How much will the stimulus bill cost??

[minnie61650]

Why couldn't they have gone through weekend, allowing the members and the public to read it, vote on it today, and then sign it tomorrow?

I think congress is in recess from Feb.16-Feb.20.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

The country will come out of the recession without the bill. I know several people on here have posted where economists have said it would have been over by the end of 2009 WITHOUT the stimulus package.

The country will NOT stay in a recession.

I'm talking about the short term.

 

[wvjules]

I'm talking about the short term.

What exactly will this package stimulate in the short term? (By the end of 2009?)

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

What exactly will this package stimulate in the short term? (By the end of 2009?)

Whatever is spent before 2009 will increase GDP by at least that amount.

 

[wvjules]

Whatever is spent before 2009 will increase GDP by at least that amount.

Which is what again?

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Which is what again?

I don't know.

 

[Christopher Robin]

I don't know.

Oh, Tag Fairy!

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Oh, Tag Fairy!

What kind of fairy?

 

[minnie61650]

I know several people on here have posted where economists have said it would have been over by the end of 2009 WITHOUT the stimulus package.

.

Yes, several people on here have posted that some economists have said it would have been over by the end of 2009 WITHOUT the stimulus package.

Here is an article that disputes those economists:

Economists Agree Time Is of the Essence for Stimulus

With Congress moving closer to adopting a $820 billion stimulus package and the Obama administration poised to unveil a new bank bailout plan, economists say that the federal government is taking its biggest role in the economy in a generation.

Economists Agree Time Is of the Essence for Stimulus
In Geithner's Overhaul, Aggressive Use of All Available Tools Expected
A Tricky Third Way: Saving Banks Without Nationalization
States that once aspired to blaze trails independent from Washington are turning to it for money, banks and businesses that once decried regulation now are seeking federal capital, grants or tax cuts and individuals are looking for tax relief.

"This is a seismic shift in the role of government in our society," said Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics. "Those who believe the government can be an effective, positive instrument for good will have another chance to try it," said Sinai, a political independent.

While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package -- even a flawed one -- is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy.

Many economists say the precise size and shape of the package developing in Congress matter less than the timing, and that any delay is damaging.

"Most of the things in the package, the big dollar amounts, are things that are pretty quick stimulus and need to be done," said Alice Rivlin, who was former president Bill Clinton's budget director and who criticized aspects of the proposed stimulus in congressional testimony two weeks ago. "Is it a perfect package? Of course not. But we're past that. Let's just do it."

Economists who initially rejected the need for fiscal stimulus have warmed to the idea, too. Several months ago, Alan Viard, a Bush administration economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, thought the right size for a government spending bill was "probably zero." He favored reliance on the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates and existing unemployment benefits to bolster the jobless.
Now Viard shares the view that a stimulus package is needed, although he would prefer one limited primarily to tax cuts and direct benefits for victims of the recession, such as increased unemployment benefits.

"Things have gotten so bad so quickly," Viard said. "We have now lost 3.6 million jobs, a stunning loss. But what's more horrifying is that half that loss has occurred in the last three months. This is a severe recession. There's no doubt about it." <SNIP>

Link to full article:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/07/ST2009020702348.html

 

[manning]

Hey genius yourself. Read the title of the thread. We're talking about the Deficit not your own finances. ( I already know republicans care about themselves 1st and their country 2nd)

When did Nancy and Harry change parties????? I missed that.


Link

 

[manning]

The Fiscal year runs June-June I believe so it's hard to count the 1st budget but the 2nd had a reduced deficit outside of the War and TARP. (general Govt Spending went down)

Actually it starts Oct 1 and ends Sept 30.

 

[vt_disney_fan]

Hey genius yourself. Read the title of the thread. We're talking about the Deficit not your own finances. ( I already know republicans care about themselves 1st and their country 2nd)

Actually, genius, we're talking about the cost of the stimulus bill, not necessarily the deficit. If someone wants to bring in talk of the deficit in relation to the stimulus bill, then I can bring in talk of my personal finances as it relates to it, as well.

I won't even dignify your 2nd remark with a response.

 

[Muushka]

Hey genius yourself. Read the title of the thread. We're talking about the Deficit not your own finances. ( I already know republicans care about themselves 1st and their country 2nd)

This statement bothers me for a host of reasons. While this article is from 2006, the information is still valuable:

ABC’s John Stossel is well known for his libertarian views and for challenging liberal conventional wisdom. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Stossel was at it again as he debunked the widely held perception that liberals are more generous in their charitable contributions than conservatives. As part of a 20/20 special airing Wednesday night, Stossel interviewed Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, who conducted a study which found that conservatives, while making slightly less money than liberals, actually contribute more:

John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election."

http://newsbusters.org/node/9323

The myth that Republicans do not care about anyone other than themselves is just that, a myth. But sadly, with all the welfare that will be doled out with this current administration, I am afraid that people like me, who choose to donate money to charity in addition to paying taxes, will stop being charitable. Why should I? The government is going to do it for me. I wish I could find out the tricks that our elected officials find to eliminate the tax issue too.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

Link?

