Thursday, February 12, 2009

If we want to stimulate the economy by pouring money into it, why not just divide the amount in the "stimulus package" by the number of tax payers in the country, give it back to the tax payers, and let them spend it on what they want.  

It would not cost us any more-- just the same amount.  

Am I missing something?  Isn't this a better idea?


Sarah (JOT) said...

I want everyone to calm down and think. I don't believe anyone in the gov't is thinking about us out here at all; they're too concerned with keeping their jobs and paychecks. The obnoxious and unnecessary stuff packed into this stimulus is giving me the twitches!

Rosemary Bogdan said...

It's making me nauseous, Sarah, especially all this extra controversial stuff that they're sneaking in without debate. The only bright side? The democrats are showing their true colors. (Sorry all you democrats out there.)
I love the reasoning,"Well we have to do SOMETHING!"

Oh. OK. We have to do something. Well, let's spend a trillion dollars. That's something. DOES IT MATTER WHAT WE DO? I think it does!
(Sorry. I hate it when politicians do stupid things and then give stupid excuses like, "Well, we had to do something.")
There. I feel better.

Kate said...

Part of the reason they won't just give the money to us is because they are afraid we'll do the wrong thing with it...because the 'right thing' from a macro perspective would be to spend every last penny, preferably on credit-based purchases like cars and houses, whereas many of us would rather do the right thing from a personal perspective, which is pay off debts and build emergency savings. Unfortunately, debt payment and savings do not pump more money into the economy, nor do they directly create or sustain jobs.

I wish this stimulus bill were broken down into several simpler, streamlined (smaller, but probably still large) projects. I think a infrastructure stimulus bill would pass easily and do real good. I think one bill could be passed providing relief to states with budgetary concerns because of a lack of funds for state aid Michigan right now. Pass tax relief and incentives for small (genuinely small) enterpreneurs and businesses. A system of easy start-up grants would be good.

But no money for programs that will take years to go into effect - that won't help us NOW - and no money for programs that will create new recurring entitlements - those need seperate debate at a less intense pace and pressure.

Domething this large (and important, if we believe the economy needs stimulating) should be passed in a transparent way - we should know what we're getting into.

Mimi said...

I agree word for word with Kate. The macroeconomics wouldn't work because they need it to infuse money into the system, which paying off our mortgages, etc wouldn't do (assuming we were all prudent with the monies)

And, I love her idea for blocks of the stimulus bill. There are parts I wholeheartedly agree with, and parts that I wholeheartedly disagree with, and it'd be nice to focus on the merits or demerits of each.

Rosemary Bogdan said...

But Kate, paying off debts and putting money in savings would give the banks more capital for lending to businesses, right? And isn't that also part of the problem? Isn't the heart of the problem the bad mortgages and the securities backed by them? Plus, let's face it. If most Americans did the "right thing" with their money we wouldn't be in this mess. I think we could count on the majority of Americans to spend it. The items that you quite correctly say should be considered separately are being dishonestly snuck into the bill by democrats who, it would seem, want to avoid the debate and simply get their way regardless of the opinions of the American people. I find it despicable.
Mimi, I like the idea of blocks too. It's the honest way to do it.

Mimi said...

I'm not a huge economics expert (I do work in real estate, but not on the finance side of it), but I think that the banks rely on the interest from the loans as income, so if everyone paid off their loans, then there wouldn't be interest income pumping into the system.

But, I definitely agree that if more Americans were doing the "right thing" with their money, AND if the banks were doing the "right thing" with underwriting guidelines, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Mimi said...

(oh, and I think that both parties are doing a fine job of sneaking stuff into the bills)

Rosemary Bogdan said...

what, all three republicans who voted for it?-- total from both houses? This is a bill that is solely coming from the democrats with three republican turncoats-- unless something happened today that I haven't heard yet.
I see your point about the interest on loans. But I think it would never happen that ALL loans would be paid off. Maybe just enough to get some cash flowing out again? You realize I'm speaking from no experience at all with econ. I think we could all agree that our country needs prayer.

Mimi said...

No, I mean that the Republicans seem to be able to put their pet projects in the plan, and I am also including the previous plan, as I think that both plans were an amalgram of programs that like Kate said, some are good ideas and systemic infrastructure (which I support) and some are just throwing money around at projects, which I do not.

And, I also think that a lot of the reconciliation between the two bills is going to have compromises to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

But, then, I also tend to lean left, which I'm sure you know :)

And, as to your last point, absolutely. I think that prayer is especially needed. Our economy is crumbling and our ideals are out of whack, no matter how you look at it.

Lord have Mercy, indeed.

Rosemary Bogdan said...

