Jackie in NE Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Well, I don't support the stimulus package at all, but aside from that, this stimulus package seems to be more about pushing pet programs and pork than stimulus. And, from everything I have read a huge part of this money will not make its way into the economy for a year or more. How will this fix the immediate situation we are in? If it will not be trickling in for 1-3 years then it is not stimulus but just big government spending. It is not a stimulus, it's just big spending. I also disagree with common political thought that we must DO SOMETHING. We didn't get into this economic mess overnight, and it won't lend itself to being "fixed" overnight. Some things simply need to be WORKED through. As an economy, we have overconsumed and overindulged. The money to do so was all provided through debt. It has been common Knowledge for years that our economy was too highly leveraged...... that businesses were not building retained earnings, and individuals were not saving. Why do you think these businesses all got into trouble so quickly? Some of them were in growth mode, which of course is not a bad thing. It's just that those businesses that had recently expanded were caught with a downturn at precisely the wrong time. But many companies, public and private, were simply distributing all their profits in the form of dividends and bonuses instead of building retained earnings. Now, those companies are having to close plants and lay off people. Additionally, banks abandoned sound lending practices, and were lending money to businesses and individuals with terrible balance sheets. Back in the day, an acceptable debt:equity ratio for lending purposes might get as high as 1.5:1, depending on the industry and profitability. But some of those wall street firms had debt:equity ratios of 30:1. The SEC was asleep at the wheel. And the fact is that this happened during the Clinton Administration. A regional bank president told my dh, that during the Clinton Administration, banks were told that they HAD to make a certain number of "sub-prime" loans, or their requests for new branches would be denied. Now the motivation for making those sub-prime loans might have been honorable. I'm not going to judge that. But we are living with the results today. I digress, somewhat. But this little banking/economics refresher is relevant in that this "stimulus" is just more of the same type of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place. It is more money that will be "manufactured", as it were, by debt. There are no assets behind this debt. There is no earning potential present in the U.S. Government. There is only a leveraging of our future, and our children's future in order to avoid the pain that is a result of the philosophy of "easy money" and over-consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jzsnow Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but is Obama giving out individual packages like bush did? I sure liked my $1200! Jessica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryRon Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I never understood these numbers, either. It's kind of like the whole 200% profit/loss (or whatever). What in the world is 200%? 100% x 2? I thought 100% as good as it gets; you know, like the whole pie? Hmmm, maybe that is why I am not a financial wunderkind. Go figure.... I don't have an opinion on this one way or another, but just wanted to say that looking at those numbers seems like something out of a child's game. You know... where kids try to make up outrageously high numbers... numbers so big you need funny sounding words like cajillion and megamomillion. Trillions. It just sounds unbelievable and made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I never understood these numbers, either. It's kind of like the whole 200% profit/loss (or whatever). What in the world is 200%? 100% x 2? I thought 100% as good as it gets; you know, like the whole pie? Hmmm, maybe that is why I am not a financial wunderkind. Go figure.... Let's say you make 10 widgets daily and sell them at $1 each. Your income is $10/day. Then you start drinking coffee & become much faster at making widgets and can make and sell 20. Your income is $20/day. That is a 100% increase in income. If you start drinking coffee in the morning & an energy drink in the afternoon, you can make & sell 30 widgets per day. Your income is $30/day. This is a 200% increase over your original starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 "$50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts" Yes, that item caught my eye too as well as the 5 million (I think) for ACORN???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryRon Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I get it now. That makes perfect sense when you put it that way. I actually feel silly, now! :) Let's say you make 10 widgets daily and sell them at $1 each. Your income is $10/day. Then you start drinking coffee & become much faster at making widgets and can make and sell 20. Your income is $20/day. That is a 100% increase in income. If you start drinking coffee in the morning & an energy drink in the afternoon, you can make & sell 30 widgets per day. Your income is $30/day. This is a 200% increase over your original starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqui in mo Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Here is an opinion piece in the WSJ for what a more bipartisan plan could look like. Be forewarned, it's author is a polarizing figure, but even if you dislike him, please note the article is still worth thinking about. It is respectful of the President. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanestMomInMidwest Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Here's an overview from MSN. Very basic overview, but perhaps we'll feel better not knowing the details? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28661839?GT1=43001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Here's an overview from MSN. Very basic overview, but perhaps we'll feel better not knowing the details?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28661839?GT1=43001 That is *exactly* what Congress wants...for us not to know or care about the details. And you are right about the overview from msn...VERY basic. Very. Which, sadly, many Americans will look at and not see how damaging it truly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texascamps Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 After going over the summary of what this bill wants to fund, it looks just like politiicians are trying to pay back the organizationst that got them elected. I see very little in "job creation." I see more, pork spending on pet projects. This is far worse than what I was expecting. I just read where they expect it to cost $223,000 in overhead to create one job that pays less than $50,000 I had heard rumors of someone suggesting that we have a two month tax holiday where we wouldn't pay taxes for two months, instead of this boondoggle of a stimulus package. This sounds like a better way to stimulate the economy. If we get a stimulus check we will put it in the bank to save it for the "what ifs." If it just slips in to our paycheck then it will get spent. We spend everything in our paycheck. Lump sum payments like the stimulus checks get put into savings. Its like the people in Washington have no clue how real households spend and save money. They drive around in their private jets and haver personal secretaries pay their bills. There are days I can't figure out why I don't drink...