... the stimulus bill would have easily passed the house without either house republicans or blue dogs.

Now, the senate is a different matter.. and is where the real compromise will happen.

the bill that hit the senate will be significantly different by the time it heads back to the house for approval...

Nancy gets her chops.. the house has the votes to pass whatever bill the senate sends back.. and hopefully something gets signed before the economy totally collapses.

The pressure put on the stimulus bill is no unseemly rush. Have you looked at the statistics for last month? this month is expected to be worse and the numbers will continue getting worse unless something is done and done quickly.

***

As for stimulus dollars.. i agree that they are wasted on the upper middle class and the rich... who are too "smart" or too self centered to actually use it for it's intended purpose.

i think they should increase the amount and refund it only to those who will actually spend it.

Better yet, they should put it all in food stamps and raise the qualifying income limits so the working poor can benefit.

We'd get real stimulus from that...

but of course that would be labeled social engineering and wouldn't be acceptable to those who will sock those stimulus dollars away.. taking them out of circulation.

We did our patriotic duty and spent our stimulus dollars even though that was a republican program.

We could have saved the money.. but as has been pointed out it isn't really enough to save anyone's backside if the titanic sinks...

multiplied by every taxpayer, it is enough to stimulate the economy and keep doors open and people employed long enough for the infrastructure jobs to begin to make a difference.

Those who wonder why the last stimulus checks didn't work are likely to find the answers in their own actions...

What part of the fact that our GNP is based more on consumerism than manufacture is not registering with those who think that it is ok to let businesses fail?

The economy we count on for the salaries we save is based on people buying things and short term speculation.

It might be in our best interests to keep it afloat long enough to invest in both public and private infrastructure, adjust stock profit expectations, correct wage inequity and re-balance the economy to a basis that is sustainable long term.

If we don't, debt will be the smallest of the problems we leave our grandchildren...

when Obama said that every American would have to do their part...

he really meant that.

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

and in the meantime, Rome burns while Nero fiddles. Repubs won't be happy until it's THEIR plan. If the senate passes a version, it's different than the house version, so then they have to go into a committee, or something like that. And in the meantime, more and more people are getting laid off, the economy sinks further. Politics as usual, and I, for one, am tired of it. If the programs offered during the Bush admin. to "stimulate" the economy had worked, we'd probably have a Repub prez, and they could get on with life..but that didn't happen, and those ideas failed, and for the Repubs to insist on doing the same is disingenuous, has nothing to do with helping the problems in this country, has only to do with being Opies, stamping their feet, and wanting their (partisan) way. And nothing is getting done fast. No wonder we're cynical about politicians....many of them (Lindsey Graham comes to mind) are akin to 3 year olds...just my opinion.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

JanS..

LOL.. what do you really think?

disingenuous? that's a polite way of putting it:)

if our news media won't redirect the conversation to substance, we have no choice as citizens but to do it ourselves.

don't forget, the power of the press fueled the revolution that created this nation... if readers equal power, each of us with our own personal computers has more power than any one source had then...

viva la revolution!

;~>

Posted 3 years ago #
Sue
Member Profile

For anyone interested, there is going to be a Sunday Forum at the lower level of the Alki Masonic Temple (4736 40th Avenue SW) called "Reflections on the Federal Economic Stimulus Package" - this Sunday (2/8) at 9:30am, prior to the Sunday service of the Westside Unitarians. I'm not personally involved in the Forum so I don't know what shape the discussion will take, but wanted to pass it along for anyone interested.

Posted 3 years ago #
beachdrivegirl
Member Profile

Why are we talking about stimulus checks when there is no mention of them in the "American Recovery & Reinvestment Plan" the name of the stimulus package?

Many economic professors have encouraged those that are in the position to save any stimulus checks to do so. CNN Money actually recommended the following:

1) Paying Down Debt
2) Creating an Emergency Reserve (A minimum of three months living expenses.) which is especially critical during this economic time.
3) Investing it
4) Investing in an IRA

So overall I would use the description fiscally responsible when talking about this responsible savers rather than not smart or self centered. The very reason why they are in the position they are in to be able to save is probably due to them being fiscally conservative in the past.

