CNN: Obama: Give economy $50 billion boost

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The government isn't designed to help those that make mistakes. It is designed to help those that are helping themselves and need a little boost. If the government was designed those who made mistakes, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because the USA would not exist. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People often forget the pursuit part, and think we are entitled to happiness. No mention of 40 acres and a mule anywhere in there.

A government "for the people," as I recall.

And as I've explained ad nauseum now, I believe that helping those who made mistakes helps even those who didn't by stablizing the market. Even those who did not take risky loans are losing tons of money in their house now because the market is so depressed.

[PeterMP]

A government "for the people," as I recall.

And as I've explained ad nauseum now, I believe that helping those who made mistakes helps even those who didn't by stablizing the market. Even those who did not take risky loans are losing tons of money in their house now because the market is so depressed.

But does artifically keeping the market up actually really help?

Is the market depressed because it is a more realistic indication of what the value of real estate is?

And if that's the case should the goverment and even can the goverment do anything about it?

[skinfan133]

Obama wants votes. Sticking another $600 in the hands of voters won't hurt, and he can take credit for it if it happens. But basic economics says that to stimulate the economy, you need to increase government spending. Take that $50B and create an infrastructure bill to repair bridges and build much needed traffic relief for major metro areas. With the multiplier affect, that infuses the economy with $100B. Plus it will create millions of jobs.

The tax multiplier turns $50B into $75B.

And to solve the debt issue, the govt should round every purchase to the nearest nickle. Take those 1 - 4 pennies and apply it to the nat'l debt. With all the transactions every day, the debt can be paid down in 10 years (conservative estimate, averaging ~$2.6B/day). Of course, this hinges on a balanced budget over those 10 years. :doh:

pulling bull**** out of the ass award for June 10th, 2008 goes to: Popeman38! a big round of applause folks!

Popeman's bull**** in route to this award: thinking saving a nickle on each government purchase would get rid of the national debt of $9,413,178,094,533 in ten years.

10 years????? ok

btw in the time its taken to finish the rest of this post, that figure has increased by $450,000, and by the time anyone reads this it will have gone up even further.

the national debt increases by $1.5 BILLION every 24 hours.

oh, and congradulations on graduating the keynesian school of ecconomics Popeman, we've learned over the last 70-90 years that it doesn't work

[Tulane Skins Fan]

But does artifically keeping the market up actually really help?

Is the market depressed because it is a more realistic indication of what the value of real estate is?

And if that's the case should the goverment and even can the goverment do anything about it?

The government should ease the transition.

Like I said, there are also elasticity issues here. Even some of these riskier mortgagors would be ok if gas wasn't $4 a gallon and food prices weren't soaring.

I guess we shouldnt do anything about that because the market is dictating it?

I think we know that a 100% hands free-capitalist economy is not in the best interests of people... see standard oil; see microsoft and its douchebag operating system bundling packages.

[JohnLockesGhost]

A government "for the people," as I recall.

And as I've explained ad nauseum now, I believe that helping those who made mistakes helps even those who didn't by stablizing the market. Even those who did not take risky loans are losing tons of money in their house now because the market is so depressed.

What I don't like is special remedies given to special people at special times. If I had been foreclosed on last year, I got no sympathy from the government. But this year, because it's politically expedient, I will get help?

Same thing goes for extended unemployment benefits. If I happen to get laid-off at a time of perceived recession, I could get longer, better benefits. But if I was laid-off a year earlier, just the standard package.

How is that consistent with the principle of equality before the law?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What I don't like is special remedies given to special people at special times. If I had been foreclosed on last year, I got no sympathy from the government. But this year, because it's politically expedient, I will get help?

How is that consistent with the principle of equality before the law?

I see your point. And I'm not saying the government should be 100% hands on with this mortgage-crisis (which I don't believe you are accusing me of being for). But, I do think that if the government can do something to help, they should.

I don't see a problem with equality under the law either. That's like saying the people who get the death penalty now are being treated unfairly because we didnt have the death penalty before. You could say that for any law or bill that gets passed, ever. :2cents:

[Burgold]

I don't like it because I'm opposed to painkillers. Every so often it's good to feel actual pain because it tells you have to take care of the injury. There's a point at which a painkiller is less useful and actually increases the chance that a person will do themselves more damage.

The first giveback was fine, except I wasn't included, but to keep doing it is putting band-aids on a gashed artery. Deal with the problem.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I don't like it because I'm opposed to painkillers. Every so often it's good to feel actual pain because it tells you have to take care of the injury. There's a point at which a painkiller is less useful and actually increases the chance that a person will do themselves more damage.

The first giveback was fine, except I wasn't included, but to keep doing it is putting band-aids on a gashed artery. Deal with the problem.