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 $1000 is not enough of a coating to swallow this pill. I'd rather not have it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyBlueLobsters Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I think I have the perfect solution. Why don't we just start over. Wipe everyone's house payment, debt and car payments. Just start from ground zero and rebuild. :001_smile: If it were only that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 After going over the summary of what this bill wants to fund, it looks just like politiicians are trying to pay back the organizationst that got them elected. I see very little in "job creation." I see more, pork spending on pet projects. This is far worse than what I was expecting. I just read where they expect it to cost $223,000 in overhead to create one job that pays less than $50,000 I had heard rumors of someone suggesting that we have a two month tax holiday where we wouldn't pay taxes for two months, instead of this boondoggle of a stimulus package. This sounds like a better way to stimulate the economy. If we get a stimulus check we will put it in the bank to save it for the "what ifs." If it just slips in to our paycheck then it will get spent. We spend everything in our paycheck. Lump sum payments like the stimulus checks get put into savings. Its like the people in Washington have no clue how real households spend and save money. They drive around in their private jets and haver personal secretaries pay their bills. There are days I can't figure out why I don't drink...... Chris Matthews had on one of the money gurus who said it would cost $275,000 per job. I can tell you right now that DC is afraid of a tax holiday. Can you imagine the revolution if people realized how much money they were sending to the gov't every month? HA! No, they'll take our money, then GIVE us a refund so they look like the good guys. ugh I agree about your assessment of our elected officials. Most have been in DC for so long they have NO idea how we commoners work and live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanda Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I think I have the perfect solution. Why don't we just start over. Wipe everyone's house payment, debt and car payments. Just start from ground zero and rebuild. :001_smile: If it were only that easy. The problem with that is that it would reward people who lived in massive debt and punish those who lived debt free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyBlueLobsters Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The problem with that is that it would reward people who lived in massive debt and punish those who lived debt free. Yeah, I was just teasing. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I am against the stimulus package since recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle and even though this one is bad, the vcosts of this stimulus is too high. Having said that, I think the particular stimulus bill passed by the house is a particularly bad bill. Although in principle I don't like give away progams, I would be okay with extending unemployment benefits and I like the idea of improving roads, bridges, water systems, and other parts of our infrastructure. SInce the construction industry is particularly hard hit and we need repairs, I am okay with that. However, Pell grants, the NEA, ACORN, and the like are not infrastructure. I am totally appalled by giving out money for converter boxes than for food. They are giving billions to agencies that haven't even spent billions that were allocated to them previously. When the Washington Post editorializes against this particular bill and it is not a consevative paper by any means, I have to figure that my reluctance is not simply because I am a Republican. I think I would have supported some type of compromise bill with tax cuts and infrastructure spending.I heard someone say that the tax credit will mean an extra 12 or 15 dollars per paycheck. Wowee- I guess I will be making new big expednitures, won't I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowWhite Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 IMO this "stimulus" package does very little to stimulate the economy and a lot to grow the government. IMO it's Big Government Spending *disguised* as economic stimulus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilyK Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) This sounds like a really bad idea to me. Edited January 29, 2009 by LilyK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora99 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Well, I don't support the stimulus package at all, but aside from that, this stimulus package seems to be more about pushing pet programs and pork than stimulus. And, from everything I have read a huge part of this money will not make its way into the economy for a year or more. How will this fix the immediate situation we are in? If it will not be trickling in for 1-3 years then it is not stimulus but just big government spending. :iagree: The stimulus package makes me ill. I can't see how throwing money randomly at everything (including ACORN) is going to do anything for our economy. It's like a money pit. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Somebody had posted back in the summer a plan to give money to every adult American - like $200,000. People would pay off their debts, thus helping the banks, buy new cars, thus helping the auto industry, etc, etc. Seems like a more direct way to stimulate the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Somebody had posted back in the summer a plan to give money to every adult American - like $200,000. People would pay off their debts, thus helping the banks, buy new cars, thus helping the auto industry, etc, etc. Seems like a more direct way to stimulate the economy. Yes, but I am sure the government doesn't think we are responsible enough. :glare: They decided THEY are the responsible ones(:001_huh:) and can better distribute OUR money..........and our childrens money and our great-grandchildrens and so on ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJN Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 think they need to hear from us. It makes me angry that they will waste this much money and it's money the US does not even have!!! I thought there was a fuss made over no more pork in the bills once our new president took over. Maybe I wasn't hearing right? Anyhow, we should clog the phones at the White House and our Congress representatives. Off my soap box and going to clean my house - Molly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heart'sjoy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Some of us may want to discuss the non-monetary part of the Stimulus...how about the part where everyone's medical records are openly placed in a database and required eugenics testing (future) is tossed into it? I read large parts of the (HR1 version) of the stimulus bill that the house approved and that the senate will be voting on. What I read mostly were the parts dealing with a new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that will use federal money to set up Electronic Health Records (EHR's) for every individual. This is not a bad idea to streamline medical records in a digital format that can be easily transferred between healthcare providers. The big problem is that in order to keep getting federal funding for this mandated program, healthcare providers will have to regularly prove they are a "meaningful user" that can "decrease costs" by using the "best practices" recommended by a cost/benefit research group within the DHHS. This is a huge change from the way healthcare is reimbursed now. Currently healthcare providers can get reimbursed for care that is safe and has been proven to be effective. This will mean that healthcare must now also be cost-effective. I just wrote my senators. If cost-effective is going to be the new mandate for federal spending, let it start with the senator's own household budget, and not with my children's healthcare options and his grandchildren's See this article for details. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012465.html I GET VERY NERVOUS WHEN WE'RE TOLD SIGN HERE QUICK. That is when I sit back and read the fine print twice, then send it to a lawyer friend for anything I missed. I would really like to see any other links that review what this possible new agency within the DHHS will be doing and also how much money and authority they will have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Interesting....two posts, and for the most part, they're identical, word for word. It's clear which axe you're grinding. Got anything else to say? astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts