2nd Stimulus?

[Magox]

So, an Obama Advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aStWHJXsvePA

 

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama.

 

Tyson, 62, later told reporters that the U.S. can afford to pay for a second package, even as the fiscal deficit soars.

 

I guess if there is a problem, we just need to spend more.

[pBills]

What else can be done?

[Magox]

What else can be done?

Let the markets work themselves out.

 

People have a bad habit of looking for the quick fix, while ignoring the long term implications. We try to tell ourselves, "well, we will cross that bridge when the time comes".

 

The problem is that our Deficit is mounting, and our prospects of being able to pay it down are looking worse by the day.

 

Sometimes we have to go through a painful adjustment to be able to right the ship. I can assure you, that if we had a problem with our deficit, and it reached a crisis mode, it would be much worse than what we are going through right now. The more our debt grows, the more that risk becomes a possible reality.

 

This is why Politicians usually make bad policiy decisions, because they have to answer to their constituents, and most of their constituents are looking for the quick fix, which is rarely the right decision.

[pBills]

Let the markets work themselves out.

 

People have a bad habit of looking for the quick fix, while ignoring the long term implications. We try to tell ourselves, "well, we will cross that bridge when the time comes".

 

The problem is that our Deficit is mounting, and our prospects of being able to pay it down are looking worse by the day.

 

Sometimes we have to go through a painful adjustment to be able to right the ship. I can assure you, that if we had a problem with our deficit, and it reached a crisis mode, it would be much worse than what we are going through right now. The more our debt grows, the more that risk becomes a possible reality.

 

This is why Politicians usually make bad policiy decisions, because they have to answer to their constituents, and most of their constituents are looking for the quick fix, which is rarely the right decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Granted some people will look for the quick fix. For me personally, I would want the government to help out a bit instead of just seeing what happens. Especially with the state that the economy is in now.... ridiculous amount of jobs being lost, etc., etc. Doesn't seem like there is an end in sight yet.

[Kelly the Dog]

First of all, we have only spent 10% of the stimulus money so far. Second, the "advisor" was not representing the White House or its views, she was representing a group of business leaders who think there should be a second stimulus.

 

I am not saying there isnt a need or that is isnt going to happen, but she was not speaking for the administration.

[ieatcrayonz]

So, an Obama Advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aStWHJXsvePA

 

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama.

 

Tyson, 62, later told reporters that the U.S. can afford to pay for a second package, even as the fiscal deficit soars.

 

I guess if there is a problem, we just need to spend more.

2009-62 = 1947

 

1947 + 21 = 1968

 

What do these numbers tell us?

 

These numbers tell us that Laura Tyson is a hippy. Although not all commies are hippies, all hippies are commies. This explains her solution.

[finknottle]

Let the markets work themselves out.

 

Exactly. Grit our teeth and get through it.

 

What the stimulus bill does is artifically create temporary business opportunities which will go away when the stimulus bill does (that is, unless the intention was the permanent expansion of the State after all). What happens in the ideal scenario? They start a bunch of highway projects, and we go get jobs flattening tar. What happens in 5 years when the projects are done and there is no more stimulus money? We have hundreds of new construction companies brimming with employees, far exceeding demand. So you layoff the employees and fold the companies and are right back where you started. Oh yes, and you now also owe the lenders for that stimulus spending.

 

The only permant jobs will be those which align with market demand. An employment market distorted through one-time federal spending is not sustainable. So let unaltered market forces decide where people should invest their money and create jobs. If one really insists on kickstarting the job-creating process, the proper solution is to increase the supply of investible money through tax cuts - something which won't go over well with the left.

[indiragandhi'sthong]

So, an Obama Advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aStWHJXsvePA

 

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama.

 

Tyson, 62, later told reporters that the U.S. can afford to pay for a second package, even as the fiscal deficit soars.

 

I guess if there is a problem, we just need to spend more.

 

 

I really enjoy turning to a sports website and reading politics ... perhaps, the FIX, oops, FOX News site would be a better place for this rambling mess. But, since you decided to litter the Bills website with this bit of propaganda, I will weigh in ...

 

- The "soaring deficit" you referred to as part of your post was created by the last president. If you do your research, President Clinton left officer with a surplus. Yes, perhaps he also left with a "woodie" in his pants and an intern under his desk, but he left Washington in much better shape than his predecesor, Bush Sr. I will take a president who balances the budget, protects the environment, controls big business (to make them responsible), and cares about the middle class over those who parade as conservatives, but drive up a huge deficit invading a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was simply a power play to make money for the upper 1% ... aka as Dick Cheney's buddies.

