Stimulus Issues: What's The GOP's Answer?

[AndyLL]

1. Kill the Stimulus Bill (and let these pet programs be legislated/argued as part of the approved Federal Budget).

To justify cutting taxes a Republican in this thread claimed that invididual spending is the only way to fix the economy.

They were kinda correct... it takes any type of spending to fix the economy.

That is the point of the stimulus bill. Its to inject a lot of spending into the economy. The companies that receive the money will spend it on labor and other companies. As the money is spent every level will take income out of it and the value of every original dollar spent grows.

The administration was smart in not dumping all the money into infastruture like everyone thought they would. It's spread throughout many industires both heavy and light construction and low and high tech.

2. Cut the Social Security tax in half.

Absolutely the worst idea i've heard yet. SS is already in trouble and you want to make it worst?

3. Lower capital gains tax rate.

This item shows how Republicans fall in love with their talking points with no regard to if they will work.

Lowering the Cap Gains tax only gives more money to those who pull their money out of the market or otherwise cash in their investments.

Do you want to encourage people to take out their investments now?

I'm all for lowering long term Cap Gains but they need to raise the short term Cap Gains rate and the Cash Dividend rate to encourage long term investments.

......and then sit down with me and watch the money roll in.......just think of all the midnight basketball you will be able to fund from all that wealth moving through the system.......wealth that has been generated.....and not borrowed from our children and grandchildren at usurous rates.....

Pretty simple really.

Giving low/middle class earners tax breaks makes sense because that money given to them will be spent.

Giving the rich more tax breaks does not help the economy because they already have plenty of disposable income and will not spend more if given more.

Giving small businesses tax breaks/loans helps to create American jobs.

Giving large corporations tax breaks will not create jobs since even those making profits are cutting jobs.

How many jobs will be lost this year until the public realizes that the failed supply side economics of the last eight years will still fail if we try them once again.

 

[Master Mason]

Absolutely the worst idea i've heard yet. SS is already in trouble and you want to make it worst?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that SS takes in more than it needs to pay out on a yearly basis, the problem is the powers that be have seen fit to raid the piggybank on a yearly basis to send the money to other things instead of what it was collected for.

Perhaps the biggest way to fix not only SS but also a large part of our economic issues is to have a governement that actually has to live on their budget, actually has to use funds for what they were supposed to be used for etc. (I'm not an economist, but from a laymans perspective, that seams to make a bit of sence to me.)

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post. I too want to stay on track, but I was insulted by that entire program. It's insulting that most children are in bed at midnight, yet the government offers midnight basketball as a means of getting inner city youth off the streets. Their behinds should have been at home like everybody else. The whole bill was insulting. I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. My humble apologies.

I kinda' got the same impression myself and was fairly irate. Maybe Mr. Man just has a certain level of naivete and doesn't get why that's offensive?

 

[Charade]

I kinda' got the same impression myself and was fairly irate. Maybe Mr. Man just has a certain level of naivete and doesn't get why that's offensive?

I had no idea "midnight basketball" was offensive.

So I looked it up. Seems both sides had their fingerprints on this and surprisingly Limbaugh called it racist.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

I'm sorry, and I'm going to echo PP's here. I don't see where cutting the tax rate will help anything. It won't put enough money in the pockets of people who would actually spend that money to do anything, and the money that goes into the pockets of the wealthy will NOT stimulate the economy in any way shape, form or fashion.

I tend to follow the theory that one of the biggest causes of our current economic disfunction is the extreme disparity in pay between top-ranked executives and the rest of their employees, coupled with golden parachutes. It has gotten to the point that executives have no true financial stake in the companies they run. If the companies fail or they are removed from their positions, they still get huge bonuses, so their personal stake in the company is only ego driven, not driven by any true economic (survival) purpose.

Until we can change things so that executive pay is tied to company performance (radical idea, I know!) with a true "sting" felt for every misdeed, misaction, and for bad performance, I don't think we're going to see any changes.

 

[cabanafrau]

Why would the GOP have one answer? For that matter, do the Democrats have one plan? What, join the group, walk in lockstep?

I want to start hearing lots & lots of ideas . . . from Americans! I hope every elected official wants to hear the ideas their constituents have -- whether they received the individual's vote or not, whether they share the same secret handshake or not. Maybe my neighbor down the street has a great idea to share. Maybe your Uncle Joe has a great idea, too. We need to be working together as a nation. Who benefits from fingerpointing & name-calling? Maybe our enemies.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

I know of a particular Chief to a rather large Indian nation that does fairly well with their casinos.

He gets enough money that he could give every person in the tribe about $500 a year.

He does not do this.

The money goes to drug rehabilitation, old age pensions and home repair, hospitals and free medical care including wellness and prevention, economic development, educational programs, and other things that help the tribe.

Why? Because, to be honest, what would $500 do for the individuals? But the sum total of that money does a LOT for the people of his tribe, way more than if he just handed out the checks. In bang for the buck, the tribe can do a lot more good with $500 than an individual, because they're able to get better discounts, perform more efficiently and more cheaply to get the same services than the individual. Also, to be fair, it is better for the tribal members. For a tribal member in the middle class $500 would be some fun money. For a tribal member trying to get off welfare and fight addiction, education and rehab will cost way more than $500 this year, but will be worth it in the long run in their lives. And hey, it's another tribal member's LIFE, which is worth more than a little fun money.

Which is why, Democrat or Republican, I've never been for cash into my pocket.

 

[JimmyPicker]

In all honesty, I understand the OP's question, but I'm not sure what they expect the Republicans to do.

The Republicans are kind of powerless at this point. They're faced with the package, so that's what they're dealing with at the moment.

Even if they came up with a plan that they thought would work, what are the chances of getting it passed? They're a little outnumbered at the moment.

 

[Charade]

Maybe you can explain how massive deficit spending is a better plan. Deficit spending on things that will absolutely not create any new jobs. We often here that consumer spending will not boost the economy. Assuming that some of the stimulus plan works and gets people back to work don't we want those people to start consumer spending again? Right now consumer spending is way down because of economic fears. People are hoarding their money. That's causing retailers to shed jobs. It's a snowball going down a big hill. It amazes me that some people think that government knows how to spend money more wisely than the average person who is forced to live within their means.

 

[Charade]

I know of a particular Chief to a rather large Indian nation that does fairly well with their casinos.

He gets enough money that he could give every person in the tribe about $500 a year.

He does not do this.

The money goes to drug rehabilitation, old age pensions and home repair, hospitals and free medical care including wellness and prevention, economic development, educational programs, and other things that help the tribe.

Why? Because, to be honest, what would $500 do for the individuals? But the sum total of that money does a LOT for the people of his tribe, way more than if he just handed out the checks. In bang for the buck, the tribe can do a lot more good with $500 than an individual, because they're able to get better discounts, perform more efficiently and more cheaply to get the same services than the individual. Also, to be fair, it is better for the tribal members. For a tribal member in the middle class $500 would be some fun money. For a tribal member trying to get off welfare and fight addiction, education and rehab will cost way more than $500 this year, but will be worth it in the long run in their lives. And hey, it's another tribal member's LIFE, which is worth more than a little fun money.

Which is why, Democrat or Republican, I've never been for cash into my pocket.

That's a great program. But that's not how the majority of government spends money. They spend money on stupid things. The other thing is that's "free" money to the tribe because people aren't compelled to give it up. They freely play the games. Taxes are different and people expect their taxes to be spent wisely and as frugally as possible. Government for the most part always let's us down.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

That's a great program. But that's not how the majority of government spends money. They spend money on stupid things. The other thing is that's "free" money to the tribe because people aren't compelled to give it up. They freely play the games. Taxes are different and people expect their taxes to be spent wisely and as frugally as possible. Government for the most part always let's us down.

Oh, I don't know about that. . .I've heard the hash slung about this chief. He's inefficient, people don't trust him, they don't like X program or Y program. He doesn't spend wisely and frugally. Just LOOK at that new hospital with all the fancy-shmancy and exactly how much are they paying doctor X? And what about that stupid technology initiative? And did you know how much he spent on entertainement last year? And OMG, they waste so much money on government contracts every year. It's astounding. No private company would run this way. It's a travesty! (These are all true allegation, btw, LOL. But they suck ash when you look at the bigger picture.)

(BTW, no, to the tribe it's not "free" money. It's an economic means of drawing money into the community that wasn't present before and it was, in a sense, "earned" by the entire community's resolve to build and staff a casino on tribal lands. It is very much the TRIBE'S money.)

 

[Geoff_M]

For those looking for a "GOP alternative" to the Obama bill, the short answer is "there isn't one". This is for a couple of reasons:
- The GOP isn't a united front and doesn't speak with a single voice. Some GOP lawmakers are opposed to deficient-based "stimulus" as a matter of principle. Other are OK with it, but think the bill is too laden with pork in its current form.
- With Pelosi's changing of House rules previously enacted by the GOP, alternative bills from the minority party cannot be introduced on the floor for debate. Therefore there's nothing to be gained by "the GOP" taking the time to craft an alternative bill. I don't have a link at the moment, but I understand that GOP committee members offered a total of 15 amendments to the Obama bill, but they were all defeated on a straight party-line vote.

Personally, I'd like to see more or a true bipartisan bill... one that contains a significant amount of spending as well as support for state and local governments as well as real reductions in corporate and investment tax rates (not mainly "tax cuts" that are simply refundable tax credits aimed at people that don't pay taxes to start with). There's a long time joke in conservative circles that "Democrats define 'bipartisanship' as being when Republicans agree with them." Well, the joke has now been formalized by the writers at the Washington Post: For Obama, "bipartisanship may not mean compromise." While Obama may think that resistance to his bill and the desire to change it is somehow illogical and wouldn't be prudent, I think he'd be smart to look at the feelings of the public that don't have a very high opinion of the current bill and have low confidence that it will in fact "stimulate" our economy.

Also, a quick note to the OP... you need to change the title of the thread. The House Democratic PR team has decided that term "stimulus bill" has negative baggage associated with it. They are lecturing members to instead call it the "economic recovery bill". Since people often do judge a bill by its cover, they want to make it so that anyone that opposes Obama's bill is therefore against "economic recovery".

 

[JMD]

To justify cutting taxes a Republican in this thread claimed that invididual spending is the only way to fix the economy.

They were kinda correct... it takes any type of spending to fix the economy.

No, it takes consumer spending to fix the economy. The government cannot spend without either taxing or borrowing the money. Neither create economic growth.

 

[Shmily1]

If you read my post I clearly stated that I think it’s full of bull and pork. Hands down! Although a few things in there I think is needed that wouldn't directly stimulate the economy. Things like food stamps. I don't mind my tax dollars going to those that need it. Some may abuse this system, but most do not. My concern was the GOP's lack of ideas - besides those tax cuts. I'll even admit that I think we tax too high in this country and I too think that businesses that keep their business in America should be rewarded with tax cuts, but come on. What else? All I've heard is complaints from the entire party. Anything other than whining is appreciated.

That would be nice if the food stamps were going to those that needed them not the lazy that are sitting around waiting for the next hand out. Have you ever worked in the grocery store? It's not the elderly or sick that are getting food stamps. They can't get approved. It's those that don't have jobs, haven't had jobs, and won't get jobs so others can pay taxes to buy their groceries. It's a rediculous system!!! I worked in the grocery store for many years and saw it every day. The young ones that could have jobs come in with stacks of food stamps and the elderly ones coming in counting change to buy a pack of the cheapest meat they could find. That's sad and a sorry way to spend our tax dollars!!!

 

[moburg]

Be glad the mods are watching. This is completely uncalled for!

Huh?

Exactly! Huh? There was nothing "uncalled for" in his post.

Nevermind. Resolved already.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

No, it takes consumer spending to fix the economy. The government cannot spend without either taxing or borrowing the money. Neither create economic growth.

Why doesn't government spending create economic growth? I don't get that.

 

[mom2rb]

That would be nice if the food stamps were going to those that needed them not the lazy that are sitting around waiting for the next hand out. Have you ever worked in the grocery store? It's not the elderly or sick that are getting food stamps. They can't get approved. It's those that don't have jobs, haven't had jobs, and won't get jobs so others can pay taxes to buy their groceries. It's a rediculous system!!! I worked in the grocery store for many years and saw it every day. The young ones that could have jobs come in with stacks of food stamps and the elderly ones coming in counting change to buy a pack of the cheapest meat they could find. That's sad and a sorry way to spend our tax dollars!!!

Sometimes looks can be deceiving. My cousin was a SAHM, her ex quit his 60,000 job and became a janitor. She gets very little child support and she only had a GED before the divorce. She just graduated college with honors. She paid for school with scholarships and took care of her kids with student loans. She has been on food stamps for four years. The kids have Medicaid for health insurance. All of this will end as soon as she gets a job.

I am sure people saw her and thought she should just get a job, but she was using the system in a way that I am happy to support.

 

[JMD]

Why doesn't government spending create economic growth? I don't get that.

The government doesn't have it's own money. They don't have a secret vault where they can just pull out $1 Trillion to inject into the economy. So they can only raise this money in one of three ways: by taxing their population, by printing more currency, or by borrowing it. All three of these reduce the wealth of the population, both directly and indirectly.

 

[moburg]

Why doesn't government spending create economic growth? I don't get that.

Just a thought, but for Government to spend the money, it first has to tax the people to get it. So there is no real gain there.

Or they can borrow it, which adds to the national debt, which is bad.

Or they can print more, which increases inflation, also bad.

 

[lovemygoofy]

Why doesn't government spending create economic growth? I don't get that.

For the economy to grow, there has to be demand. The gov't bailing out and floating business does no good if the people on the street are not buying. The gov't has put billions into banks but the banks are holding tight to this money and not lending near what they should. For the lucky ones that can get a loan to either purchase a car or buy a home, the interest rates are still not as great as advertised.

My husband and I have been car shopping recently. We have great credit(like everyone else on the dis ) but very few interest rates for the cars we were looking to purchase were under 5%, which I consider rather much in this economy. You can get the rebates on the car to put down on the car to lower the payment but the interest rate would still be at 5%. Apparently now you can even finance a car for 7-8 years to make the payments lower.

Until people get out and buy, buy, buy there will not be a turnaround. Of course most people now can't get out and buy because things are more expensive than they were or people are too worried about their jobs, very understandable.