My stimulus plan

[Michael]

Cutting payroll taxes will not stimulate spending. People don't see it. If you want them to spend, send a cheque. Slight increase in pay via a line that now one pays attention to? If anything, people will save the money and it will sit in banks and not be loaned out.

The problem is a lack of confidence which is keeping people from spending.

If you want to stimulate spending, infrastructure spending makes the most sense. Spend money now on roads, power grids, airports and railways. Renew the system established in the 1950's. Improve the physical buildings that house our students and modernize them.

If you can't cut enough waste to pay for it, then look at a 2 year surtax that doesn't stop at the "rich". Make everyone invest in the future. Make it progressive so that the "rich" pay more, but make sure everyone has skin in the game.

Promote the he'll out of it. Increase public confidence and get main street spending again.

Michael

 

[dmcowen674]

Improve the physical buildings that house our students and modernize them.

Why?

It's been proven that schooling especially advanced education leaves people up to $200,000 in debt with no hope of paying it off stuck in minimum wage service jobs.

You don't mention anything about jobs and bringing them back to the U.S.

Without the ability to manufacture anything you do not have a country.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you want them to spend, send a cheque.

If you can't cut enough waste to pay for it, then look at a 2 year surtax that doesn't stop at the "rich". Make everyone invest in the future. Make it progressive so that the "rich" pay more, but make sure everyone has skin in the game.

So you want to send people a check, then increase their taxes to pay for it. That sounds like a great plan

Promote the he'll out of it. Increase public confidence and get main street spending again.

Here's the part people (especially the current administration) just don't seem to get: more spending, no matter what kind, will not increase public confidence. Addressing fundamental problems will. Overspending (by government, as well as by the public with credit card debt and overly large mortgages) is a big part of what got us here to begin with. More of the same is not going to solve anything.

 

[soulcougher73]

Not sure if serious...

 

[dawp]

Why?

It's been proven that schooling especially advanced education leaves people up to $200,000 in debt with no hope of paying it off stuck in minimum wage service jobs.

You don't mention anything about jobs and bringing them back to the U.S.

Without the ability to manufacture anything you do not have a country.

I believe he means the public school building, not the physics building.

 

[Michael]

I did not say send a cheque, I said cutting payroll taxes is a little each pay cheque and either will ot get noticed or will get saved. Sending a cheque is better if you want to stimulate spending.

Infrastructure spending is needed anyways and construction workers are here, not overseas (which Dave is too stupid to know and he is hoping to leave the USA anyways).

Michael

 

[PokerGuy]

Infrastructure spending is needed anyways and construction workers are here, not overseas (which Dave is too stupid to know and he is hoping to leave the USA anyways).

As far as spending goes, yes, infrastructure spending with long term benefits (not wasteful spending on trains that will lose money forever) is a good thing, but you have to have the money to spend. No amount of borrowing / spending will get us out of this mess. It's what got us into it.

 

[FerrelGeek]

As far as spending goes, yes, infrastructure spending with long term benefits (not wasteful spending on trains that will lose money forever) is a good thing, but you have to have the money to spend. No amount of borrowing / spending will get us out of this mess. It's what got us into it.

This economy will only get going if/when the private sector gets back to work. Companies are sitting on (last I heard) some $5T in capital that they're afraid to spend because they have no idea what's in store due to our current executive branch. Small businesses are crucial to our economy, but Obama has dissed them at nearly every turn by creating a climate that is hostile to running small businesses. Private sector jobs create government revenue. Public sector jobs cost government revenue and do not create enough private sector revenue to offset the public cost of creating said jobs. The first stimulus bill is a perfect example of this.

 

[Nebor]

This economy will only get going if/when the private sector gets back to work. Companies are sitting on (last I heard) some $5T in capital that they're afraid to spend because they have no idea what's in store due to our current executive branch. Small businesses are crucial to our economy, but Obama has dissed them at nearly every turn by creating a climate that is hostile to running small businesses. Private sector jobs create government revenue. Public sector jobs cost government revenue and do not create enough private sector revenue to offset the public cost of creating said jobs. The first stimulus bill is a perfect example of this.

I think it's funny that no one contests the amount of cash money that businesses are sitting on, but one side wants to change out the administration to coax them into spending it, and the other side just wants to take it by force of law and have the government spend it for them.

 

[yllus]

Isn't an Infrastructure Bank in the works?

Infrastructure Bank May Boost Size of Obama Jobs Bill

The White House said Monday that the President Obama’s proposed national infrastructure bank could back $100 billion to $200 billion in new state and local road, bridge, mass transit and other projects over the next decade--it hopes in more “public-private” partnerships with funding from private investors.

That could increase the effective size of the President’s $450 billion jobs bill to the range of $550 billion to $650 billion, including new infrastructure spending from non-federal sources over the next 10 years. Administration officials claimed that potential greater impact would come at a minimal cost and risk to taxpayers.

According to the jobs legislation the White House released Monday, the bank would guarantee infrastructure project loans, putting taxpayers on the hook for losses.

But a senior administration official said any losses in the program would be minimized because federal support would be targeted to “economically viable” projects with dedicated revenue sources for loan repayments; direct loans and loan guarantees would be limited in size, and taxpayer subsidies would be conservatively estimated and structured, starting with just a $10 billion federal investment.

Supporters have said Washington guarantees through the bank would assist cash-strapped state and municipal governments by allowing project financing at lower interest rates.

In his jobs plan, the President would spend $10 billion to establish an infrastructure bank, which would help pay for new public construction projects over 10 years with the objective of raising much of the funding for them from pension funds, hedge funds and other private investors.

Gene Sperling, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said in an interview Friday that the Administration expects at least $10 of non-federal funding for every $1 of federal funding or guarantees in bank-supported projects, but that the figure could be closer to $20 in other funding sources for every $1 of federal backing.

“I think 10-1 is actually conservative,” Sperling said. “I think many people think-- including some on our jobs council, some of our business leaders believe--that you could get 20-1 bang for your buck.”

A White House spokesperson confirmed Monday that formula could generate about $100 billion to $200 billion in total new financing for state and local infrastructure projects. According to a summary of the jobs legislation, the bank “will provide direct loans and loan guarantees to facilitate investment in economically-viable infrastructure projects of regional or national significance.”

 

[FerrelGeek]

Any publicly held company has to report the money it has 'in the bank', so to speak. Companies use that cash for various purposes, depending on the business need: new equipment, new/improved buildings, and new employees. When companies are unsure of the upcoming economic climate, they tend to get conservative (not in the political sense) and sit on the money. Which do you think will be more effective in stimulating our economy? Businesses spending money that they actually have (say it's only $2T) or the .gov spending another $450B of money that it doesn't have?

I think it's funny that no one contests the amount of cash money that businesses are sitting on, but one side wants to change out the administration to coax them into spending it, and the other side just wants to take it by force of law and have the government spend it for them.

 

[Nebor]

Any publicly held company has to report the money it has 'in the bank', so to speak. Companies use that cash for various purposes, depending on the business need: new equipment, new/improved buildings, and new employees. When companies are unsure of the upcoming economic climate, they tend to get conservative (not in the political sense) and sit on the money. Which do you think will be more effective in stimulating our economy? Businesses spending money that they actually have (say it's only $2T) or the .gov spending another $450B of money that it doesn't have?

What I'm saying is that there's a pretty vocal group here saying that those businesses hate America and are purposely depressing the economy by not spending that money, so it should be taxed away from them and spent by the .gov.

I take no stand on which way is right or wrong. I don't care.

 

[AMFMQAM]

Pity me, for I am a 9/11 truther who is off his meds.

 

[piasabird]

Any program with the word government attached to it is a spending plan that wastes money on government overpaid pension hounds.

 

[woolfe9999]

Isn't an Infrastructure Bank in the works?

Infrastructure Bank May Boost Size of Obama Jobs Bill

I like the idea of the infrustructure bank because it has a better chance of happening than any of the spending portions of his proposal which are DOA in the House. It's a good idea that limits tax payer exposure.

 

[gotsmack]

This is what I would do:

1. Lower corporate taxes and personal income taxes. Also greatly lower the tax rate on repatriated cash. No sense in taxing the same entity's profits twice, but some sort of small fee is not unreasonable.

2. Cut some deductions and cap others.

3. Spend money on upgrading the power grid, Bridges and Tunnels. I'll ok the money to fix roads if they are legitimately falling apart.

4. Spend money on researching new energy NOT govt guaranteed loans to solar factories. If the govt spent $100 billion on building up a patent portfolio for new energy (more efficient solar, 0 point energy, cold fusion, wave power, etc) they could license the patents to US companies that do production in the US at a low rate and have a high rate for foreign companies or companies that do production outside the US.

5. Put up $500 billion in to some sort of federal facility and announce that we will NOT be doing any more bailouts. If banks fail and there is a credit crunch, the US Government will be the lender of last resort, making DIRECT loans to the people and small/medium businesses. Big businesses will have to go to the bond market. Normal evaluations of the loans apply and normal interest rates apply. Profits will be used to pay off the national debt.

