$819B stimulus bill passed. Your thoughts?

[GTKeeper]

I think spending for infrastructure jobs is the way to go. Let's not forget that the money spend that way is partially recovered through taxes anyway.

And I agree with Red Dawn, if the gov't gives me a 5% tax cut (like the GOP is proposing) that is not going to help me if I lose my job, not that I will since I work in a specialized industry.

What we do need to do is create demand from the bottom toward the top. If a contractor gets X amount of projects to build something for the government, they will in turn rent equipment from Caterpillar, which might have to ramp up production of some parts, which will keep people employed.

I think its silly to assume that just because a company has an extra amount of cash (due to tax cuts) that it will automatically spend it. In times like these, companies will hoard cash. The company I work for is small (we have about 35 employees) and I can tell you that our customers who have been cutting back on expenditures and some are experiencing losses in their respective industries. Now those losses are written off against taxes anyway, so how would a tax cut help them right now?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending IS stimulus. How the hell did you think we got out of the Great Depression?
When private sector is busy firing people, it's a good time for the government to hire them to build infrastructure, or do whatever else productive. Anything is better than paying those people unemployment to do nothing.

We got out of the Great Depression via a World War that cost over 100 million lives. What made you think otherwise?

Hiring people to do jobs that are created just to give them a job is a waste of resources. First you either have to borrow the money or take from private industry. Private industry that now cant afford to hire that person for a job that is creating wealth and long term profits that in turn hire more people. Then you give him a job for a finite period of time until the money runs out and he is back out on his ass looking for his next govt handout.

I am all for infrastructure projects. You know bridges, highways, energy grid upgrades. But this bill's got a lot of money funneled to social programs that wont create any kind of meaningful growth or infrastructure in this country. 66 billion to the teachers? 81 billion to medicaid? 83 billion refundable tax credits? These are just transfer of wealth mechanisms. That isnt doing anything but moving money around. In the meantime creating waste.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

$819 Billion dollars to "create" 3 million new jobs...that's $273,000 per "created" non-white male construction worker job....sweet!!! :roll:

 

[mrCide]

this stimulus is trash. stupid dems.

 

[Xavier434]

Well, from my own personal perspective, this is what the bill is going to do to help my life:

First and foremost, the $7500 first time home buyer credit that I do not have to pay back is going to help me buy a house A LOT sooner. I am talking like within the next month or two so that will help both the economy and myself.

Second, the education details are nice. That effects my job, my sons schooling, and the increase in Pell Grant money means my SO can afford to take more classes towards her degree. That helps the economy too, but just not as swiftly and it is a bit more indirect.

The healthcare section will help both us and our parents/grandparents a lot. To make a long story short, that will mean more money in our pockets. That money will not be saved in my house. It will be spent.

The tax breaks for individuals will also help us and it will also be spent and not saved.


The rest might be helpful to me as well, but not as much as it might to others and that's ok. Overall, in my house, it means we will be able to do our part much more effectively when it comes to improving our situation as well as contribute to the economy even more.

 

[CPA]

Here's my thoughts:

Where are all the polls of citizen's approval of this sham legislation?

All we got on the bailout and Bush's stimulus package was poll after poll on how American citizen's were against it - 80% against the bailout in some polls. So, where are the polls on this stimulus package? Media, hello? Are you that much into the Dems back pocket that you can't run a couple polls here and there?

Also, I'm still waiting for people to explain how giving billions of dollars to ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and these other social programs will stimulate the economy. Please, please someone explain that to me.

Lastly, where is the outcry from the libs on the reduced funding for NASA? Just the speculation of Bush cutting NASA funding raised the ire of libs far and wide. Obama does it and I don't hear a peep. Don't you think funding NASA would lead to more job creation than funding ACORN? well?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I don't really care if it will work or not, at least the PEOPLE get some of it instead of the corporate criminals.

What people? Oh, you mean Pelosi and Obama's people that need to be paid back for the election.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Lame, first time homebuyer tax credit waiver is only for 2009. If they're going to waste a ton of money, they should apply it to the 2008 credit as well.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I don't really care if it will work or not, at least the PEOPLE get some of it instead of the corporate criminals.

What people? Oh, you mean Pelosi and Obama's people that need to be paid back for the election.

People like me. See above.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
I need to do more research on where the money is actually going. Somebody mentioned 30 billion for actual infrastructure projects. That would be a god damned travesty.

But it doesnt surprise me this could be nothing but a payback to groups who helped democrats and personal pork barrel projects. These people are politicians afterall.

That's 30 Billion more than the previous Administration gave. Hopefully it won't be used to build bridges to nowhere in Alalska.

lol, I was thinking the same. I'm definitely expecting a new "bridge to nowhere" as part of the highway infrastrure stimulus.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I don't really care if it will work or not, at least the PEOPLE get some of it instead of the corporate criminals.

What people? Oh, you mean Pelosi and Obama's people that need to be paid back for the election.

People like me. See above.