At first I was like "wtf"

Then I read it, and I was all "OMG, so totes obvi"

[skinfan133]

I don't like it because I'm opposed to painkillers. Every so often it's good to feel actual pain because it tells you have to take care of the injury. There's a point at which a painkiller is less useful and actually increases the chance that a person will do themselves more damage.

The first giveback was fine, except I wasn't included, but to keep doing it is putting band-aids on a gashed artery. Deal with the problem.

eloquent, precise; the truth. bravo

[MDRedskinsFan]

oh, and congradulations on graduating the keynesian school of ecconomics Popeman, we've learned over the last 70-90 years that it doesn't work

Actually, Keynesian economics was only the standard from the late 30's to the end of the 70's. Then supply side economics took over, and people started believing the Laffer curve as if it were gospel. Lower tax rates don't equal increased tax revenue, because people have to pay their taxes anyway or go to jail.

The one thing that does work is the tax cuts, but that was actually a Keynesian principle, and the difference is that Supply Siders don't think they need to raise tax rates back up. Keynesians believe you cut taxes as a stimulus, but once the stimulus reaches its goal then rates have to be raised back up so as to avoid further budget deficits. I am a conservative thinker, and even I think Keynesian economics is the proven method. I do like supply side, but I just don't believe it is as sound as the Keynesian way. Both administrations that used supply side economics on the basis that lower tax rates = higher tax revenues (Reagan and GWB) either have or will have left their Presidencies with record budget deficits. So the Laffer curve is incorrect, IMO.:2cents:

[Thiebear]

All of the Jokes/Spoofs about Obama and "coin" Change.

Now is not the time to prove them right....

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The one thing that does work is the tax cuts, but that was actually a Keynesian principle, and the difference is that Supply Siders don't think they need to raise tax rates back up. Keynesians believe you cut taxes as a stimulus, but once the stimulus reaches its goal then rates have to be raised back up so as to avoid further budget deficits. I am a conservative thinker, and even I think Keynesian economics is the proven method. I do like supply side, but I just don't believe it is as sound as the Keynesian way. Both administrations that used supply side economics on the basis that lower tax rates = higher tax revenues (Reagan and GWB) either have or will have left their Presidencies with record budget deficits. So the Laffer curve is incorrect, IMO.:2cents:

Off topic, and I'm no economist... Isn't that at least compatible with "raising" the capital gains tax back to where it was (20%)?

[Popeman38]

pulling bull**** out of the ass award for June 10th, 2008 goes to: Popeman38! a big round of applause folks!

Popeman's bull**** in route to this award: thinking saving a nickle on each government purchase would get rid of the national debt of $9,413,178,094,533 in ten years.

10 years????? ok

btw in the time its taken to finish the rest of this post, that figure has increased by $450,000, and by the time anyone reads this it will have gone up even further.

the national debt increases by $1.5 BILLION every 24 hours.

Hey smart guy, did you miss the part of my post where I said it required a balanced budget?

And I said rounding up EVERY transaction to the nearest nickel (from your gass bill to the slurpee at 7-11 to the hard copy of the Wash Post) the trillions of transactions every day would result in tens of billions of dollars each day. And I know it is a pipe dream, because ut will never happen. Asking the govt to balance the budget AND citizens to pay an extra 1 to 4 cents/transaction. Plus a politician would never be able to turn that revenue stream off and it would continue forever.

Oh, and way to keep a debate civil! Pull your head out of your ass and act like a big boy.

[Koolblue13]

All of the Jokes/Spoofs about Obama and "coin" Change.

Now is not the time to prove them right....

What other tricks of Bushes will he pull out of his hopeful pockets?

[MDRedskinsFan]

Off topic, and I'm no economist... Isn't that at least compatible with "raising" the capital gains tax back to where it was (20%)?

If the capital gains tax was originally 20% prior to the 1st round of Bush tax cuts, then I think raising it back up to that point would constitute Keynesian economics. Now, we are in a slowdown right now, so now isn't the time to raise those rates back up, even though those who pay capital gains are normally well-off, they are struggling to maintain their standard of living like all of us

Where we got into trouble, is when Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, and the economy boomed back up in 2004, but never raised the tax rates back up to pre-2001 rates. Because he neglected to do that when the economy could handle a tax increase of that type, two things happened.

First, people got used to those new lower rates and began spending based on those rates, so when the 2nd round of cuts came that were actually needed, it all resulted in even more consumption. Which on the surface looks good for the economy, but we can't outgrow ourselves. We grew too fast, and now with the slump we're in now, some suggest we can't lower taxes again because it would result in an even larger deficit, even though we need it now worse than before. The result of the fast growth is the bubble, and the bubble has burst. We have to take our lumps, we can only do so much and after that the economy has to correct itself. We actually need downturns on a consistent basis, or the ones we will have will be too large to manage.

