agree 100% with the first comment, disagree 100% with the second.

The money is going to come from somewhere, I would prefer that government just shrink and cut taxes, but we all know that won't happen now that both parties are big government, just depends on which flavor you prefer. The only way I would favor this stimulous plan is if the government was running at a surplus and decided to give the unused portion back to us. But we know that won't ever happen either.

But since we're getting the money anyway, how does everyone feel about how we're going to get it? Dems want to remove anyone making over 85K from receiving the checks and include lower income Americans (who already don't pay taxes) in the plan. So, if the Dems get their way, how is this not blatant income redistribution?

This reminds me of the Dem debate a few weeks ago. When Obama was talking about slightly raising taxes on wealthy individuals and used the fact that Warren Buffett pays only 1% in taxes a year as an example. So, under the Dem definition of wealthy, we're all Warren Buffett?

Keynes theories were developed when the world was in a major global depression and they make a hell of a lot of sense in that scenario.

While his theories still hold water, current policy makers and politicians seem to consider keynsian economics as some kind of silver bullet to be used whenever the economy goes into a down cycle. The economy is cyclical and we have to let it correct at times. Spending will stimulate the ecomony in the short term and if that spending is funded by more debt (Treasury Bonds), we are delaying that correction, not eliminating it. And the further we delay a market correction through artificial market manipluation, the nastier it will be.

IMO

its a joke they want to give a tax refund to people who didnt pay taxes, but dont want to give anything to taxpayers who made over a certain amount of money- not that this suprises me.
The middle class gets ****ed over and over again. Depending on the size of your family, what state you live in you are often times better off making 40k a year than spmeone else who is single and makes 65k which is a load of ****.

One thing I find interesting is that the market didn't really respond to this as "good new", with major indices staying pretty much flat. That tells me that either the street already expected this to happen, or the street expects that $145 billion is about to be spent to achieve...nothing.

Might be due to: 145b stimulus v. 930b trade deficit + 400b budget deficit.

David v. Goliath?....with David trying to win with a smoke screen of printed money out of thin air?

There are only three options for increasing government spending for stimulus. one is to increase debt, the other is to print money and the third is to hoard money in booms. All three sow the seeds of the next recession in their implementation.

I never said the books were done differently, what I said is that they increased unfunded liabilities under Clinton. He (and ever president before) took excess money from SS and paid for other government programs. The US gov still picked up a few trillion in debt to the future elderly.

Well, you're wrong. Here: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Every president since WWII has reduced the national debt (as a percentage of GDP except Reagan, Bush I & Bush II.

Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending, which sparked the economy, however, you can only borrow for so long.
We should haven't borrowed that money and let the recession hit then.

Your family's share of the national debt is: $144,916.00 and growing.

unfunded liabilities are not included in the national debt. Social security is an unfunded liability.

QFT

Basically exactly what I was gonna say. I have no idea why the constant thought is to try to postpone the inevitable instead of letting the market go through its normal cycle, and worrying more about how to outlast the low points. You can't ride the wave of good times forever.

Hmm...



(From here: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/...elections.html )

So.. there's a chance to have better incumbency rates by up to a 15% if the economy grew during the last 4 years.. or didn't?


You know what, my chart's better:

This graph is totally subjective, as there has never been a census of active pirates thru the times.

Utz,

Here's a video straight from the source on unfunded liabilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Q14HOBThM

Basically, tax rates need to double to pay for old folks medical care. Or we can cut them off. Since the first baby boomers are going to be collecting medicare in 3 years, we are in for a nasty surprise in about 10 years.

Too bad people will never vote for someone who promises to cut benefits. More old people vote, so if you are under 40 you can expect to get screwed by your parents and grandparents.

You're right. They should also eliminate the Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Dept of Homeland Security, cut the Pentagon in half; shutdown NASA; charge people a high enough price to enter federal museums and parks so the revenue will pay for itself; bring home 75% of the troops stationed overseas; eliminate all foreign aid; no more assistance for college.

Did I miss anything?

Yes I did. Subsidies for agriculture; tax breaks for oil companies. FEMA

Welfare; unemployment insurance and worker's compensation

Since we have enough nukes to keep anyone from attacking us; cut the defense budget by 60%.

But then.....I know young people who make only $13 an hr and pay $135 a month so they can have unlimited text msg on their cell, $50 per mo for internet and $60 a month payment on a fancy computer, so they don't have it all that bad yet. Of course, they're 23 and still living at home with mommy & daddy. Or they're a girl, with a boyfriend 10yrs her senior.

I do like seeing all these clowns in congress finally agreeing on the obvious: taking money from people straight up hurts the economy. Giving some back will help. Nice tacit admission that taxes are high enough to be a problem for our economy.

natedogg

I'm glad you agree.

LOL 5 pages and no keynesian analysis for IRON.

I doubt this is their reasoning. I think that they just want to make us think that they're doing something looking out for our best interests. In '04, people around here voted for Bush because of the $300ish "tax cut" they got, never once realizing that it didn't do anything significant because prices were up so much. After all, what's a few billion to shut us up so they can keep driving the country into the ground?

This is January. The stimulus supposedly was urgently needed because we're in the ****ter now. And the rebates go out in June?

Dear Dem & Repub Parties

This is obviously vote buying, you know it, I know it. But rather than point this out, I'm going to play along. Since this is a bipartisan deal, you have failed (again) at even buying votes correctly. I will give you an opportunity to correct this. Please airdrop my check directly to my house. Whichever party's logo is on the parachute, will have bought my vote, let the race begin!

Obviously long the entire stock market, something tells me in June the Dow is gong jump from 8000 to 23000.

It's a tossup whether I'm more financially irresponsible than the federal government or vice versa. But if they want to put a check in my mailbox, fine by me.

Is this finalized yet? Is it an actual "tax rebate" or will people who pay no tax also be getting it?

That's easy. Your share of the debt is about 30,000. Compare to your own debt. Or, compare your share of the ADDITIONAL debt this year to your total debt. I'm awful with money...like SUPER awful with money, and the government screws me far more than I screw myself.