Economic Stimulus Package
Gotta Wonder Sometimes...
Saturday, February 14, 2009 by hallv5 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Now that it appears our esteemed pols have passed their 'economic stimulus' bill you kind of have to wonder why no one came up with this simple idea to stimulate the economy by cutting out the 'middle man'.
Simply take the total of the stimulus package (some where around $782B), divide that by the US population (approx. 360M, but only legal residents of course), then cut every man, woman, and child a check for their share.
You'd have to think that would stimulate the economy a whole lot faster than giving it to the Wall Street, Banking, Big Auto, and Labor Union execs to divvy up, wouldn't you? Oh, but wait, I forgot in my scenario the pols wouldn't be lining the pockets of their primary campaign contributors....
Reply #2 Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:26 AM
And one of the most disturbing parts of the 'economic stimulus' package, as I understand it, is the lack of a provision (was one there as the bill was originally proposed, but it was voted out by the Lib Dems) to 'hire' American.
Which, I guess, kind of proves that a very large percentage of their voter base is, in fact, comprised of non-resident aliens.
You really do have to love the activist bills (like 'Motor Voter' and the 'Instant Registration') that they've managed to slip in over the years to dilute the impact of legal resident voters in elections though. And all in the name of diversity and enfranchisement...
Reply #3 Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:34 AM
I thought Obama meant to do that in a different package, though...can't do it all at once, I guess.
Reply #4 Saturday, February 14, 2009 12:02 PM
I'm absolutely disgusted with the 'spending bill' I think Pelosi should be tarred and feathered..she has no business being in politics... I find myself feeling ill when i hear her talk.
800 billion dollars.. and no one even READ the bill.
way to go
even the illegal immigrants are flocking back accross the border cos they know whats coming.
Reply #5 Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:10 PM
No I haven't, as I live in Australia and none of it directly affects me, but at face value it seems to be pumping a huge majority of the funds into propping up banking and industry, and that is all wrong. The directors and executives of big business and banking have already proven without doubt that they know how to economically mismanage and misappropriate funds. So starting from the top down is likely to see very few of those 'stimulus' dollars actually stimulating the economy as a whole.
With little or no 'stimulus' dollars actually reaching the consumer base, the average joe and the battler, the propensity to pay remains low and manufactured goods will remain on the shelf, thus increasing unemployment in the long-term through greater supply than demand. While the stimulus package may reduce unemployment in the short term, it will do little to stimulate consumer confidence or spending in its current form, and so a little farther down ther track big business will be crying broke again because profits are down... meaning workers will lose their jobs and the vicious circle remains unbroken.
So yes, John, the US stimulus needs a major rethink. Trouble is, that isn't going to happen when too many US politicians have strong ties to big business and the little bloke who needs it most, the consumer who would stimulate the economy if he could, sees nothing. A more balanced approach is required if the US Gov't is serious about tackling US financial woes, because throwing more good money after bad isn't going to cut it.
*EDIT* Just to clarify my interest and reason for commenting on the US economy when I do not live there. While the inequities in the US economic stimulus package do not directly affect me or mine, we are affected indirectly because we'e now living in a global economy, and what happens there filters on... meaning the entire World will suffer more if they get it wrong, which I believe they have.
Reply #6 Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:33 PM
Unfortunately, the entire point of the bill is to CONVINCE investors and banks that our economy still works. The amount is actually irrelevant. It's just supposed to "feel" large enough to look like it will make a difference, even if it actually doesn't in any real, measureable way.
Since our banking system relies on the good will of all involved (since it is not backed by hard assets) everything economic is, in a very real sense, just an illusion.
If the bankers are convinced the economy will hold up (whether the facts support it or not), they'll lend. If they lend, the economy will begin working again. If they don't, it won't. It's just that simple.
So, all of this is just politics to return us to our normally functioning illusion. And while that should scare the hell out of everyone with a brain, the truth is that this is the same illusion all modern economies are based on.
We now happily return to our previously scheduled economic illusion.
Reply #7 Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:32 AM
{Head firmly encapsulated in ductape to keep brain from exploding} The people being referred to as 'not having read the bill' weren't us Joe Publics; it was the braindead pols that passed it!
Reply #8 Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:51 AM
800 billion dollars.. and no one even READ the bill.
way to go
even the illegal immigrants are flocking back accross the border cos they know whats coming.
She is rather "Out There". We've found the answer to that "Immigration". It's called "Poverty/Deep Recession/Depression".
