Is That True? 2nd Economic Stimulus??

[RitaE]

I just heard a report that Obama will be issuing a call for a 2nd round of Economic Stimulus checks in the next few days. You know, the round of checks that were mailed out in late spring/early summer?

Surely NOT?

Has anybody else seen or heard this?

 

[just4today]

I haven't heard anything about this, but I would consider it very fiscally reckless right now if it were to happen.

 

[rentayenta]

I haven't heard anything either.

 

[RitaE]

I'm finding some reports where he talked about it in August and September, but nothing from after the recent bailouts.

I guess we'll find out.

 

[just4today]

I'm finding some reports where he talked about it in August and September, but nothing from after the recent bailouts.

I guess we'll find out.

Even if he calls for it, he would have to get the rest of the congress onboard with it. That might be a tough job considering the climate right now.

 

[bicker]

To be sure: The vast majority of experts agree that the $700B bail-out is just a necessary but not sufficient measure to reverse the decline of our economy. It is likely that the government will have to allocate even more money for propping up the financial industry, so its collapse doesn't drag the entirety of America into financial ruin. While I haven't read anything indicating additional financial stimulus is being considered, it makes sense that something like that might be needed at some time to get a petrified consumer-base to start spending money again.

 

[vegasnative]

Yep, I've heard talk of it as well. I was surprised to hear that he was the one pushing for it so strongly.

 

[kellyg403]

To be sure: The vast majority of experts agree that the $700B bail-out is just a necessary but not sufficient measure to reverse the decline of our economy. It is likely that the government will have to allocate even more money for propping up the financial industry, so its collapse doesn't drag the entirety of America into financial ruin. While I haven't read anything indicating additional financial stimulus is being considered, it makes sense that something like that might be needed at some time to get a petrified consumer-base to start spending money again.

I would have to agree with you bicker. Now that the bailout for big banks has come about I can't imagine that something won't be needed for consumers to feel safe enough to start spending again.

Kelly

 

[RitaE]

To be sure: The vast majority of experts agree that the $700B bail-out is just a necessary but not sufficient measure to reverse the decline of our economy. It is likely that the government will have to allocate even more money for propping up the financial industry, so its collapse doesn't drag the entirety of America into financial ruin. While I haven't read anything indicating additional financial stimulus is being considered, it makes sense that something like that might be needed at some time to get a petrified consumer-base to start spending money again.

sure, because now that we are in a huge mess caused by a bunch of people borrowing money that everybody knew they'd never be able to pay back

Let's solve it by having the Government borrow an exponential amount of even more money that everybody knows they will never be able to pay back.

That makes PERFECT sense.

 

[bicker]

It is a bit like drug interactions: Take two things that are individually "good for you" and guess what? It's bad for you. Similarly, if you take some poison, guess what they give you to cure you? Sometimes indeed it is poison. One poison counter-acts the other. And the analogy is even better than that: The second poison does harm, but the harm it does is less than the harm from the first poison, which is relieved by the second poison.

The pooch is already screwed. Suddenly adopting and complyin with a white-box sound fiscal policy isn't going to fix anything, and will just leave the country on the steep incline sliding into the abyss.

 

[RitaE]

It is a bit like drug interactions: Take two things that are individually "good for you" and guess what? It's bad for you. Similarly, if you take some poison, guess what they give you to cure you? Sometimes indeed it is poison. One poison counter-acts the other. And the analogy is even better than that: The second poison does harm, but the harm it does is less than the harm from the first poison, which is relieved by the second poison.

The pooch is already screwed. Suddenly adopting and complyin with a white-box sound fiscal policy isn't going to fix anything, and will just leave the country on the steep incline sliding into the abyss.

ok, let me make up a metaphor too. It isn't like drug interactions at all. What it is LIKE is a huge house of cards and the more and more **** you keep piling on top of it will only cause the whole thing to come crashing down faster.

 

[bicker]

Well obviously those are two different analogies, which can't both be correct. Of course, I think my analogy is the one that fits the reality.

Actually, I think I see a way that something like your analogy could fit the reality: You compare the way things are to a house of cards, implying that the existing layers of the house of cards are sound. They're not. Rather, the cards on the existing layers have been almost completely eaten away by (I dunno, let's say: card-stock-eating termites), and perhaps some of the cards have been removed completely (and the rest of the house of cards is just staying up sort of like a Jenga tower). Also, you compare the additional remedial economic measures as new layers being added "on top of" the existing layers, but that's not what they are: Instead, they're replacements for the cards in the existing layers, the cards that have been mostly eaten away or completely removed. I believe we all agree that the economy is badly broken. We need to rebuild it from the bottom up.

 

[pdchris]

I agree with a previous post. Another stimulus check is fiscally irresponsible. I see also that I was off in a previous prediction. Before the House defeated the first bailout, I predicted the total pkg would be in the neighborhood of $800B. I was off by $50B.

