Stimulus Plan Stimulates the Economy

[Cutlass]

So uh, should Obama fire Geithner or not? I am so clueless on economic issues its shaming, but everything I've read about Geithner (like the Atlantic piece on him back in March) paints him as a pretty intelligent, competent dude.

I'm not a fan of Geithner. But his primary problem is that he should never open his mouth in public. He does not know how to make his points in ways that don't compromise his possition.

Deficit spending is never cheap.

Then why is it the primary policy of conservatives?

The negatives were steep, due to the price tag. Also, it quite possible (although not certain) we will see a double dip.

Because we didn't go far enough. Excessive conservatism.

 

[Zarn]

I'm not conservative.

Also, all we did this whole time with all of these stimulus packages and bailouts is aid Obama's wealthy buddies. It's a nice waste of money.

 

[Ajidica]

You are aware the first stimulus plan occured under Bush, so it wasn't aiding 'Obama's Wealthy buddies'.

 

[Zarn]

You are aware the first stimulus plan occured under Bush, so it wasn't aiding 'Obama's Wealthy buddies'.

Sometimes, it is the same buddies (and McCain's buddies too)...

Most occurred, under Obama, however. Obama was not exactly uninfluential at that time, either.

That was the bank bailout, BTW.

 

[Ajidica]

He still had no official authority over policy.
Regardless, the stimulus package didn't do what it set out to do, but it helped a little bit.
Whether that help was good or whether it just postponed the inevitable/made things worse, who knows right now. 70 years after the fact we still haven't agreed on the Great Depression and the New Deal programs. Lets wait another 70 years before judging the bailout and stimulus.

 

[plesniak]

anybody who thinks that the stimulus money stimulated the economy of the US is OUT TO LUNCH!!

Try spending your way out of debt with your own home finances...does it work...lol lol lmfao.

Any elementary school kid can tell you that this math does not add up. you can confuse it all by throwing in percentages of this and GDP that, but, it does not change the math.

America is sinking into debt faster than the Titanic made fools out of the outlandish claims her owners and promoters made.

The stimulus money went to big banks and mortgage companies who wrote loans to bad risks. people that have no business owning a home got on the band wagon and defaulted on thier mortgages. Now the banks that wrote the bad loans are getting bail out money to reward thier criminal foolishness. Only in America!! lol

You Americans are getting scammed so bad by your gov't it isn't even funny any more...get your heads out of the sand...your government couldnt' give a shat about any of you.

 

[El_Machinae]

It hurts the economy, too.

Zarn!

Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it in the other end will not raise the overall water level.

In other words, taking money from the private economy to finance the public economy will not expand the economy. That stimulus simply took money away from productive private activities and fed resources to poorly thought out stimulus activities (IE cash for clunkers and home tax credits).

You two seem to be conflating something. The 'economy' is trade of services or goods. 'Wealth' is the buildup of assets (either relative or absolute).

Whomp's example is complaining that the stimulus spending doesn't increase wealth. Yeah, I can see how that's true (or at least, something to be believed). Redistributive spending certainly cause cause wealth to grow more quickly than the free market would allow - but the stimulus concept isn't trying to do that.

Stimulus is supposed to boost trade. It's to get people buying and spending, so that people can allocate their resources and continue specialisation of their services. Think about wealth again: someone can be wealthy in an absolute sense (i.e., have a PhD and a storehouse full of grain) but only really benefits the economy if they're taking and trading their assets.

Sometimes it's the flow of the water that matters. We can complain about stimulus, but stimulus can help free up frozen assets, and get them moving. Stimulus can prevent a hole in a resume, and prevent degrading of skills.

Absolute wealth increases in a free economy. Goods and services are exchanged and transformed. Each transformation increases total wealth, each piece of specialisation increases wealth. But this mechanism requires trade. If trade stops for too long, total wealth can decrease.

...