6. Shut down Fannie Mae % Freddie Mac. The Govt should stay out of the loan business as much as possible.

7. Unemployment will be restructured. You get a big lump sum instead of weekly checks. Other unemployment services remain the same (COBRA).

8. If the Russians couldn't fix things, we don't have a chance.

9. Close non essential foreign bases and use out troops to protect our borders. Too many smugglers and bandits on the Mexican border.

10. Decriminalize pot on the federal level and make it the state's decision on what to do with it. Put bigger penalties on hard drugs.

 

[rchiu]

I agree that infrastructure spending makes a lot of sense. But I would caution on spending on any infrastructure project for the sake of spending and temporary increase employment. The decision should still be on ROI and the infrastructure that would boost productivity.

There has been a lot of talks on High speed rail just because China and Europe and some other countries has lots of success. But does HSR really fits America with widely spread out cities? We can modernize school buildings, but does that really produce any economic value?

Why not start urban planning initiatives as well together with these infrastructure initiatives to have better planned, linked suburbs, technology zones, lower cost residential areas....etc.

 

[Michael]

The purpose of a "stimulus" package is to actually stimulate the economy. People and companies sit on cash, cut debt, etc, because they are worried about the economic environment.

Short term, speeding up infrastructure spending on long-neglected basic infrastructure will really make a difference. Make it easier for goods and people to flow within the USA. This will give local companies an advantage.

Once the spending cuts in, the activity will generate good news for the economy. I would like the President to be more business friendly, and to change his tone when addressing the business community, but at this point it would make no difference if the economy doesn't have something generating some momentum.

I have a ton of views on the tax code and on how world-wide income is taxed in the USA (I'm an expat once again and the CFO of a public company), but that's not short term, it would take at least a year of debate to change it and with he election coming, I have my doubts.

If the President is really so dead set on doing something with payroll taxes, send one cheque out as a "refund" and keep the rate the same. That would stimulate spending, even if short-term.

Michael

 

[halik]

I agree that infrastructure spending makes a lot of sense. But I would caution on spending on any infrastructure project for the sake of spending and temporary increase employment. The decision should still be on ROI and the infrastructure that would boost productivity.

There has been a lot of talks on High speed rail just because China and Europe and some other countries has lots of success. But does HSR really fits America with widely spread out cities? We can modernize school buildings, but does that really produce any economic value?

Why not start urban planning initiatives as well together with these infrastructure initiatives to have better planned, linked suburbs, technology zones, lower cost residential areas....etc.

Car trains like the ones in the Chunnel would work - i would love to be able to drive my car up on a train and take it across the country.

 

[Fern]

The purpose of a "stimulus" package is to actually stimulate the economy. People and companies sit on cash, cut debt, etc, because they are worried about the economic environment.

Short term, speeding up infrastructure spending on long-neglected basic infrastructure will really make a difference. Make it easier for goods and people to flow within the USA. This will give local companies an advantage.

Once the spending cuts in, the activity will generate good news for the economy.

I support proper infrastructure spending/investment, not more repaving. Regardless of the stimulus effect on the economy, we need it.

But I fear the stimulus effects will be more long term than immediate. I doubt there's much out there that is 'shovel ready'. Accordingly, I personally don't feel Obama is really interested in that, he needs something much quicker for his reelection effort.

I have a ton of views on the tax code and on how world-wide income is taxed in the USA (I'm an expat once again and the CFO of a public company), but that's not short term, it would take at least a year of debate to change it and with he election coming, I have my doubts.

I've been reading these discussions have already been ongoing. Some talk of switching to the European territorial system. If so, foreign source income won't be taxable in the US. I'll believe it when I see it.

If the President is really so dead set on doing something with payroll taxes, send one cheque out as a "refund" and keep the rate the same. That would stimulate spending, even if short-term.

IIRC, Bush did something similar. I thought it was a waste then and still do now.

Fern

 

[Michael]

If you are looking for a quick tax code change to get money into people's hands and generate tax revenue, then 0% tax on repatriated money that is spent on dividends or share repurchases that are increases (so you don't just use the funds to pay what otherwise would have been paid).

That way the government gets 15% tax at least (on the dividends) and the companies can use their excess cash to give it to their shareholders. Not super efficient as many people will just save it and money in retirement accounts will defer even the 15% tax, but it is something.

Michael

 

[waggy]

some good ideas.

I think the biggest thing would be to get rid of corruption and waste. LOL HAHAHAHHA YAH. IF we did that we would have the money to spend on infrastructure *(wich we need)

 

[Infohawk]

Hardly "your" idea... We should always be maintaining and appropriately upgrading our infrastructure but that is not what our economic problems are about.