{Head firmly encapsulated in ductape to keep brain from exploding} The people being referred to as 'not having read the bill' weren't us Joe Publics; it was the braindead pols that passed it!
@hallv5: That's precisely what starkers meant. They did the same with "The Patriot (lol) Act)", and we lost Haebeus Corpus...only the Keystone of American and British Democracy.
Reply #9 Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:08 AM
hallv5, Doc pretty much summed up what I was thinking, that the politicians have their heads in the kitty litter.
The reference to myself not having read it was to say that I would not have been made privvy to what the 'bill' contains because I'm not directly affected by it as a non-US citizen... but it doesn't take a genius living there to know what's going on and why it is wrong on too many levels.
I think Excalpius made quite a valid point here...
The problem for too long has been power brokers playing hardball economics with non-existent funds In other words, they've been hedging too many risky bets while bleeding the real economy dry through grossly obscene salaries and bonuses, and when it comes time to pay up on bad investments the cash pool is empty. Trouble is, too many politicians believe they are economists and fall into the same trap, spending from and to the top with money they simply do not have, while ignoring the fact that you need a strong consumer base to support the manufacturers, goods and services providers.
They are just not seeing that there must be a symiotic relationship between providers and the consumer base, that it is where the grass roots of every economy begins. It doesn't matter how big a company becomes, whether or not they deal directly with the buying public, at the end of the day it comes down to the consumer base being able to sustain its propensity to pay, and if it can not then it defeats the purpose of production. This is why I have repeatedly said that the relationship between providers and consumers needs to be more equitable... because the repercussions of ignoring that basic requiremet of economics are being felt in corporate board rooms all around the World.
Unfortunately, the basic tenet of economics has been cast aside and forgotten by the wheelers and dealers because they have become too entrenched in profit making and closing multi-million deals to take care of the basics. It is fueled by extravagence and greed, and it will continus until we the people act and force our governments to address it in real terms.
Reply #10 Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:59 PM
{Head firmly encapsulated in ductape to keep brain from exploding} The people being referred to as 'not having read the bill' weren't us Joe Publics; it was the braindead pols that passed it!
@hallv5: That's precisely what starkers meant. They did the same with "The Patriot (lol) Act)", and we lost Haebeus Corpus...only the Keystone of American and British Democracy.
hallv5, Doc pretty much summed up what I was thinking, that the politicians have their heads in the kitty litter.
I think you're giving them all way too much credit. I'm fairly sure it's not that they've got their head 'in' the kitty litter, but more like their heads are 'full' of kitty litter -- and -- not the clean variety....
Reply #11 Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:07 PM
I'm afraid, sadly, that the ones here 'know' their (at best) Socialists and, while they may not have known the inner working of a lot of the bill, they certainly knew about all the perks, paybacks, and social engineering they managed to stuff into it in the dark of night.
Right now, Pres Obama (and I, honestly do wish him all the best 'cuz we're all in this sinking ship together) has a lot of public support behind him. I afraid, though, he may see that start to (very rapidly) evaporate once the general pop begins to understand just how far to the Left his pet project is going to be pushing this Country. Of course I may be wrong. There's a good possibility we've hit that magic 51% level here that actually thinks Gov't is the solution to personal responsibility. Oh well...
Reply #12 Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:21 PM
Somemore fat people will be getting fatter and somemore skinny people will be getting skinnier paying for this.
Reply #13 Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:20 PM
That's the way I used to feel when ever I saw or heard Bush and Cheney. They had 8 years to screw things up and look what great shape they left things in for the Dems. The Obama administration hasn't been in office for a month yet and it's being bashed already. The old tax breaks game didn't work for Bush and from what I can see the Repubs are still stuck on that. Didn't help that most of the Bush tax breaks were for the wealthy anyway. The bottom line is that: The Dems won so they are doing what they want. Will it work? There is no silver bullet.
One thing I do know however: I have a long list of people that I'd like to see tarred and feathered but it ain't happening. #1 is Bush, #2 is Cheney and #3 is Rove. Pelosi isn't on the list yet but she could be one day. Time will tell.
By the way V you are a great great skinner but I don't agree with you on politics. I'm just an old hippie who actually wanted there to be a revolution in the 60's. I actually like Jane Fonda so I guess you and I won't be kickin' it back together anytime soon.
I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it!
Reply #14 Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:00 PM
Hey, me too, but the Fannie Mae and Ginny Mae stuff started under Clinton. Another gem.
