Why do you think the stimulus will actually work?

[changemonger]

One of the interesting things about the discussions around the Obama administration's stimulus package here on DU is the fact that most people actually don't seem to know what it contains and they support it solely because they support Obama, on the other hand those opposing the stimulus are doing it mostly because they have become critical or sceptical of everything Obama does. So here you can actually get more factual and clearly describe why you think the stimulus ought to be passed and why it would work.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Strike "is the fact that," replace with "is my baseless opinion that" - ed.

Recovery requires more productive (that is to say, production-encouraging) spending in the economy. This can be accomplished through several means. The bill has provisions encouraging people to spend by offering tax incentives, and has significant spending by the government. While the government is a rather inefficient spender, when consumer confidence crashes to the point where people are unwilling to spend any money whatsoever, then the government must act as a spender of last resort, as it did to an extent during the New Deal and to an even greater extent during World War II.

[Lochloosa]

2. I wrote a post the other day trying to explain what it would do.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8177823&mesg_id=8177823

[Cha]

28. Thanks for

this, Lochloosa.

[Lochloosa]

29. Go give it a kick back up. It died a slow death. Thanks,

[Cha]

30. Done. n/t

[Dawgs]

3. I trust that the experts who agree with it are correct.

:hi:

[Ganja Ninja]

4. It's not even going to come close to working.

Bush left us so far in the hole it will likely take 3 to 4 times the amount of spending that was originally proposed.

The tax cuts are a pointless exercise too.

I don't know what Republicans are thinking. Do they think that in 6 months when there's another couple of million people out of work that they will be able to play this game again?

This is going to be like the Iraq war funding. In 6 months there will be another bill and another 6 months after that and so on until the economy starts to improve. If the GOP wants to fight every one of them then bring it on. They are going to get wiped out in 2010 the rat bastards.

[changemonger]

15. So why should it be passed if it ain't gonna work?

I tend to agree with you, but it is also true that Bush left us so far in the hole that WE CAN'T AFFORD to spend as much as it'd be required to solve the problem with government spending alone.

[Ganja Ninja]

21. If we can spend $3 billion a week in Iraq for the last 5 years then

we should be willing to spend 3, 4 or 5 times that here in America on Americans.

You (not me) said,"but it is also true that Bush left us so far in the hole that WE CAN'T AFFORD to spend as much as it'd be required." First who says we can't afford it? We couldn't afford the war of choice in Iraq that Republican's dragged us into either but that didn't stop them from dragging us to war anyway.

Just because this bill won't do the whole job doesn't mean that it shouldn't be passed. Just like getting rid of Bush/Cheney, it's a start and nothing but a start. There's still plenty of work left. And the worse things get the more Republican opposition to future jobs bills will be seen as obstructionist and harmful to the country. Especially since they are already widely seen as the cause of our economic problems.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. If I get a job from it it will. eom

[changemonger]

10. I know , but what makes you think...

you'd get a job from it.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Because it's supposed to create millions of jobs?

Why not one for me?

[changemonger]

24. that's the best case scenario, my friend.

always used to "sell" a project.

[changemonger]

11. I know , but what makes you think...

you'd get a job from it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. It the Republicans have a better plan, please argue your case here. If not, don't troll around here!

It's actually a "recovery" bill as well. Jobs mean nothing if workers don't have access to decent healthcare. I suppose you were in favor of the Corporate Welfare that taxpayers provided during the bailout?

It's obvious that you've been listening to a lot of right wing radio or watching Fox. These are the exact same talking points and nonsense that they spew on a daily basis...

See the entire report at the link:

Where do you think that money for food stamps goes? To grocery stores, who pay their workers, and buy their stocks from food distributors and food producers. That money actually circulates around the economy quite a bit, and does quite a bit to stimulate the economy.

I'm not sure about health care benefits - there's nothing on that economy.com chart to say how far health care dollars go, but I'll bet they also go pretty far - paying doctors and nurses and other health care workers, pharmcists and medical equipment manufacturers and so on...




Read the entire Moody's Economic Stimulus Report here:

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...l-stimulus.pdf

Check out: www.recovery.org

[changemonger]

8. What talking points ?

I thought my post was pretty neutral. I can actually call myself an expert, unlike most of you . I just wanted to hear your arguments as to why the plan will work, that's all.

[Lochloosa]

9. I noticed you ignored my post.

[firedupdem]

16. Well "expert" why don't you enlighten us as to what you think? n/t

[changemonger]

19. an expert would never do that n/t

n/t

[Avalux]

7. "most people" - love it.