 

As for deficit spending, while World War II ultimately pulled America out of the Great Depression, FDR's deficit spending was having an effect as early as 1935 and with the government putting people back to work, boosted America's morale in a time of great difficulty. The conservative view of your (I am guessing) heroes, like Andrew Mellon (architect of supply side economics) and Ronald Reagan has never shown been shown to do anything for America in an economic downturn. The problem with supply side economics is the faith you must place in the nation's business owners and wealthiest citizens. They must take their profits and reinvest a significant amount to create jobs and build America's workforce - not cut costs by shipping jobs and factories overseas. If the last 25 years can't convince you of the fallacy that is supply side economics ... nothing will.

 

I would rather not see another stimulus package ... but I am willing to go along with the people that are trying to clean up the mess that the village idiot from Texas and his cronies left behind.

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly. Grit our teeth and get through it.

 

What the stimulus bill does is artifically create temporary business opportunities which will go away when the stimulus bill does (that is, unless the intention was the permanent expansion of the State after all). What happens in the ideal scenario? They start a bunch of highway projects, and we go get jobs flattening tar. What happens in 5 years when the projects are done and there is no more stimulus money? We have hundreds of new construction companies brimming with employees, far exceeding demand. So you layoff the employees and fold the companies and are right back where you started. Oh yes, and you now also owe the lenders for that stimulus spending.

 

The only permant jobs will be those which align with market demand. An employment market distorted through one-time federal spending is not sustainable. So let unaltered market forces decide where people should invest their money and create jobs. If one really insists on kickstarting the job-creating process, the proper solution is to increase the supply of investible money through tax cuts - something which won't go over well with the left.

 

I don't know what the exact figures were but I think less than a third of the stimulus bill was "stimulus" as you described. The rest was tax relief, money for states, and money for long term education, especially math and science, and the development and creation of industries with mid and long term effects on the economy like green energy. That money isn't for tax cuts but it is for the creation of industries and long term enduring jobs.

[Magox]

First of all, we have only spent 10% of the stimulus money so far. Second, the "advisor" was not representing the White House or its views, she was representing a group of business leaders who think there should be a second stimulus.

 

I am not saying there isnt a need or that is isnt going to happen, but she was not speaking for the administration.

Who said that the "advisor" was representing the White House? Did I not say "So, an Obama Advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill" ?

 

In regards to only spending 10% of our stimulus Bill, that is correct. Not only that Dog, but out of the entire Stimulus Bill, approximately only 10% of that was alotted for Infrastructure projects, and roughly around 1/3 of that is supposed to be spent this year, which accounts for right around 3% of the entire Stimulus Bill is to be used this year!

 

The most Stimulative part of the Bill was the infrastructure projects, and the fact that we are only using 3% this year tells you how incompetent lawmakers in Washington are. Freaking amazing!

 

So of course, what will most likely happen is that lawmakers will grow impatient, constituents like PBills are looking for "the government to help out a bit instead of just seeing what happens" and at the end of the day, politicians will cave in, and WALAAAAA

 

a second inept Stimulus Bill, that will do little to stimulate the economy long term, but will push our country further in debt.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

 

 

But hey, as long as the kool-aid tastes good....

[Magox]

I really enjoy turning to a sports website and reading politics ... perhaps, the FIX, oops, FOX News site would be a better place for this rambling mess. But, since you decided to litter the Bills website with this bit of propaganda, I will weigh in ...

 

- The "soaring deficit" you referred to as part of your post was created by the last president. If you do your research, President Clinton left officer with a surplus. Yes, perhaps he also left with a "woodie" in his pants and an intern under his desk, but he left Washington in much better shape than his predecesor, Bush Sr. I will take a president who balances the budget, protects the environment, controls big business (to make them responsible), and cares about the middle class over those who parade as conservatives, but drive up a huge deficit invading a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was simply a power play to make money for the upper 1% ... aka as Dick Cheney's buddies.

 

As for deficit spending, while World War II ultimately pulled America out of the Great Depression, FDR's deficit spending was having an effect as early as 1935 and with the government putting people back to work, boosted America's morale in a time of great difficulty. The conservative view of your (I am guessing) heroes, like Andrew Mellon (architect of supply side economics) and Ronald Reagan has never shown been shown to do anything for America in an economic downturn. The problem with supply side economics is the faith you must place in the nation's business owners and wealthiest citizens. They must take their profits and reinvest a significant amount to create jobs and build America's workforce - not cut costs by shipping jobs and factories overseas. If the last 25 years can't convince you of the fallacy that is supply side economics ... nothing will.