Also, Sue, thank you for the information about the forum. I might just stop by. I am very interested in hearing more about the plan as well as more on others thoughts.

Posted 3 years ago #
BarbG
Member Profile

JoB, are you seriously telling me that I am unpatriotic if I decide to save money that I get? I am hardly an upper middle class or rich person, and I'm not self centered, but I am smart, and if I get money, I try to save it. I have food, nothing fancy but what I can afford, I have a home, nothing fancy, but what I can afford. But I don't feel the need to spend all money I get, so if I get a stimulus check I will save it, because that is what is the right thing for me. Because if a day, month, year from now I am unemployed then I will have that little bit of money I saved and I didn't spend on shoes and hats because I wasn't being "patriotic" like you.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

BarbG

Saving that money won't do a thing to stimulate the economy.. what will stimulate the economy is buying goods or services.

Our economy is a consumer economy. I didn't make it that way in fact, I have not politically supported the tax breaks to companies that move their manufacturing overseas and have written to my elected representatives continually for the past 3 decades about the need to invest in American manufacturing and give tax breaks to companies that actually employ Americans... in a vain effort to keep manufacturing jobs in the United states and prevent the current imbalance in employment.

but whether this consumer based economy is what i wanted or not.. this is what we have now...

If you want to keep this economy afloat.. you need to consume.

You can make prudent choices... you don't have to spend it on shoes and hats. we didn't. We supported the tourist industry with the last one.

And you don't have to consume beyond your means... but right now.. with conditions the way they are... if you choose to hoard you are doing both yourself and your country a disservice.

and yes, i think that is unpatriotic. Contrary to what we have been led to believe, patriotism has far less to do with waving a flag and blindly supporting whatever regime is in power and more to do with standing up and doing what is good for your country.

You would be doing yourself a disservice by not using stimulus dollars because the money you save... even factoring in interest.. is not likely to keep up with inflation if our economy tanks...

I don't know about you.. but that money we have been socking away in retirement plans took a nose dive that would have made 2% interest look good...

We would have been better off using the money than saving it...

and it is only going to get worse before it gets better.

don't kid yourself into thinking this is a little downturn we are experiencing and it will soon be over.

The republican aided greed fest has destabilized the entire economy... not just banking or real estate or the auto industry. The layoffs from last month hit nearly every economic sector except government... and without taxpayers feeding into the system that isn't sustainable either.

Real unemployment..acocording to Moodys is over 14%.. that is if you count those who are employed part time and looking for full time work and those who have already exceeded their unemployment and therefore are no longer being counted.

How high do you think unemployment should go before we do something? Does it have to hit your job before you take it seriously?

I heard to ay that the current unemployment rate in California is has now exceeded 20% .. and that is NOT a figure adjusted for reality...

your reaction.. and that of others who post here.. is exactly why i am in favor of that money going to the food stamp program.. and raising the economic guidelines so that the working poor can get them.

the working poor have already been forced to turn to food banks to feed themselves and their children.

They would spend those food stamps on food which would actually stimulate the economy.

The current version of the senate bill contains 52% tax cuts.. which do nothing to stimulate the economy..

but my guess is that they will make you a pretty happy camper... that is, until the economy tanks because it wasn't stimulated by tax cuts..

Posted 3 years ago #
BarbG
Member Profile

JoB, before you start throwing around accusations that I am unpatriotic maybe you should know more about me. I don't want unemployment to go any higher, but dammit, I want to save my money. Maybe I will spend it on something, and maybe I will save it, and maybe I will do a mix of spending and putting it an account. But you have no damn right to tell me that I am unpatriotic, or imply that I am selfish and that I don't care about anyone else. I have a lot of things on my side that make me very patriotic. The military sticker that allows me to get onto the base where I work, THAT makes me patriotic. The ID card that I hold in my wallet that shows I am a member of the armed forces, THAT makes me patriotic. The uniform that I wear showing that I am in the military, THAT makes me patriotic. So for you to tell me that because I don't spend a hundred dollars, or two hundred dollars that is sent to me by the government I am unpatriotic, well I'm sorry, but piss off.

And if this post gets me removed from this blog, or gets deleted because the friends of JoB don't like it, then fine, but the above entry from JoB pissed me off.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^