Does Anybody Support the "Stimulus"?

ID i can spin it for your in Lib talk

 

What they will say is that these are specail times and money needs to be spent. In order to get this money we shall punish those who put americans to work in jobs by taxing them more. After all.... they have the most money right? who cares if they already pay 80+% of the taxes already? we need to milk em dry. There is no need to be successful because you will get penalized and its much better to give to those who did not earn it.

 

So no I didnt support the first one or the second one...I dont support any extra spending the gov does. All I want them to do is make sure I am safe, upkeep the infustructure.. ect ect. I dont want gov health care and all the other bullshit they have been spewing.

Running a budget deficit when the economy is growing = bad

Running a budget deficit (and looking to increase it) when the economy is suffering a recession = standard economic policy.

Bush spent more than he received when the economy was growing. Instead he should have been saving up money for a rainy day. That rainy day is now here. So it's not necessarily hypocritical to oppose budget deficits under bush and support them with Obama. It'd only be hypocritical if you were to still support Obama if in the future the economy recovers and he still was running up budget deficits and not decreasing them as the economy grows.

Government spending doesn't help in a recession, especially spending that is 90% BS.  The only other stupid thing would be to raise taxes during a recession, but then again, Odumbo is doing that too.

So spending money when the economy is bad is better than spending money when the ecoomy is good? That doesn't make sense, at least in a good economy, the deficit can be paid, how the F_ck hell do you pay down a deficit during a bad economy?

Kinda funny, cosidering we are where we are today because people were spending too much money, during a good economy (buying house, cars, TV's, gaming systems, computers, iPhones, etc.) and now that we in a bad economy, they are saving rather than spending. So why are you people not telling people to spend more even though they may and will raise their own personal deficits?

Bush = Bad President.

Obama = Worse.

The problem is no one with any sense would want to run for President thus we end up with choices like Obama vs. McCain. At least Obama is smooth.

We used to think that Bush's outspending of Clinton was bad, but that seems like the good old days now that we have a President who has outspent every single U.S. President combined. And thats just in his first month on the job.

 

That's a key point, just one month.  Just wait.

the one thing i hoped obama would do, is follow the trend of democrats balancing the budget, instead we get the worst overspending in us history.

He managed to outspend every other president ever, in just one month.

During a period of growth, the economy is likely almost at full capacity, and is gorwing through increases in the aggregate supply curve. Government spending will cause an increase in demand, but because there isn't sufficient capacity in the economy all it will lead to in the end is inflation (output increases beyond capacity, meaning prices rise, meaning demand falls back to a level where the economy is at/close to capacity), meaning that all of that money was just wasted.

In a recession (which is caused by a fall in demand rather than capacity) you have all this spare capacity that isn't being used. So if aggregate demand is increased, you get a boost in output without suffering from inflation.

If the government is running a budget deficit, it's effectively looking to boost aggregate demand (via tax cuts/increased spending). When the economy is growing by itself and you're not suffering a significant slump in demand that is leaving tons of unused capacity, it makes no sense to do this and to try and stimulate the economy. Hence why budget deficit during growth = bad (as a general rule). However when you have the demand caused recession, the government running a budget deficit can help to end it.

Unfortunately wiki's economics section leaves a lot to be desired, but if you're interested the bottom of this link contains a (fairly poorly laid out) diagram demonstrating what typically happens with an increase in aggregate demand (inflation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_supply

so aeo...your going to pay for this/ or are you going to pass this on to my kids?

 

why is it so hard for people to want a gov that does not get into every aspect of our lives and spend OUR money that WE earn? I am just sick of this. tax this tax that. Who does it hurt? people earning money and working. this never hurts those that suck off the governments tits . screw it. Im finding an island and making my own country!

I have been against all of the bailouts and stimulus bills from the get-go.  The problem is that none of them are actually aimed at doing anything but making people (and now companies) dependent on the government to survive and that never leads to good things.  Hell just today I was watching an interview with Barney Frank related to the recent bonuses paid to AIG employees where he was actually suggesting that the US Government start firing execs at AIG since the government owns 80% of the company.  Now while I think AIG paying out bonuses was a dumb move on AIGs part the thought of the Government being able to step in and fire people from a "private" company scares the hell out of me.

O really its just now starting to scare you?

 

Case in point look at the smoking bans going on...thats just one example of the gov steping in telling private companies what they can and can not do ( even though said substance is legal )

say what?

Can you tell me the last Democrat trend of balancing the budget?

 

I've been against those as well.

The intrusion of this government into our lives has been scaring me for some time now, I just wish there was something that could be done to stop it.  I've tried writing my representatives, I've tried voting against them.  I will continue doing both but I'm just not sure what else I can do to stop it.

It's not if they make it illegal (in public places).

The moment it was bailed out by the government it stopped being a true private company. A true private company would have been left to fail, and all the staff would have lost their jobs (and only some of them would presumably have been able to find new ones in the immediate aftermath).

"It's not if they make it illegal (in public places)."

 

Nice try on deflecting. Fact of the matter is they are going beyond public places and going into private buesnesses and banning smoking in those too. Its also not illegal to smoke so the gov is infact invading private places

No they didn't.  In most cases the government only provided a loan or bought shares int he company neither of which stops the company from being a private company.  While shareholders do have some say in how a company functions there are limits on shareholders power and the same limits should apply to the shares owned by the government. 

The government had their oppotunity to set up restrictions on any money that they gave out to companies and they dropped the ball, they have no right to retroactively apply restrictions on what that money can be applied to.  That'd be like you loaning me $100 that you thought I was going to use to help pay my mortgage one month and I turn around and spend it on some playstation game.  Sure you can be as pissed as you want but if you didn't tell me ahead of time what that money was for and had me sign some legally binding agreement to that end then the money simply became mine to do with as I see fit.  But I bet you would then think twice about ever loaning me any money in the future, and the same should go for AIG.

Businesses are public places (typically) - public as in it might be accessbale to the general public as customers or employees.

The government gave the companies money to survive. Without that money the companies would have gone under. Hence that company has been bailed out and is no longer a true private company - they have become a state sponsered/supported one.

We're hearing that a lot of people think the stimulus package is needed but it's too much money and too much waste.  And there is no confidence in the government's ability to manage it.  A recent survey on MinionMonitor.com, a site dedicated to people who don't make six figures, showed that 80% of Minions categorize Congress as either "failing miserably" or "dumb and dumber", and the daily news headlines aren't doing much to change that.    

This is being covered in another thread so I won't belabor the point too much other than to say that open to the public is NOT the same as a public place like a park.  If it is a business it is owned by someone who should be allowed to set the rules over what goes on inside as long as it is lawful.  Banning smoking in privately owned businesses is overstepping the governments bounds.

This doesn't mean that they ceased to be a private company, they are merely a private company that has been given government money much like if you or I had given them money the government just has the ability to deficit spend.  The government's chance to put restrictions on the money was before the money was handed out, not well after the fact.