I take it you have compiled all threads and responses "here on DU" to deduce most of us are supporting the stimulus just because we are of the Cult of Obama. Please provide evidence to support what you've said.

Don't expect us to post logical reasons after an attack like that. I certainly won't.

[uponit7771]

12. History, when governments inject missing capital for short term economies boost until banks\comsumer

...can get bank on its feet then bank\consumer pays back government or debt via taxes (same usually happens at micro level too).

Obama is doing this the smart way, either you can give tax breaks and it goes to corporations or you can give work which will go back to the state\states.

Japan didn't need high speed rail, healthcare overhaul, alternative energy needs (they've been doing fuel efficient cars for a while) or infrastructure updates like we do so our return on investment should be nice if it's done correctly.

[Aloha Spirit]

13. Spending money now will prevent the loss of trillions of dollars in GDP

If we do nothing, we cannot create jobs.
If we do not create jobs, we will continue to have unnecessary job losses for at least the next year and a half.
It is easier to prevent job losses right now than to create new jobs, but we should do both.
If we do nothing, we neither prevent job losses nor create new jobs, thereby unnecessarily diminishing productivity.
Lost productivity is lost forever.
If we don't spend now, we will lose $$ trillions in lost productivity. Forever.

As Obama and his advisers have said, the House and Senate are in agreement over 90% of the recovery act.
It is more important to pass the legislation than to perfect the outstanding parts of the bill.
I agree with this assessment because the bill balances many economic stimulus and job creating measures.
It would take a long time to list them here, but you can just read the bill for yourself and form your own opinion on that.

[changemonger]

17. Exact same arguments for Paulson's TARP

We've heard it all before. Of course something needs to be done, but the question is WHAT. Can we afford to try and solve the problem with government spending ?, I'm not so sure.

[Aloha Spirit]

20. Nobody else is able to spend money right now except for the government.

If you're suggesting some sort of pay as you go deal by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere, that will just dull any beneficial outcome, and be impossible to pass.
If you're suggesting something other than government spending, well, that is equivalent to doing nothing, because nobody except for the government is responsible for correcting the economy.
Deficit spending now is more fiscally responsible than minimizing the national debt because the national debt will grow directly as a result of lost productivity.

If you need any proof that this is so, and that government spending (obviously, one type is better than another, but that is not what you asked about) is fiscally responsible, remember the people who used to be so vocal on managing the national debt. They are many of them in agreement on the need for a large stimulus package.

[bdamomma]

14. why keep on falling down a rabbit hole something needs to be done.

[Vattel]

22. I don't know whether it will work. I'm not an expert.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Economics is largely psychological

The stimulus more than just actually spending money should help boost consumer and investor confidence which boosts the economy. That is assuming it gets passed sometime soon.

[harun]

25. Depends on your definition of "work"

Repukes definition would be that the economy get's back to everyone being able to borrow whatever they want and the stock market goes up regardless of if it deserves to.

Dem's definition will be economic growth starts moving in the right direction. Debt decreases, jobs start being created, automotive sales pick up, we begin getting diversity of energy sources i.e. electric cars, more wind/solar power generation etc.

In summary regardless of what happens the Repukes and Corporate media will claim things didn't "work", although the rest of us that "get it" might be pleased.

[butterfly77]

26. Because the money will go directly to the people...

in most areas,and the people are ones who stimulate the economy.

[GinaMaria]

27. Part of this is taking your best educated guess

If there was one perfect solution or answer, it hopefully would have been done by now. My personal view is that the plan needs 4 things maybe 5.

If you do not have time to read this report from Moody’s, just look at the table on page 4. www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-the-impa...


This report was published by Moody’s in 2008 during talk of a Bush Stimulus plan. It lists the top (in terms of bang for the buck) economic stimulus measures. The top four are all under Spending Increases. These are the four that took hits in the Senate negotiations at least from what we've learned so far. The degree to which they have been cut may determine how successful or not successful the plan will be. In order of impact they are:

1. Temporary increase in food stamps
2. Extending Unemployment Insurance
3. Increased Infrastructure Spending
4. General Aid to state governments.

Tax cuts come after these four. The tax cut with the most bang for the buck is

5. Refundable lump sum tax rebate

This is the exact tax cut that republicans oppose.

Compromising based on political platform, philosophy or ideology compromises the American people. We need something fast. Food stamps have fast impact as they are used almost immediately.

does this answer your question?