Economic Stimulus Package

in General Discussion edited January 2014
I say skip it. IMO it wont do much to turn things around. Too little too late with the money going where it?s not needed.

It's either a spending spree for pork projects or a tax give away for big business.

So who needs it? Skip it. Don't spend the money.


  • Reply 1 of 17
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    The combination of the terrorism and the surplus is just too irresistible for them.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    Of course it's the MAN spending money! And everyone is AGAINST the MAN!

  • Reply 3 of 17
    [quote]It's either a spending spree for pork projects or a tax give away for big business.<hr></blockquote>

    We are in total agreement here.

    If there is any assistance, perhaps it should go to the laid off airline employees?

    Airlines have fought increased security mesures for years. Their incompetance resulted in the deaths of thousands. So, the government turned around and handed over 15 Billion to cover their operating expenses.

    The airlines turned around and laid of tens of thousands of employees and found ways to deny many of them any kind of severence pay whatsoever.

    Giving corprorations more money will accomplish nothing. They will take the money and still screw their employees if they have the chance. I have no problem with helping to pay the bills of people who don't have anything to fall back on now their unemployment benefits have been denied.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    And when the airlines went out of business and it took EVEN longer to get where you want to go.. more hassle you'd be complaining "What is the Government doing about this??" Damn Bush!

    It's a double edged sword.
  • Reply 5 of 17
    IMO there's no way to make sure any money gets to the "right" people. It's all politics now. If they spend $1B on something that seems good to most people then they will tack on $10B in bullshit spending or tax give aways.

    So the best way to do it right is to do nothing.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    Yeah, whatever....<a href=""; target="_blank">I NEED A JOB!</a>
  • Reply 7 of 17
    I'm actually in agreement with DocGonzo (btw, he belongs on my list of AI people I'd like to meet) about something!! I'm big on tax cuts but steadfastly opposed to corporate welfare which is what that airline bailout was.

    If there was a way for them to pass a stimulus package that involved acceleraing the tax cuts already passed and nothing more, I'd say go for it. But that won't happen so they should just leave it alone.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    Both the tax cuts and the Democrats' $73 million (I think?) plan of government spending are examples of expansionary fiscal policy.

    Expansionary fiscal policy would be used to speed up the rate of GDP growth or during a recession when GDP growth is negative. A tax cut and/or increase in government spending would be implemented to stimulate economic growth and lower unemployment rates. These policies will lead to higher budget deficits. A decrease in taxes would also raise private spending.

    Government spending would hurt unemployment more, so I think tax cuts would be better.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    These tax cuts are more supply-side policy than fiscal policy, but the spending is fiscal. Two competing camps of economists Keynesians (Dems) and supplt-siders/monetarist (Reps) trying to get along. I think that this could work. seeing the effects of the combination would be interesting.

    --edited to make myself less of a pompous ass.

    [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: tuxbook731 ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 17
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    <a href=""; target="_blank">Here's an analysis of one interesting part of the stimulus package.</a> It's the rebating of the past 15 years of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. The corporate AMT taxes corporations that otherwise would pay much less in taxes because of loopholes. It was the famous Bill Bradley-Ronald Reagan agreement to close loopholes, IIRC.

    What's interesting to me is that it's not just a removal of the tax, or even a retroactive removal of the tax for this year, like they did for the individual income taxes. It's a rebate of all the AMT that these corporations have ever paid.

    IBM alone would get a check for 1.4 billion dollars. (!) Ford would get a billion, GM 800 million, and several oil companies would get several hundred million each.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    this is an old proposal package. Senate Reps proposed a new plan yesterday that lowers the personal interest rate from 27% to 25% and gives a one month holiday from payroll taxes. The Senate Dems are still pushing to increase spending. The Dems are calling for increased spending in the area of domestic security since that is a politically viable option. It may be interesting to observe if they combine the options, which Daschle would support and house Dems are likely to support.

    Oh, that income tax rate reduction wouldn't be effective until 2006. That's right about the time I'll probably have enough income to actually pay taxes.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by tuxbook731:

    <strong>this is an old proposal package.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you're referring to the AMT rebate, it's in the House proposal, and hasn't been taken off the table, as far as I know. Senate Dems oppose it, so it probably won't make it. Of course, the House and Senate bills have to be reconciled, so no one knows yet what will appear in the end.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    yeah, sorry about that. Anyway, I thought we were mainly talking about the Senate Rep proposal that was on today.

    It'll be interesting to watch what happens once the parties in each house come up with a plan. The conference committee proposal should be intriguing to say the least if it combines the proposals out there now.

    BTW, CTJ is one of my favorite watchdog groups. They really tear apart Tennessee's tax structure in a few papers.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    Oh yeah, CTJ also seems to be very Keynesian, that proposal is a very supply-side policy option. I don't think it'll get anywhere unless the House gives Senate Dems some extra spending to meet their Keynesian desires.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by tuxbook731:

    <strong>to meet their Keynesian desires.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    You make it sound so... dirty.

    Can you give an explanation of what Keynesian means?
  • Reply 16 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:


    Can you give an explanation of what Keynesian means?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    <a href=""; target="_blank">Here</a> you go.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    Can you give an explanation of what Keynesian means?<hr></blockquote>

    Basically, Keynesian policy focuses on using government spending to spur the economy. It tries to spur demand by employing more people. A prime example is the FDR administration and their alphabet soup programs that helped the U.S. recover from the Great Depression in the 30s.
Sign In or Register to comment.