You're welcome.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I don't really care if it will work or not, at least the PEOPLE get some of it instead of the corporate criminals.

What people? Oh, you mean Pelosi and Obama's people that need to be paid back for the election.

People like me. See above.

You're welcome.

Those are my tax dollars too pal and they will be spent helping our economy so that you can continue to prosper as well.

You're welcome.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well think about it this way. The stimulus as presented is supposed to help rebuild infrastructure nationwide and put millions of people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and such. Look at the portion of the total dedicated to that end and then take into account that the big dig cost 22b and employed 5k people. Do you really think that the proposed package will do anything to help the current situation? It's smoke and mirrors my friends to payback the friends of the democratic party.

 

[StageLeft]

Clearly the bill is more than just $30B on infrastructure.

Xavier434

Glad it helps. For me, the only thing I see is an extra $500 or $1000, which is inconsequential, especially considering the inevitable debt/taxes, etc. this is bringing on long term.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that building schools, roads, computer networks (for the health records), and new power technologies will create jobs. Crazy I know, but just because they are spending money on it doesn't mean this stuff magically pops out of thin air. If this really a debate about the "name" of the bill, then Republicans are a lot more petty than I thought.

The Republican and Democrat idea of what constitutes a "stimulus" bill are obviously different, they have different economic philosophies.

Have you ever been part of any of these sorts of projects? (besides swinging a hammer, working a shovel/other end labor) These sorts of things take a very long amount of time to plan and design before a single ounce of soil is disturbed. First you have initial engineering to provide budget estimates, then you have budget approvals, design approvals, gov't agencies pre-approvals, THEN you have bid spec writing and letting. You wait a while for the bids to come in, then have to approve/pick one. Once those things are done - there is more engineering work, submittals, design reviews, etc. I can guarantee the above takes atleast 1 year if it's anything to do with or from the gov't. So I guess if by "stimulus" you mean atleast 1 year out for any "real" work or workers start moving then I don't know what to say because it's absurd to suggest it's "stimulus".

Kind of a random thought and something I didn't even think about until I read your post, but I wonder if there are any provisions in this bill to streamline new/existing projects so they don't get unnecessarily held up by environmental and other groups. I know in the past this has been a big hurdle to actually getting any serious projects started, seems like a lot of them get tied up in court.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that building schools, roads, computer networks (for the health records), and new power technologies will create jobs. Crazy I know, but just because they are spending money on it doesn't mean this stuff magically pops out of thin air. If this really a debate about the "name" of the bill, then Republicans are a lot more petty than I thought.

The Republican and Democrat idea of what constitutes a "stimulus" bill are obviously different, they have different economic philosophies.

Have you ever been part of any of these sorts of projects? (besides swinging a hammer, working a shovel/other end labor) These sorts of things take a very long amount of time to plan and design before a single ounce of soil is disturbed. First you have initial engineering to provide budget estimates, then you have budget approvals, design approvals, gov't agencies pre-approvals, THEN you have bid spec writing and letting. You wait a while for the bids to come in, then have to approve/pick one. Once those things are done - there is more engineering work, submittals, design reviews, etc. I can guarantee the above takes atleast 1 year if it's anything to do with or from the gov't. So I guess if by "stimulus" you mean atleast 1 year out for any "real" work or workers start moving then I don't know what to say because it's absurd to suggest it's "stimulus".

Kind of a random thought and something I didn't even think about until I read your post, but I wonder if there are any provisions in this bill to streamline new/existing projects so they don't get unnecessarily held up by environmental and other groups. I know in the past this has been a big hurdle to actually getting any serious projects started, seems like a lot of them get tied up in court.

Most of what he's talking about is necessary because otherwise you end up building a bridge and in the middle the ends don't join.

There was talk originally about how a lot of the money would go to approved projects that were merely waiting for money, but who knows now. The thing is a sham, a joke.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If the bill is designed as 1/2 indirect, and 1/2 direct stimulus to our economy, it could turn over 10/11 times and add a total of 9 to 10 trillion to our gdp over a period of 3-5 years. It will help, and the inflationary effects should help real estate values to recover over the same period. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Why do you want real estate to recover to the point where nobody can afford it again?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If the bill is designed as 1/2 indirect, and 1/2 direct stimulus to our economy, it could turn over 10/11 times and add a total of 9 to 10 trillion to our gdp over a period of 3-5 years. It will help, and the inflationary effects should help real estate values to recover over the same period. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Why do you want real estate to recover to the point where nobody can afford it again?

That is not the idea. The idea is to get people to start buying real estate more. Doing so will not bring the prices back to the inflated point that they were, but it will have a very positive effect on the economy overall since so much of our economy is influenced by the real estate market. Even with the stimulus, it will still be a buyers market for a while so you don't have to worry about that.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending IS stimulus. How the hell did you think we got out of the Great Depression?
When private sector is busy firing people, it's a good time for the government to hire them to build infrastructure, or do whatever else productive. Anything is better than paying those people unemployment to do nothing.

