Stimulus Discussion Thread

[mr_pikachu]

Alright, so this is the thread where we kill each other debate the stimulus bill(s). Are they good? Bad? Ugly?

Opening prompt: Jobs credited to nonexistent places.

What do you think?

[Telume]

Totally useless, where's the people's cut?

[Houndoom_Lover]

Do I get free money? Does the free money effect me in a good way?

If so, then yes.

If not, then fuck it, please ^_^

[Jeff]

Continuing to tax us and spend all that money on various pet projects is no way to stimulate the economy. Your local beekeeper might benefit, but not every American.

The best way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes so everyone benefits. It's economics 101.

[Master Rudy]

Ok just a rumor so I can't confirm nor deny it but in related news Obama has come up with the end all solution to the problem.......
ANOTHER FUCKING STIMULUS!!!!
Yep......we're just gonna keep tossing money we don't have at the problem until it stops. That'll show it who the boss is......

At this point I think it's safe to say the only two things Obama can successfully stimulate are his dick and his ego......

[Roy Karrde]

I take Stimulus 2.0 or the "Jobs Bill" that Harry Reid is proposing, as basically the White Flag signaling they fucked over on the Stimulus.

I think there is one picture that describes the Stimulus perfectly

[RedStarWarrior]

If you cut taxes, the government loses money. If you raise taxes, the people lose money. The best idea is to let us become true capitalists again and stop supporting businesses that failed of their own volition. The money that was spent helping keep them afloat should have gone to the people instead. Sure, you lose jobs, but do you really want to keep prolonging the collapse of broken institutions?

[Roy Karrde]

If you cut taxes, the government loses money. If you raise taxes, the people lose money. The best idea is to let us become true capitalists again and stop supporting businesses that failed of their own volition. The money that was spent helping keep them afloat should have gone to the people instead. Sure, you lose jobs, but do you really want to keep prolonging the collapse of broken institutions?

THIS! Wins the thread

Yeah Yeah that was a Mt Moonish post.

[Heald]

The best idea is to let us become true capitalists again and stop supporting businesses that failed of their own volition. The money that was spent helping keep them afloat should have gone to the people instead. Sure, you lose jobs, but do you really want to keep prolonging the collapse of broken institutions?

The problem is that some institutions, especially the big financial firms, banks, and such, are 'too big to fail' and the costs of not bailing them out would have been far more severe than the cost of a bail-out. True, not all of the firms bailed out over the last few years (in any country, not just the US or UK) were too big to fail, but to say it would have better off to let them all fail is naive at best.

The problem therein lies in something being 'too big to fail', therefore, and in order to prevent something that is too big to fail from failing, you have to make sure no firm becomes too big to fail.

It is inevitable that things will return to normal eventually, whether the actions of governments of the countries afflicted by the crisis have either shortened or lengthened the duration of decline is up for debate, but the important thing is to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

[mr_pikachu]

I do think it's notable that the unemployment rates, as Roy demonstrated, were beyond the White House's worst case scenario how they projected things would go without a stimulus package. Nice graph, Roy.


RSW: Agreed.


Rudy: Yeah. Honestly, if you have to revise your plans once, it's understandable. If you keep doing it again and again, saying, "Oh, we didn't realize how bad it really was!" then we have to ask why you weren't paying attention all this time.


Heald: The one "too big to fail" corporation that I can recall was Fannie May/Freddie Mac. That, yes, was a catastrophe of mismanagement. But everything since then has been wasted on companies whose downfall would not have crippled the country in the same way. Aside from Ford/Chevy fans, who cares if the car manufacturers go under? There's a big difference between a major financial force in the country and a few companies whose influence has been waning for decades because they haven't been able to keep up.

I agree that, given time (and no further stupidity), things will return to normal. The economy is cyclical like that. The question is whether conditions are better or worse than they would have been otherwise. How many people are out of a job right now? How many of them would have had jobs if the stimulus had never happened? Sorry, but that's a relevant question, particularly if we want to keep this from happening again.


EDIT: If we're talking improper spending, this may also be relevant, even if only tangentially.

WASHINGTON – More than $98 billion in taxpayer dollars spent by government agencies was wasted, much of it on questionable claims for tax credits and Medicare benefits, representing an increase of $26 billion from the previous year.

In all, about 5 percent of spending in federal programs in fiscal year 2009 was improper, according to new details of a government financial report that were released Tuesday. Saying the overall error rate was similar in 2008, officials attributed the $26 billion jump to some changes in how to define improper spending as well as an increase in overall spending due to the recession.

[mr_pikachu]

Okay, let's address the other side of the debate: The 4 Stages of a Market Recovery.