Let's be fair: They all are less than desirable. I have great hope for Obama...if he can find and nominate someone who pays his taxes...how's that for a disgrace?
I still stick by what I wrote in #1.
When we take the money out of elections we'll get honest ones (elections) minus the "special interests"....how about the "regular/citizen interests"? That'd be nice for a change.
Reply #15 Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:37 PM
OK, so you said what I was thinking, but refrained from saying outright in case it was a little strong for some sensibilities.
They don't have to be a Socialists to create lurks, perks and take backhanders under the table. Politicians from all walks are guilty of serving their own interests before the common good. However, there is a difference between being a Socialist and having social values that seek to serve the common good. Seems to me that many Americans (particularly those of a Republican persuasion) confuse Socialism and Communism and fear being turned into the USRA (United Socialist Republics of Amarica) if the government is allowed to control national health schemes and the like. It's a likely product of the Cold War and McCarthy warnings about "Commies under the bed", but sheesh, the refusal to implement national schemes, based on fear is all wrong.
Countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain oppose Communism and Socialism in their purest forms, yet they operate successful national schemes to serve the common good... and all within free democratic societies. Seems to me that the US corporations who would rather not help fund national schemes through their taxes have somehow convinced the American people that government control of national health, education and the like is pure evil. It's OK for government to have control over war and numerous related spy agencies, though. Thing is, that's great for business and production... and their tax dollars come rolling back in via government grants to develop newer and better ways to kill.
Personal responsibility is great for those things within ones sphere of influence/control, but what about all those people who fall through the cracks... who, through no fault of their own (strictly limited incomes), can NOT afford decent health care or education for themselves or children? In civilised societies somebody has to take up the slack, so why not government in a non-profit manner, and funded by the billions in taxes that go towards the proliferation of war? From my observations of things here in Australia, where once government owned and controlled assets (electricity) have been privatised, big business is not the answer because prices have skyrocketed and ordinary folk are having to go without to keep the lights on... while their high rise office buildings are lit up like Christmas trees - even on weekends when they're empty - at our expense.
Yup, at the end of the day, it all comes back to corporate greed and extravagence... rather than government control.
Reply #16 Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:06 PM
Dude, you just never know. I was in Berkeley in the 60's, so... My politics run far more to Libertarian than any thing else. In other words, the less the gov't gets involved (for good or ill) in our lives the better off we are, IMO... Power to the People!!!
Reply #17 Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:30 PM
Dude, you just never know. I was in Berkeley in the 60's, so... My politics run far more to Libertarian than any thing else. In other words, the less the gov't gets involved (for good or ill) in our lives the better off we are, IMO... Power to the People!!!
Right on! Nice to know not everyone from back then has gone over to "the dark side".
Reply #18 Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:39 PM
Economic Stimulus Package more like Government Stimulus Package. That thing won't do shit to our economy except put us so farther in debt the next 5+ generations that will be paying that off. Am I right in saying that Obama has already put us farther in debt than Bush had? Haven't looked at the numbers but by now I wouldn't be surprised. Even if he hasn't by the time he's done "Bailing the Economy out" I wouldn't be surprised if the debt far exceeds the 5 trillion Bush added on. So much for the golden boy and his miracle dream of hope!
Reply #19 Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:53 PM
Astyanax, if the "Deregulation" (read: "Open season for my corporate cronies"-G. Bush and R. Cheney) hadn't happened, Obama wouldn't have had to create a stimulus package that costs so much.
Obama didn't do this out of thin air. You have the totally incompetent puppet GWB to thank for that and his puppeteers, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Oh yes...don't forget to thank those who voted for him twice!
Reply #20 Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Darn it...
Saw the thread title - thought it was about a new IconPackage WIP....
*DOH*
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:23 AM
Correct, hallv5. The equally important part would be rewriting the faulty/fraudulant mortgage instruments (NOT for speculators) by setting a reasonable 'fixed rate' minus the "surprise balloon package", and forcing those who did profit from such packages to return the ill gotten monies and to erase any credit damage to the victims of those fraudulent mortgage instruments. Also that the mortgages issued to those without income/resources be revoked w/o prejudice and simple rent be charged.
I think things would snap back to "normal" that way. I would add that those in "credit card debt" be re-educated regarding their proper usage, and that banks/credit card issuers be forbidden to issue them to the unemployed without resources.
Just my opinion, but it seems a lot juster to assign "blame" all the way around since one could not exist w/o the cupidity of the others.
As for the pols? I've spoken about "true campaign reform" before, and not bore everyone with my views here.