We got out of the Great Depression via a World War that cost over 100 million lives. What made you think otherwise?

How did a war get us out of a depression? Did it have something to do with the government borrowing piles of money to buy planes, ships, and tanks? And then companies were able to hire people to build said planes, ships, and tanks?

How republicans can think that cutting taxes on (nonexistent) profits will fix anything is beyond me.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If the bill is designed as 1/2 indirect, and 1/2 direct stimulus to our economy, it could turn over 10/11 times and add a total of 9 to 10 trillion to our gdp over a period of 3-5 years. It will help, and the inflationary effects should help real estate values to recover over the same period. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Why do you want real estate to recover to the point where nobody can afford it again?

That is not the idea. The idea is to get people to start buying real estate more. Doing so will not bring the prices back to the inflated point that they were, but it will have a very positive effect on the economy overall since so much of our economy is influenced by the real estate market. Even with the stimulus, it will still be a buyers market for a while so you don't have to worry about that.

People are buying houses still, lots of them. Just for cheaper. And a lot of people who are holding out for some fantasy to occur in which their $500k 2 bedroom house is still sellable for $500k are trying to avoid selling.

Despite the number home transactions down from the peak there are still a great deal of them and once everybody realizes that house prices are down and that's that, no ifs ands or buts, they'll be freeer and transactions will up again.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that building schools, roads, computer networks (for the health records), and new power technologies will create jobs. Crazy I know, but just because they are spending money on it doesn't mean this stuff magically pops out of thin air. If this really a debate about the "name" of the bill, then Republicans are a lot more petty than I thought.

The Republican and Democrat idea of what constitutes a "stimulus" bill are obviously different, they have different economic philosophies.

Have you ever been part of any of these sorts of projects? (besides swinging a hammer, working a shovel/other end labor) These sorts of things take a very long amount of time to plan and design before a single ounce of soil is disturbed. First you have initial engineering to provide budget estimates, then you have budget approvals, design approvals, gov't agencies pre-approvals, THEN you have bid spec writing and letting. You wait a while for the bids to come in, then have to approve/pick one. Once those things are done - there is more engineering work, submittals, design reviews, etc. I can guarantee the above takes atleast 1 year if it's anything to do with or from the gov't. So I guess if by "stimulus" you mean atleast 1 year out for any "real" work or workers start moving then I don't know what to say because it's absurd to suggest it's "stimulus".

Engineers aren't real workers? :-( Everything you just mentioned requires people working. I'm not saying this bill will create 4 million jobs overnight, but if you fail to see how it can improve the economy long term, then you need to spend more time thinking about it.

I also think tax cuts are the complete wrong way to go about fixing the problems we have right now. People are terrified. If you give them back money, they aren't going to go spend it, they are going to horde it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending IS stimulus. How the hell did you think we got out of the Great Depression?
When private sector is busy firing people, it's a good time for the government to hire them to build infrastructure, or do whatever else productive. Anything is better than paying those people unemployment to do nothing.

We got out of the Great Depression via a World War that cost over 100 million lives. What made you think otherwise?

How did a war get us out of a depression? Did it have something to do with the government borrowing piles of money to buy planes, ships, and tanks? And then companies were able to hire people to build said planes, ships, and tanks?

How republicans can think that cutting taxes on (nonexistent) profits will fix anything is beyond me.

Gee is that supposed to be a real question? We employed 16 million men in the armed services and leveled Europe and the Pacific. It wasnt keynesian, it was a command and control war economy, with a massive military. Keynesian economics in the 1930's did not get us out of the depression. It may have helped in some areas and definately hurt in others. But we as a nation were still hurting in 1940-41.

Then we being the only economy that wasnt completely gutted allowed us to be the worlds construction company and loan officer post war.

I am not really sure what you are trying to argue with your example about the tanks, planes, and trucks. That we should spend 3 trillion on expanding our military(cost of the WWII in todays dollars)?

 

[ElFenix]

i don't want a flash in the pan, i want a nice slow burn.


on a related note, 2 of 3 airlines in texas support high speed rail in the texas triangle, forming a T between houston, san antonio, and dallas. the goal is to have the system up and running by 2020.

it'd be awesome if we beat the people's republic of california to the punch

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
First and foremost, the $7500 first time home buyer credit that I do not have to pay back is going to help me buy a house A LOT sooner. I am talking like within the next month or two so that will help both the economy and myself.

It's going to be very amusing when you fail to pay the $500/yr on that "free $7500" and the IRS comes after you for it in a lump sum someday. What a dumbass.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I don't really care if it will work or not, at least the PEOPLE get some of it instead of the corporate criminals.

What people? Oh, you mean Pelosi and Obama's people that need to be paid back for the election.

People like me. See above.

You're welcome.

Those are my tax dollars too pal and they will be spent helping our economy so that you can continue to prosper as well.

You're welcome.

If you don't have the money for a downpayment without that credit then you're a brokeass loser and don't pay shit in taxes.