13 thoughts on “Random Mormon Poll #4: Economic Stimulus”
One point of discussion to get things started: At what point does this become President Obama’s economy? Obama and others are quick to point out that Bush was President during the start of the recession, but when does Obama start taking ownership?
I think he took ownership when he purchased a car company.
The “stimulus” package is NOT a stimulus package. Most of the money goes towards extending benefits for welfare and unemployed, or towards Democratic payments towards their supporters in their districts.
A real stimulus would have been to pay off up to $50,000 on everyone’s mortgages, and one year without mortgage payments on the remainder. This would have cost less than $2Trillion. It would have allowed almost all people to stay in their homes. The $2T would have gone instantly back to the banks, replenishing them, and allowing them to then loan to other institutions, without Congressional oversight. Individuals would suddenly have more money on hand, as their mortgages are paid down or off, and they have a year of no payments. This means they would go out to buy new cars, appliances, clothing, and eat at restaurants. The market would still determine which companies would survive or fail.
The stimulus would be in full swing right now with such an inexpensive plan (compared with the $13T being spent right now). Job rates would be growing, etc.
Second stimulus? Only if they do something like I just mentioned above. Otherwise, more government intervention will only guarantee the bad guys will get their pockets lined, while the rest of us pay the tab.
Rameumptom,
I’ll take $50k toward my mortgage and a year off payments!!! That would be nice and truly reflect the expectations most people had of an Obama stimulus plan.
A real stimulus would involve tax cuts on the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is among the highest in the world. The high rate of U.S. taxes is driving business away from the U.S. to other countries. Fewer businesses based here means fewer jobs and higher unemployment:
It is tough to say that the stimulus is working if only 10% of the funds have not even been spent. Perhaps one can say that they have been allocated and are creating some expected growth, but that is a little too illusory for me.
Sorry, I meant that only 10% have been spent, not the opposite!
I agree with Geoff, as long as the corporate tax cut was combined with a drastic, across-the-board cut in corporate welfare.
Agreed Mike. Let businesses succeed or fail based on their cost models, their business plans and the talent of their leadership. In my opinion, all corporate welfare would be cut.
Brain: “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”
Pinky: “I think so brain. What will be the extent of the negative economic impact be when the taxation necessary to pay for the stimulus plan is implimented?”
I agree. Anything remotely resembling corporate welfare shouldn’t exist at all. Agricultural subsidies and tariffs in particular should be out the window.
It’s fascinating to me that the very system the Founding Fathers set up to make sure the rural states are well-represented (the Senate) also makes it politically impossible to get rid of agricultural subsidies. I wonder if that will change anytime in our lifetimes. (A point of information: I live in an area surrounded by small farms (100 acres or less). Very few of these subsidies help the small farmers, they help the big corporations running mega-farms. Corporate welfare indeed).
Here is a sincere question. I’m trying to understand what’s going on, and I’m not trying to start an argument or be sarcastic.
Pres. Obama has unemployment in the 10 – 11% range, and it is a pretty sure bet that he will triple the budget deficit. The last time we saw numbers like this was 25 years ago, during the administration of, uh, Ronald Reagan. So the question is this: How come we are so concerned about it now, but apparently are willing to overlook it when it happened under RR?
Again, I’m not looking for a fight, but I think questions like this help us to put our biases aside, take a closer look at what is going on, and force us away from facile answers.
Mark, to answer you, I would ask you to look at this chart:
As you probably are aware, the key number is debt as a percentage of GDP, not total absolute debt numbers (although with a projected debt approaching $2 trillion soon, those numbers are also astounding). When you look at the graph, you will see that Obama’s debt is more comparable to WWII than to the Reagan years.
Stanford Prof. John Taylor points out that even at the optimistic projections given right now, debt will continue to explode for at least the next decade.
Now, if Obama were like the post 1994 Clinton and were discussing ways of cutting spending, you would be hearing some cheering from me. It is worth remembering that the most fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 50 years was a Democrat, Clinton. But as you well know, Obama talks a lot about cutting spending in small ways but at the same time wants to expand health care and add additional taxes on business through the cap-and trade plan. Any economist will tell you the worst time to be increasing taxes is during a recession because it causes businesses to retract rather than expand. This means that tax revenues will actually decrease and the deficit will be worse. Obama has no reasonable plan to end the deficit spending.
Reagan’s plan, which turned out to work, was to cut taxes so the economy would grow. As I say, it worked like a charm. Clinton’s plan was to cut spending. Worked like a charm. Obama is raising taxes and expanding spending. To put it simply: it will never work.
One point of discussion to get things started: At what point does this become President Obama’s economy? Obama and others are quick to point out that Bush was President during the start of the recession, but when does Obama start taking ownership?