I would guess you are including all future estimates of interest payments.

Have you done that for any other spending bills? For example... what is the total cost of the Iraq war including the debt servicing? 5-10 trillion?

The CBO estimates only included the guaranteed spending. They have this statement:

CBO anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years. Following longstanding Congressional budget procedures, however, this estimate does not address the potential budgetary effects of such changes in the economic outlook.​

Much of the bill was tax cuts totaling 419 Billion of lost revenue by 2019.

Bush had 2 tax cuts:

[INDENT]EXTENDING THE PRESIDENT’S TAX CUTS AND AMT RELIEF WOULD COST $4.4 TRILLION THROUGH 2018:http://www.cbpp.org/1-31-07tax.htm
[/INDENT]

I believe you have been in favor of extending the tax cuts?

You republicans are so amusing with posts like this. The time to be screaming about fiscal irresponsibility was 6-8 years ago when surpluses turned into deficits.

Tax 'cuts' do not cost the government. It is not their money to begin with.

 

[djm99]

This statement bothers me for a host of reasons. While this article is from 2006, the information is still valuable:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9323

The myth that Republicans do not care about anyone other than themselves is just that, a myth. But sadly, with all the welfare that will be doled out with this current administration, I am afraid that people like me, who choose to donate money to charity in addition to paying taxes, will stop being charitable. Why should I? The government is going to do it for me. I wish I could find out the tricks that our elected officials find to eliminate the tax issue too.

Conservatives tend to give their money to charities of their choice yes. But what charities are those and what good are they doing to those people who dont belong to a charitable organization and are just poor and living.

I have heard too many conservatives say that they would rather give money to a charity than to a homeless person because at least they will know where it is going. That is not a generous attitude but one to where they can come back and prove that their generosity. One thing that is funny is that it is the conservatives who are the most "religious"; however, the bible says to "give in secret". It doesnt say to give, keep record, and receive tax write-offs for all that you have done. Your actually getting your money back. The fact that every single act of kindness is recorded suggest to me their motives were somewhat selfish.

I have been trying my hardest to press the giving of time, and it's importance to giving money. Most can pull a dollar out of their pocket, but who will actually roll up their sleeves and get dirty.

 

[JMD]

Fiscal stimulus increases the economy by more than the amount of the stimulus. The fiscal spending is 800 billion, so the economy will increase by that amount, guaranteed.

Where is the government getting the 800 billion?

 

[Muushka]

Conservatives tend to give their money to charities of their choice yes. But what charities are those and what good are they doing to those people who dont belong to a charitable organization and are just poor and living.

I have heard too many conservatives say that they would rather give money to a charity than to a homeless person because at least they will know where it is going. That is not a generous attitude but one to where they can come back and prove that their generosity. One thing that is funny is that it is the conservatives who are the most "religious"; however, the bible says to "give in secret". It doesnt say to give, keep record, and receive tax write-offs for all that you have done. Your actually getting your money back. The fact that every single act of kindness is recorded suggest to me their motives were somewhat selfish.

I have been trying my hardest to press the giving of time, and it's importance to giving money. Most can pull a dollar out of their pocket, but who will actually roll up their sleeves and get dirty.

This conservative gives time, lots of it, believe me. And as far as conservatives and where they donate their money. So, according to what you believe, no body should ever donate any money anywhere because they do not have the brains to know who needs the money and who doesn't? And the government does??? Joke, right?

Also, as far as your statement that conservatives like to donate because it makes them feel good, and not being done in secret. Trust me, the people who I donate money to have no idea where it came from. And FYI, when you donate money, yes, it is a write off, but dollar for dollar, you only see a very small portion of what you donated in tax savings.

And for the record, we could not itemize last year, and knowing that, we still were charitable. Your argument is absurd. But it does explain why liberals are not as charitable. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[minnie61650]

But it does explain why liberals are not as charitable. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Liberals are not as cheritable?
Really?

Link please.

FWIW

I know many liberals who donate both time and money to charities.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Muushka]

Liberals are not as cheritable?
Really?

Link please.

FWIW

I know many liberals who donate both time and money to charities.

Just my 2 cents.

Sorry, my comment sounded like a blanket statement that no liberals donate time or money. It is a general statement based on studies. I am certain there are plenty of cons that don't donate to either.

If you search University professor Arthur Brooks, he conducted studies based on Conservative vs Liberal and charity. His findings can be found here also:http://newsbusters.org/node/9323

I have a feeling that we will all dig up data to support our claims. My feeling is that I would rather be the one to give my money and not the government. They don't manage it very well, both dems and reps have demonstrated that.