 

I would rather not see another stimulus package ... but I am willing to go along with the people that are trying to clean up the mess that the village idiot from Texas and his cronies left behind.

 

This is too easy.

 

First off, you do know that you are posting in the PPP section don't you?

 

Second, do you have any idea what propaganda means? I don't think you do. What part of the post that you referenced is propaganda?

 

Idiot!!

 

Now go sit in the corner and finish off your Kool-aid

[Nanker]

What else can be done?

 

Save 300,000,000 Americans $2,623.33 apiece - plus interest.

[finknottle]

I don't know what the exact figures were but I think less than a third of the stimulus bill was "stimulus" as you described. The rest was tax relief, money for states, and money for long term education, especially math and science, and the development and creation of industries with mid and long term effects on the economy like green energy. That money isn't for tax cuts but it is for the creation of industries and long term enduring jobs.

 

Correct - it's a strawman characterization, but kinda neccessary lest we wind up picking and choosing what part of the spending we want to defend. The bill includes, after all, money to mow lawns around federal buildings, fix toilets in national parks, and teach family planning. It also includes food stamps and unemployment benefits. If we want to address the question of whether a stimulus bill creates permenant jobs, we have to get a handle on this moving target and pick a representative expenditure. The idea of jobs from infrastructure spending and capital improvements is the idea on which the bill was sold to the public - after all, that's why we keep using the phrase 'shovel-ready projects.'

[indiragandhi'sthong]

This is too easy.

 

First off, you do know that you are posting in the PPP section don't you?

 

Second, do you have any idea what propaganda means? I don't think you do. What part of the post that you referenced is propaganda?

 

Idiot!!

 

Now go sit in the corner and finish off your Kool-aid

 

Propaganda is twisting the facts or words of a story, recording, media spot to make your argument look more formidable and truthful ... which is exactly what you did. Secondly, I do realize this is the PPP section, but it is still listed with all the other posts. When I want to talk politics, I go to a political site where I expect quality banter. In my sports site, I would prefer to see ... dare we say it ... wait for it ... SPORTS!

 

If I want a steak, I don't go to a fish market. Now, head back to your corner ... and drink the moonshine your papi made ... Billy Joe Jim Bob

[Kelly the Dog]

Who said that the "advisor" was representing the White House? Did I not say "So, an Obama Advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill" ?

I thought you did, by saying "An Obama Advisor". If you didn't want to link the two why not leave that part out? Or say who she was representing.

[Magox]

Propaganda is twisting the facts or words of a story, recording, media spot to make your argument look more formidable and truthful ... which is exactly what you did. Secondly, I do realize this is the PPP section, but it is still listed with all the other posts. When I want to talk politics, I go to a political site where I expect quality banter. In my sports site, I would prefer to see ... dare we say it ... wait for it ... SPORTS!

 

If I want a steak, I don't go to a fish market. Now, head back to your corner ... and drink the moonshine your papi made ... Billy Joe Jim Bob

You still didn't answer my question,

What part of the post that you referenced is propaganda?

 

also

 

if you want sports, then dare I say it...

 

GET THE !@#$ OUT OF PPP!!

[pBills]

Save 300,000,000 Americans $2,623.33 apiece - plus interest.

 

 

Simply saying (again) that I would like the government to do something. I am do not want everyone to sit back and hope that the market eventually corrects itself. And by the time it does, what will have been lost?

 

Not saying that a 2nd stimulus is the correct way to go... looking for other options.

[Kelly the Dog]

Propaganda is twisting the facts or words of a story, recording, media spot to make your argument look more formidable and truthful ... which is exactly what you did. Secondly, I do realize this is the PPP section, but it is still listed with all the other posts. When I want to talk politics, I go to a political site where I expect quality banter. In my sports site, I would prefer to see ... dare we say it ... wait for it ... SPORTS!

 

If I want a steak, I don't go to a fish market. Now, head back to your corner ... and drink the moonshine your papi made ... Billy Joe Jim Bob

Why are you talking politics then? On a politics only forum?

[Magox]

I thought you did, by saying "An Obama Advisor". If you didn't want to link the two why not leave that part out? Or say who she was representing.

Nope, I said exactly what I meant. Which is "An Obama advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill."

If I would have meant to say that it was from Obama, I would of said "The Obama administration, is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill."

 

Come on Dog

[Kelly the Dog]

Nope, I said exactly what I meant. Which is "An Obama advisor, Laura Tyson is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill."

If I would have meant to say that it was from Obama, I would of said "The Obama administration, is suggesting that we have a second stimulus bill."

 

Come on Dog

 

I get it, so there is no connection whatsoever between Obama and talk of a second stimulus. Carry on.