I think he took ownership when he purchased a car company.
The “stimulus” package is NOT a stimulus package. Most of the money goes towards extending benefits for welfare and unemployed, or towards Democratic payments towards their supporters in their districts.
A real stimulus would have been to pay off up to $50,000 on everyone’s mortgages, and one year without mortgage payments on the remainder. This would have cost less than $2Trillion. It would have allowed almost all people to stay in their homes. The $2T would have gone instantly back to the banks, replenishing them, and allowing them to then loan to other institutions, without Congressional oversight. Individuals would suddenly have more money on hand, as their mortgages are paid down or off, and they have a year of no payments. This means they would go out to buy new cars, appliances, clothing, and eat at restaurants. The market would still determine which companies would survive or fail.
The stimulus would be in full swing right now with such an inexpensive plan (compared with the $13T being spent right now). Job rates would be growing, etc.
Second stimulus? Only if they do something like I just mentioned above. Otherwise, more government intervention will only guarantee the bad guys will get their pockets lined, while the rest of us pay the tab.
Rameumptom,
I’ll take $50k toward my mortgage and a year off payments!!! That would be nice and truly reflect the expectations most people had of an Obama stimulus plan.
A real stimulus would involve tax cuts on the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is among the highest in the world. The high rate of U.S. taxes is driving business away from the U.S. to other countries. Fewer businesses based here means fewer jobs and higher unemployment:
http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFjOWI3MTI0MjQ0NWIzN2ZiZTFhYmM2MWU2MTM2ZGQ=
There were many sources warning this stimulus was a bust from the start. Take a look at this article for example:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=315792191143684
It is tough to say that the stimulus is working if only 10% of the funds have not even been spent. Perhaps one can say that they have been allocated and are creating some expected growth, but that is a little too illusory for me.
Sorry, I meant that only 10% have been spent, not the opposite!
I agree with Geoff, as long as the corporate tax cut was combined with a drastic, across-the-board cut in corporate welfare.
Agreed Mike. Let businesses succeed or fail based on their cost models, their business plans and the talent of their leadership. In my opinion, all corporate welfare would be cut.
Brain: “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”
Pinky: “I think so brain. What will be the extent of the negative economic impact be when the taxation necessary to pay for the stimulus plan is implimented?”
I agree. Anything remotely resembling corporate welfare shouldn’t exist at all. Agricultural subsidies and tariffs in particular should be out the window.
It’s fascinating to me that the very system the Founding Fathers set up to make sure the rural states are well-represented (the Senate) also makes it politically impossible to get rid of agricultural subsidies. I wonder if that will change anytime in our lifetimes. (A point of information: I live in an area surrounded by small farms (100 acres or less). Very few of these subsidies help the small farmers, they help the big corporations running mega-farms. Corporate welfare indeed).
Here is a sincere question. I’m trying to understand what’s going on, and I’m not trying to start an argument or be sarcastic.
Pres. Obama has unemployment in the 10 – 11% range, and it is a pretty sure bet that he will triple the budget deficit. The last time we saw numbers like this was 25 years ago, during the administration of, uh, Ronald Reagan. So the question is this: How come we are so concerned about it now, but apparently are willing to overlook it when it happened under RR?
Again, I’m not looking for a fight, but I think questions like this help us to put our biases aside, take a closer look at what is going on, and force us away from facile answers.
Mark, to answer you, I would ask you to look at this chart:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
As you probably are aware, the key number is debt as a percentage of GDP, not total absolute debt numbers (although with a projected debt approaching $2 trillion soon, those numbers are also astounding). When you look at the graph, you will see that Obama’s debt is more comparable to WWII than to the Reagan years.
Now, let’s look at projected debt.
Take a look at this article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71520770-4a2c-11de-8e7e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Stanford Prof. John Taylor points out that even at the optimistic projections given right now, debt will continue to explode for at least the next decade.
Now, if Obama were like the post 1994 Clinton and were discussing ways of cutting spending, you would be hearing some cheering from me. It is worth remembering that the most fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 50 years was a Democrat, Clinton. But as you well know, Obama talks a lot about cutting spending in small ways but at the same time wants to expand health care and add additional taxes on business through the cap-and trade plan. Any economist will tell you the worst time to be increasing taxes is during a recession because it causes businesses to retract rather than expand. This means that tax revenues will actually decrease and the deficit will be worse. Obama has no reasonable plan to end the deficit spending.
Reagan’s plan, which turned out to work, was to cut taxes so the economy would grow. As I say, it worked like a charm. Clinton’s plan was to cut spending. Worked like a charm. Obama is raising taxes and expanding spending. To put it simply: it will never work.