We will enter into a recession but the question remains how bad and for how long. Recessions, like booms, are a fact of business life. The last check had a small affect on the economy; not that it didn't, I'm just saying the affect was pretty much wiped out by the financial crisis.

Before issuing (and borrowing) another $$$$$, I think it would be better to let the $700B work and 'tweak' the economy if needed.

 

[Michelle67]

It is a bit like drug interactions: Take two things that are individually "good for you" and guess what? It's bad for you. Similarly, if you take some poison, guess what they give you to cure you? Sometimes indeed it is poison. One poison counter-acts the other. And the analogy is even better than that: The second poison does harm, but the harm it does is less than the harm from the first poison, which is relieved by the second poison.

The pooch is already screwed. Suddenly adopting and complyin with a white-box sound fiscal policy isn't going to fix anything, and will just leave the country on the steep incline sliding into the abyss.

Okay, you are the first person besides my husband that I have ever heard use that expression. Must be an east coast thing. And I loved your card stock eating termites. That was funny.

On the stimulus idea, I sincerely hope not. Not that I would mind getting a check in the mail, but where is this money going to come from? Do we really need to increase the national debt some MORE right now? Uhhhh, NO!!! What good is it going to do anybody to have the government rack up more debt to have to tax back out of us by sending out what amounts to a bunch of Monopoly money---it sure ain't real money, because there's none of that to spare! What I think would be the way to stimulate the economy would be to find a way to slap the price of gas back down to where it was at the beginning of the year. Not that I'm saying I have any clue how to do that, or even if it is possible---but if gas went down the price of everything else that rose along with it should go back down as well, and that frees up a lot of money in people's budgets just in time for the holidays.

 

[bicker]

On the stimulus idea, I sincerely hope not.

Indeed. I would think that most of the things that have happened regarding the economy in the last year most folks would hope not have had ever happened.

Do we really need to increase the national debt some MORE right now?

That question must be accompanied by the question, "Can we afford not to?" And the answer, just like when asked with regard to this first $700B, may unfortunately be "no". If you're having trouble understanding how this could be true regarding a second allocation, how did the first one work out for you in your mind?

it sure ain't real money, because there's none of that to spare!

Do you think we had the first $700B to spare?

What I think would be the way to stimulate the economy would be to find a way to slap the price of gas back down to where it was at the beginning of the year.

Specifics? Or are you just talking about nationalizing the oil industry, and imposing price controls on it? That would very effectively destroy any remaining confidence in the US economy, and likely would plummet us into a depression that would make the one back in the 1930s look tame.

Not that I'm saying I have any clue how to do that, or even if it is possible

And that's the issue: not even the experts know. As I said, the pooch has been screwed. Reasonable approaches won't necessarily work.

 

[AlexTina]

"Senate Democratic leaders unveiled their $56 billion economic stimulus package on Thursday, less than an hour before leaving to meet President Bush at the White House to continue the fragile negotiations on the financial rescue bill."

Yes it's true it was allover the news last week. If you google "democrats add stimulus to bailout" you'll get quite a few articles about it.

Tina

 

[PatsGirl]

Beautiful, just beautiful... maybe the persons sitting in their oversized homes driving their oversized SUVs can now relax a bit. Between having their mortgage rates lowered and getting a bit more FREE money from the government, they can have the Christmas they are used to. We wouldn't want anyone taking a serious look at their own financial crises and adjusting their spending accordingly, would we?

 

[bicker]

From what I understand, that's not really the issue. Rather, the aim is to affect consumer confidence, which in turn has myriad impacts on the overall economy.

 

[golfgal]

Beautiful, just beautiful... maybe the persons sitting in their oversized homes driving their oversized SUVs can now relax a bit. Between having their mortgage rates lowered and getting a bit more FREE money from the government, they can have the Christmas they are used to. We wouldn't want anyone taking a serious look at their own financial crises and adjusting their spending accordingly, would we?

Are you implying people living in nice homes can't afford them? Didn't this mess start with putting low income (or NO income) people into home they can't afford? Did the thought ever occur to you that perhaps people living in large home CAN afford them, ARE saving money toward retirement and they SPEND money to support our economy???

Giving people a reduction in an interest rate frees up money that will be spent on consumable goods. That is a good thing.

 

[just4today]

Are you implying people living in nice homes can't afford them? Didn't this mess start with putting low income (or NO income) people into home they can't afford? Did the thought ever occur to you that perhaps people living in large home CAN afford them, ARE saving money toward retirement and they SPEND money to support our economy???

Giving people a reduction in an interest rate frees up money that will be spent on consumable goods. That is a good thing.

I can't speak for the person you quoted, but I took it to mean the people who overextended themselves and bought big houses and cars when they couldn't afford them.