Secondly, the budget deficit grew to record heights due to increased government spending, and that's not even including defense spending on the war effort. Regardless of who is President, either McCain or Obama, they will have to raise taxes back up, and since we've dipped so low on the rates, the increases will probably be substantial. GWB's father had to do the same thing in 1991 because Reagan cut taxes and spent out of control, he sacrificed his word for the good of the nation. We need to raise taxes at some point to close the deficit, but the economy is unable to handle the hike right now.

[Redskins Diehard]

I totally disagree. I have been doing charity work in the DC area as well as Petersburg, VA for about 8 years now. I deliever food to families and work with a group does repair on their houses. Now, they're getting kicked out, not because they're greedy but because they were lied to by their lender.

Don't tell me they're greedy, thats a crock of bull.

why are people that can't afford food, or to do repairs on their homes, buying homes in the first place? i'll give you an answer, because they wanted something that they could not afford. how did their lenders lie to them?

[Vicious]

No, a true fiscal conservative wants the govt to take the min amount necessary to run the country with a balanced budget and leave the rest alone. They absolutely do not want income redistribution. If they gave back based on the % they took, then it would be more palatable. But those who paid a higher % of their income in taxes saw the least amount of economic stimulus. And those taxed at the lower % are more inclined to save any stimulus, while those at the higher % are more inclined to either spend it or invest it in the economy. So which one actually benefits the economy?

In summary, your statement was incorrect.

Income Redistribution has nothing to do with this because of the current economic climate. That money that is being given out is not going to be saved. It's going to go into gas tanks, it's going to go into mortgages, it is going to go into food. The people that own the food stores, own the mortgages and dish out the energy will be seeing that money.

[Vicious]

why are people that can't afford food, or to do repairs on their homes, buying homes in the first place? i'll give you an answer, because they wanted something that they could not afford. how did their lenders lie to them?

Because of Bush's proposal to give a set amount of minorities homes. They stopped the practice of Red lining and then went after those people with veracity.

[Popeman38]

Income Redistribution has nothing to do with this because of the current economic climate. That money that is being given out is not going to be saved. It's going to go into gas tanks, it's going to go into mortgages, it is going to go into food. The people that own the food stores, own the mortgages and dish out the energy will be seeing that money.

Giving back $600 to "qualified" taxpayers is income redistribution. In order for it not to be, you would have to give back in % based on the % taxed. So a person taxed at 33% would geta larger check than the 23% taxed individual. As it stands now, the stimulus is flat - unless you make more than X. But the guy that makes more than X paid more in taxes, both % and actual $, than the guy taxed at 23%. That is redistribution

[paige3girl]

I don't buy this whole "lied to by their lender" theory... read the fine print people a loan is a loan, if you don't understand the terms that is your fault. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. My husband and I were approved for twice the amount than the house we actually purchased -- we could have easily bought a house in North Arlington where we lived but we didn't want to be house poor and didn't want to have so much of our income going towards our living expenses... People wanted everything without working for it and not making sacrifices. Now why should I have to pay for those peoples mistakes?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't buy this whole "lied to by their lender" theory... read the fine print people a loan is a loan, if you don't understand the terms that is your fault. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. My husband and I were approved for twice the amount than the house we actually purchased -- we could have easily bought a house in North Arlington where we lived but we didn't want to be house poor and didn't want to have so much of our income going towards our living expenses... People wanted everything without working for it and not making sacrifices. Now why should I have to pay for those peoples mistakes?

Paige, you ARE paying for it if the government doesn't help those people keep their houses. If the government does help, then you aren't paying for it.

[Thiebear]

We wil give you up to 90% of the value of your house.

(When times were good) I remember the statements well.....

If you went with that and the value of you house dropped ... thats it.

I know a couple that is 120k under what their house is worth.. you can't plan for that.

You just keep going until it goes back up again. If you give up, you lose for sure.

[Vicious]

Giving back $600 to "qualified" taxpayers is income redistribution. In order for it not to be, you would have to give back in % based on the % taxed. So a person taxed at 33% would geta larger check than the 23% taxed individual. As it stands now, the stimulus is flat - unless you make more than X. But the guy that makes more than X paid more in taxes, both % and actual $, than the guy taxed at 23%. That is redistribution

The very idea that it is getting redistributed however is not all that accurate. The money will go to the hands of the low income, but they are forced to spend it. Feeding into the people that paid those taxes for it in the first place. It's an attempt at keeping the cycle going forward. The low income people do not have the luxury to save the money, that is why they are receiving this stimulus in the first place. It's an attempt at keeping the wheel spinning.

[ross3909]

Instead of going to war trying to strong arm some Arabs out of oil. We could have used that money to pay off debts. Since Bush took office everythng has went downhill.

Wow...just...wow. If you really believe this, I dont know what to say.

[ross3909]

Oh we're well aware of that, but with McCain its more war, less taxes and more deficit spending.

correction: Win the war, keep the tax cuts in place, and no, he does not support the deficit spending that Bush was doing. That is why he voted against Bush's tax cuts the first time.