Talk about mixed messages. Stocks are blasting off, yet unemployment remains stubbornly high. The economy grew in the third quarter--posting the first increase in a year--so why all the gloomy talk? And exactly where are we in the current economic cycle? Jason Pride, director of research at Haverford Investments, believes we've entered a period of "true growth," when the economy begins catching up with the market. According to Pride, this is stage three of four in a market recovery. Here's his rundown of each stage.

What do you think?


EDIT: Countering right back, here... "A Truly Extraordinary Slump": Reports of Robust Recovery Premature, James Galbraith Says.

On the other hand, Galbraith does support another Obama stimulus package.

[mr_pikachu]

Update time. Audit: Taxpayers lose $61B on AIG, auto bailouts.

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades.

[...]

Treasury says the losses are offset in part by profits earned from bank bailouts. It says the bank bailouts will net taxpayers $19.5 billion.

Over all, the bailouts are projected to cost taxpayers $41.5 billion.

In the words of The Onion, what do you think?

[Master Rudy]

Rudy: Yeah. Honestly, if you have to revise your plans once, it's understandable. If you keep doing it again and again, saying, "Oh, we didn't realize how bad it really was!" then we have to ask why you weren't paying attention all this time.

This right here reminds me of one of the greatest villian quotes I've ever heard:

"When plan A fails you go to plan B. You don't go to plan A recycled......"
-Andre Drazen, 24: Day 1

Granted I know some people will groan and roll their eyes at yet another 24 reference from me. However the quote holds extreme weight in many situations. If your inital plan or idea is getting you no progress then simply refining it with minor changes isn't going to help matters. You have to approach the problem from a new angle. It's like trying to break down a brick wall with your head. After about an hour or so you don't just reach for a bottle of Advil and proceed to continue beating at the wall. You go to your backup plan and blow the fucker up with some C4!

In short the bottom line is like this: You have situation X and Y. Failing to resolve X leads to Y and Y is the least desireable outcome and worst cast for all involved. If plan A isn't helping in situation X then move on to plan B. Merely continuing with plan A not only shows your out of touch with the situation but it also runs a risk of leading you directly into situation Y.

Hopefully some of this somehow made sense

[Blademaster]

It's like trying to break down a brick wall with your head. After about an hour or so you don't just reach for a bottle of Advil and proceed to continue beating at the wall. You go to your backup plan and blow the fucker up with some C4!

Well yeah, if you're a pussy little quitter baby, I guess. Real men keep smashing that wall. Not with their heads, either. If their heads don't work, then they use their testicles.

[Master Rudy]

Well yeah, if you're a pussy little quitter baby, I guess. Real men keep smashing that wall. Not with their heads, either. If their heads don't work, then they use their testicles.

...................
I'm guessing you have experience in the matter......may want to toss some ice on you balls bro :-/

[mr_pikachu]

On a related note, US health care tab to keep growing under overhaul.

A new report from government economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health care tab won't shrink under the Democratic blueprint that senators are debating. Instead, it would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing.

[...]

In still more bad news, the report starkly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan included in the legislation could "face a significant risk of failure" because it would attract people in poor health, leading to higher and higher premiums, and eventually triggering an "insurance death spiral." Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., brushed that aside, pointing to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that found the program would be solvent for 75 years.

I have yet to see a remotely positive report on anything that includes the phrase "death spiral."

[mr_pikachu]

Time for more opposing news stories. First, who wants a fact check on jobs? My favorite excerpt:

OBAMA: "We've made college more affordable."

THE FACTS: He's piloted short-term relief but nothing to restrain college costs for students over the long term. Pell Grants for low-income students received a one-year boost of 13 percent, more than the growth of tuitions. As well, Obama's stimulus law gives college tax credits to more parents and students over the next two years.

Over the next decade, however, his proposals, if accepted by Congress, would increase Pell Grants by an average of about 2.6 percent yearly. That's actually slower growth for Pell Grants than in the past and it would not keep up with tuition increases, which have averaged 7 percent annually since the grants began. Moreover, Obama's proposed changes in student lending are designed to save the government money, not students with loans. Some of the envisioned savings would go to other areas of education, not college.

In contrast, some new projections: White House economists see jobs growth by spring. Read on:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senior White House economists on Sunday predicted the U.S. economy will start creating jobs by spring and said that boosting employment will be at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda next year.

[...]

Obama's aides and many private economists were encouraged by a better-than-expected employment report for November that showed that the jobless rate inched down to 10 percent from October's 10.2 percent.

[Telume]

The Grant costs thing is true, I used to have at least 3 grants to my name, this semester I only have 1 even though it's more than what I got last semester.

[mr_pikachu]

On a related fiscal note, Howard Dean has his reasons for opposing the health care reform bill:

WASHINGTON – Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

I must say, I thought Dean would never regain any of my respect. But this is a start.

[mr_pikachu]

Not that it's any surprise, but let's just make it official: Banks with political ties got bailouts, study shows.