Stimulus has to be done properly. The main weakness of the current government is that there's no one giving suggestions to the general populace about how to spend their money in order to increase trade. People should be thinking about how to change their careers and skills to offer useful services, and they should be thinking of who they want to hire with their consumer dollars.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not conservative.

Also, all we did this whole time with all of these stimulus packages and bailouts is aid Obama's wealthy buddies. It's a nice waste of money.

And just what wealthy buddies does Obama have?

Sometimes, it is the same buddies (and McCain's buddies too)...

Most occurred, under Obama, however. Obama was not exactly uninfluential at that time, either.

That was the bank bailout, BTW.

TARP was signed by Bush.

 

[Azale]

Stimulus has to be done properly. The main weakness of the current government is that there's no one giving suggestions to the general populace about how to spend their money in order to increase trade. People should be thinking about how to change their careers and skills to offer useful services, and they should be thinking of who they want to hire with their consumer dollars.

Eh, perhaps, but do you want a government agency prescribing what people/businesses should do with their money? Is that a politically realistic idea when Obama was painted as a radical leftist from the moment he was elected?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, not in any 'rule making' sense, obviously. But during the election, he often mentioned that he'd need the help of the American people to turn America around.

The majority of people seemingly have no idea how stimulus money needs to be spent in order to enact 'stimulus'!

 

[Azale]

Well, not in any 'rule making' sense, obviously. But during the election, he often mentioned that he'd need the help of the American people to turn America around.

The majority of people seemingly have no idea how stimulus money needs to be spent in order to enact 'stimulus'!

The knowledge has to diffuse itself through popular media...which I suppose would explain the current problem.

 

[Zarn]

And just what wealthy buddies does Obama have?



TARP was signed by Bush.

Just look for campaign contributors.

I'm not talking about TARP. I don't know why you are trying to make me defend Bush, anyway. Spending is spending. Obama is more than guilty.

 

[Cutlass]

Just look for campaign contributors.

Why always attribute Republican motives to Democrats?

I'm not talking about TARP. I don't know why you are trying to make me defend Bush, anyway. Spending is spending. Obama is more than guilty.

Bailing out the banks was TARP.

And in a recession, caused largely by Bush, but with a lot of help, spending is the correct thing to do. Contrary to better times, when conservatives prefer to do their deficit spending. So Obama is in the right, just not enough so. And all Republicans are in the wrong.

Well, not in any 'rule making' sense, obviously. But during the election, he often mentioned that he'd need the help of the American people to turn America around.

The majority of people seemingly have no idea how stimulus money needs to be spent in order to enact 'stimulus'!

I think it's a mistake to give people a lot of money and expect them to spend it in a productive way when they are in a lot of debt and have no confidence in their future incomes. The situation is just wrong for stimulus by consumer. So the government should step up and be the consumer of last resort.

 

[Zarn]

Obama received a higher amount of contributions from big business than did McCain. You'll just have to live with it.

 

[Cutlass]

The expected winner always gets the most contributions. That doesn't mean that any of Obama's actions are targeted at soliciting those.

 

[Zarn]

The expected winner always gets the most contributions. That doesn't mean that any of Obama's actions are targeted at soliciting those.

Okay, so you never looked at who funded him.

 

[Dachs]

But the New Deal wasn't stimulatory on output -- and this is from that bastion of conservative thought: Christina Romer, who isn't the chair of Obama's CEA or anything.

Nobody reads good links

 

[Cutlass]

Fine, you're determined to make him look as bad as a conservative, no matter how much you have to use guilt by association and other lame arguments. Happy now?

 

[Zarn]

Fine, you're determined to make him look as bad as a conservative, no matter how much you have to use guilt by association and other lame arguments. Happy now?

No. You are failing to connect the dots.

It's because you do not want to do any research for yourself. It's quite a shame.

 

[Ajidica]

Obama recieved campaign cash from companies once they were pretty sure he would win so they wanted to try and buy him over? The horror!
Are you trying to make Obama seem like a conservative?