"Enough With The Deficit-Fueled Stimulus"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2011 1:39 PM GMT
    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584084/201109071840/Enough-With-The-Stimulus.htm

    Jobs: In his speech Thursday, the president is expected to announce a stimulus 2.0 package said to cost $300 billion. But why should anyone expect this to work any better than the $4 trillion in stimulus already in the economy?

    When industrialist John D. Rockefeller was asked how much money is enough, his now-famous answer was: "Just a little bit more." That, apparently, is also Obama's answer to stimulus spending.

    After an $830 billion "economic recovery" plan, two auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, mortgage bailouts and at least two subsequent jobs programs, Obama wants to convince the country that just a little bit more stimulus is what the economy needs to finally get back on track.

    But wait a minute. Since Obama took office, the government has run up $4 trillion in deficits. And even before his newest stimulus package, he's on track to add another $973 billion next year.

    Unless Keynes' was wrong, shouldn't all that have superturbocharged the economy by now? We're not talking about a little bit of extra spending, but record amounts.

    So far, Obama has run deficits that are more than twice as large as any president since Truman. And by the end of his first term, he will have borrowed more money than the federal government spent over the nation's first 200 years.

    Yet all we've gotten in return for this epochal level of allegedly stimulative deficit spending is the country's worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

    Worse, the specific ideas Obama will apparently propose — more money for infrastructure, another extension to this year's payroll tax cut, an unemployment benefits extension and tax credits to encourage hiring the unemployed — have all been tried since he took office, and all have failed to move the needle on jobs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2011 3:27 PM GMT
    This article fails to take into consideration that most of the debt takes place because of the recession and its affects on reducing revenue from such high unemployment rates. Some will say, we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, which to a large degree is true, Its a given that Government is spending too much on wars, the Pentagon, a new program called the Dept of Homeland Security, which is but another duplication of CIA and FBI and state Police efforts. We've also got a lot of unecessary expenses due to the Patriot Act police state programs. There's where we should start cutting.

    Lets say the stimulus was $1 trillion, which did help bring us out of the worst of the recession, Bush Tax cuts for the Wealthy didn't do as much for the economy nor for creating jobs did it ? The balance of the deficit is primarily being spent because of the deep recessioin and the near collapse of our economy over bank and wallstreet gambling, which all cut into revenues.

    So what do you think would be better than infrastructure spending at giving a boost to employment to get the economy moving ? As for financing the infrastructure building projects, make the money the way the banks have, ever since the origination of the Fed. When a building program is approved in congress, Contracters are awarded contracts, they are given start up checks which are issued for materials and labor, the contractor goes to the bank for the funds and Walla !!! money is made to cover it. Just like Government Fed. Bank is supposed to do, provide a currency that's legal tender for all depts public and private. Some of you will accuse me of approaching this like money grows on trees, no not really, the Government through its Authority makes it in the way I'm describing at the Fed Bank and now should be done with these infrastructure projects, Whether you believe it or not, the reality is that this is how money has been made all along with the Fed. The government doesn't need to barrow it. I didn't hear any complaints from Repubs when truck loads were taken to Iraq or Afghanistan war fronts, not all of that was barrowed.


    Since Bush Tax cuts for the corps and the wealthiest of Americans didn't work in improving employment, What do you repubs suggest, more tax cuts and even deeper Austerity measures to further reduce the circulation of money in the economy ? That won't help anymore now than it did when Hoover did the same back in the depression, it did produce "Hooverville's" and we don't want that again.


    Getting us out of this recession won't happen because of reduced taxes or fewer regulations, because the problem is that demand is way down. You could take away all taxes and if there is no demand, there will still be no expansion or spending on making products or providing services. The only thing that will increase demand will be money in the hands of the buying masses. How do we get that money in the buying publics hands? One of the best ways in bad times like these is for government to spend on infrastructure. So untill we see the rich and the corps spending on public projects out of the goodness of their hearts, I would say we will have to rely on the Government to do it which will in turn help get money circulating in the economy again.


    And no !! I don't believe Government spending like this is, nor should it be the ongoing answer to our problems, but in this deep recession period, Government does have the ability and the responsibility to give a boost to the economy. If the boost is big enough, then the moving economy will take off on its own to return to vibrancy.