Mimi, I am not aware of a single "pet project" of republicans in this "stimulus plan" or in the TARP. Can you think of an example? In contrast, Obama's plan is chock full of democratic pork. It's a disgrace. Pure, ugly political maneuvering.

Mimi said...

Well, I'd consider the entire auto bailout and the money that went to the banks and AIG (and I bang my head on the desk, because my life insurance is with them) in that list.

But, be that as it may, I don't want to argue it, nor do I want to make it into an "us" and "them". You were venting and I got into the middle of it.

Forgive me, my friend.

And, may I add, that I *do* like the Jubilee idea, as it is clearly Biblical, I just agree with Kate why it isn't on the table.

Suzanne said...

Oh, my gosh matter what else you think, this Stimulus Bill needs to go out the door the way it is...forget anything else except that it threatens euthanasia, the elderly, and opens the door to Nat'l Health Care...I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in the government watching my every medical move..its none of their business and what I don't understand is why any of us good ladies would even consider this. Please go to my blog..Suzanne's Sisterly Sharings and get more information. God be with us all. Lord, have mercy!

Rosemary Bogdan said...

Mimi, I love to argue politics...I hope this wasn't sounding personal. There's nothing to forgive you for, but please forgive me if I'm getting cranky.

Suzanne, I completely agree. This committee to analyze the comparative effectiveness of treatments is all about getting used to the idea of rationing health care. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stimulating the economy. It's extremely controversial and the dems are sneaking it in along with their other pet causes.

(Mimi, the auto industry is in no way a "pet cause" of the republicans. The UAW is practically an arm of the democratic party. And most republicans were very reluctant to bail out those banks. It is not part of the republican philosophy. But it was a bipartisan effort to jump start the economy. Obama's plan is a construction of the democratic leadership in Congress and the repubs were not even invited to share ideas. The conference committee is about reconciling The House and Senate versions, not about repub ideas and dems. And this from a president who promised bi-partisanship and no pork in the stimulus package. It's amazing that the mainstream media is not holding him to his word. (Mimi, we can disagree on politics and still be friends, can't we? Hope so.)

Suzanne said...

Lord God, I hope we all can for if we don't remain close and holy friends, we'll not get anywhere!
If you are getting cranky, I suppose we all are. I called my two Senators and my Rep. on this issue this morning. From the get go, Evan Bayh's phone message machine said that it was FULL. Period. My husband called... FULL. The Republican Senator's office was still taking messages ...the Democrat's office didn't bother to clean off their machine or whatever. That tells me something too. The other problem is that I heard people were trying to get the download off of the internet about this and you could not get it. Excuse me??? That is very very very messed up, wouldn't you say?
We'd be hearing about it all OVER the place if Pres. Bush was still in and something like this was happening...where is the media on this...helping to block it off the internet TODAY? If anyone has ever found it..let us know.

Mimi said...

Well, while I agree that the UAW is solidly Democratic, I don't agree that the ownership of the Auto industry is solidly Democratic, in fact I'd be surprised if they were even marginally or tepidly Democratic.

And, absolutely, I consider you one of my dearest blog friends, and I certainly hope that the way that I approach politics doesn't color your opinion at all.

I wonder if writing is the best way to reach the Senators and Represenatives.

But, I must add, that through my work I'm getting emails and information from NAR (National Association of Realtors) who DEFINITELY lean right, and they are pleased as punch at what made it through.

What it boils down to, in my opinion, is that I just don't see it as a Democratic plan being shoved down the Republican's throat. Nor, do I see the Republicans as being the torchbearers of responsible spending. Very few politians in either party spend money well.

And, I have no idea whose political pet project giving millions of dollars to Wall Street Executives is, no party seems willing to accept that responsiblility ;)

Rosemary Bogdan said...

Mimi, WADR (with all due respect:-), and I am sincere about that, it is indeed a Democratic plan being shoved down the Republicans' throat. Not ONE Republican voted for the bill!! Only three in the Senate!
Neither party gave millions of dollars to Wall Street executives. Both parties, a truly bi-partisan effort, gave millions to American banks because of the frozen credit markets. The government gave no money to executives.
In re to the auto industry... the owners of the auto industry are the stock holders which clearly includes both repubs and dems. Some stockholders are wealthy and own a lot. Some are not and own a little. Helping the auto industry was in no way a republican "pet project." In fact the typical republican is very averse to such bailouts. And btw that bailout was literally a drop in the bucket, nothing!, compared to what the dems are spending now.
There. I said it. and you are also one of my dearest blog friends and remain so :-) I have other democratic friends too.

Mimi said...

I just don't see it the same way as you do, dear Rosemary, but nothing will ever change that you are indeed one of my dearest blog friends.

Have a fantastic weekend, and hopefully you feel well enough to celebrate St. Valentine's Day with your husband ;)