    Do repubs really think that Government has no place at all in giving its own economy such a boost ? Capitolism on its own won't provide the boost or it would have already done it.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2011 4:27 PM GMT
    realifedad said This article fails to take into consideration that most of the debt takes place because of the recession and its affects on reducing revenue from such high unemployment rates. Some will say, we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, which to a large degree is true, Its a given that Government is spending too much on wars, the Pentagon, a new program called the Dept of Homeland Security, which is but another duplication of CIA and FBI and state Police efforts. We've also got a lot of unecessary expenses due to the Patriot Act police state programs. There's where we should start cutting.

    Lets say the stimulus was $1 trillion, which did help bring us out of the worst of the recession, Bush Tax cuts for the Wealthy didn't do as much for the economy nor for creating jobs did it ? The balance of the deficit is primarily being spent because of the deep recessioin and the near collapse of our economy over bank and wallstreet gambling, which all cut into revenues.

    So what do you think would be better than infrastructure spending at giving a boost to employment to get the economy moving ? As for financing the infrastructure building projects, make the money the way the banks have, ever since the origination of the Fed. When a building program is approved in congress, Contracters are awarded contracts, they are given start up checks which are issued for materials and labor, the contractor goes to the bank for the funds and Walla !!! money is made to cover it. Just like Government Fed. Bank is supposed to do, provide a currency that's legal tender for all depts public and private. Some of you will accuse me of approaching this like money grows on trees, no not really, the Government through its Authority makes it in the way I'm describing at the Fed Bank and now should be done with these infrastructure projects, Whether you believe it or not, the reality is that this is how money has been made all along with the Fed. The government doesn't need to barrow it. I didn't hear any complaints from Repubs when truck loads were taken to Iraq or Afghanistan war fronts, not all of that was barrowed.


    Since Bush Tax cuts for the corps and the wealthiest of Americans didn't work in improving employment, What do you repubs suggest, more tax cuts and even deeper Austerity measures to further reduce the circulation of money in the economy ? That won't help anymore now than it did when Hoover did the same back in the depression, it did produce "Hooverville's" and we don't want that again.


    Getting us out of this recession won't happen because of reduced taxes or fewer regulations, because the problem is that demand is way down. You could take away all taxes and if there is no demand, there will still be no expansion or spending on making products or providing services. The only thing that will increase demand will be money in the hands of the buying masses. How do we get that money in the buying publics hands? One of the best ways in bad times like these is for government to spend on infrastructure. So untill we see the rich and the corps spending on public projects out of the goodness of their hearts, I would say we will have to rely on the Government to do it which will in turn help get money circulating in the economy again.


    And no !! I don't believe Government spending like this is, nor should it be the ongoing answer to our problems, but in this deep recession period, Government does have the ability and the responsibility to give a boost to the economy. If the boost is big enough, then the moving economy will take off on its own to return to vibrancy.

    Do repubs really think that Government has no place at all in giving its own economy such a boost ? Capitolism on its own won't provide the boost or it would have already done it.






    Again your premise is wrong. The deficit has risen substantially as a result of the increased spending under the current Administration - but it has also increased to a lesser extent as a result of reduced revenues. As for infrastructure spending - people should pay for the resources they use. It's sort of ridiculous for governments to subsidize drivers for instance.

    I believe that government has no place in providing "stimulus" - though your faith that it can despite the abundant evidence to the contrary is remarkable. Government was at a the root of the overspending subsidizing borrowing and asset prices. Is it any surprise that we need some time to recover? The alternative is to push the day of reckoning further out by increasing shortterm spending and paying for it in the long term. There are no alternatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2011 6:14 PM GMT
    The "deficit-fueled stimulus" that's failed miserably - is the Bush tax cuts.

    They've been in place for a decade.
    They've added more than 2.5 trillion dollars to the National Debt.
    They've failed to help to create a strong economy or to create jobs.
    They failed to prevent the epic Bush recession and the massive job losses that resulted from the Bush recession.

    The Bush tax cuts have done none of the positive things the Bushies said they would.
    They've only resulted in a massive EXPLOSION of debt.

    They must be allowed to die come January 2013.