Democrats, I have to ask...

[Gerry Clinchy]

From backpasture:

Sound economic policy says you spend and accumulate debt when times are bad, and you pay off debt when times are good.

That doesn't always work out too well for the rest of us, since it's hard to tell how long the bad times will last, or the good times. Everybody knows the real estate market cycles up and down, but people always ask when I think prices will bottom out. No crystal ball.

Yardley added:

As things evolved, the bulk of the cuts kicked in after the short-lived recession had ended and the cuts were continued despite a growing war-driven deficit. This contributed to over-heating of the economy and helped to lay the framework for the current collapse.

As mentioned above, timing isn't everything, but it sure helps

Yardley again:

However, the risk that the same spending attitude will be repeated as politicians become addicted to easy cash is real. I hope the admninistration will have the intestinal fortitude to begin generating surpluses to pay down debt once the economic crisis begins to fade.

Since career politicians have little concept of living within a budget, and have not shown any propensity to wean themselves off this habit, I don't have a whole lot of faith they will turn over a new leaf. The re-cycling of previous political "players" into the new administration doesn't give me a lot of hope for such an "epiphany" to occur for these people.

[K G]

Begins to fade? We haven't seen the worse of the banking/financial system yet. Heck, our gooberment doesn't even know what happen to the $700, 000, 000.00 we used to bail out the credit markets! That was only two months ago. Did the automakers ever get thier share of the payoff? These are the same people, different administration, asking us to rush a TRILLION DOLLARS through and we have no time to discuss it! WE ARE BEING SWINDLED PEOPLE!!! And, they are going to ask for more.

Fortunately they only got their hands on half of that $700b, Franco.....and the automakers MUST have gotten what they were looking for, at least through March, since they're all promoting manufacturer's incentives to try and sell cars/trucks.

kg

[Uncle Bill]

Assuming you believe that a stimulus package is needed what should be in there? It already has $300+ billion in tax cuts. What else is needed folks?

Why would you make another asinine assumption???? Also, when will you realize socialists don't know what a 'tax cut' is. Let us know how much you are enjoying yours..."assuming" you pay taxes, so you actually get one.

UB

[K G]

Look at it this way, Bill....we just spent $250k per person to put 350,000 people back to work....NEXT YEAR............

What a bargain regards,

kg

[YardleyLabs]

Look at it this way, Bill....we just spent $250k per person to put 350,000 people back to work....NEXT YEAR............

What a bargain regards,

kg

Pesky decimal points. It's closer to $2.5k per person.

[Raymond Little]

OK, let's try to start with something basic and build from there.


The question then becomes what should be in a stimulus package? This stimulus package, at this point, has/had a bunch of stuff in it that does not belong. Assuming you believe that a stimulus package is needed what should be in there? It already has $300+ billion in tax cuts. What else is needed folks? I look at the list that KG posted and there sure appears to be a lot of infrastructure projects. Much of that seems generally good. What specifically on the list should be there or not and what should be there that isn't?

Most economists say that this is not a stimlus package but a spending bill.
Most of the infastructure spending will not take place until 2012.
If it is such a great deal why did Chavez not let the light shine on it for 5 days
like he promised in his campaign bullshit?
If it is such a popular bill, why has he had to "BARN STORM THE COUNTRY SELLING IT"?
Best thing that could happen is the "WELFARE CHECKS GET HELD UP ONE MONTH AND
MOST OF HIS CONSTITUENTS WILL EITHER EAT OR KILL ONE ANOTHER".

Bullets Are Ready

[K G]

Pesky decimal points. It's closer to $2.5k per person.

Please send that info to NBC Nightly News....that's where my numbers came from.

kg

[Patrick Johndrow]

Please send that info to NBC Nightly News....that's where my numbers came from.

kg

KG...it is not you that need to check your math...leave it to a liberal to not know the difference between a million, billion or trillion.

Not only do liberal not know how to make money they cant even count it correctly.


Dr. Evil Was A Liberal Regards

[YardleyLabs]

KG...it is not you that need to check your math...leave it to a liberal to not know the difference between a million, billion or trillion.

Not only do liberal not know how to make money they cant even count it correctly.


Dr. Evil Was A Liberal Regards

The stimulus package is $787 billion, or $787,000 million. The population of our country is 303 million people. 787,000/303 = $2,597.26 per person. What math are you using Patrick? The plan would have to cost $787 trillion for the cost to be as great as posted.

With the exception of my son-in-law, there are few journalists I would trust with a calculator. However, I wonder if the comment on the news wasn't actually saying that the package would cost more than $250,000 per job created, which would be accurate assuming $787 billion in costs and 3 million jobs created.

[badbullgator]

With the exception of my son-in-law, there are few journalists I would trust with a calculator. However, I wonder if the comment on the news wasn't actually saying that the package would cost more than $250,000 per job created, which would be accurate assuming $787 billion in costs and 3 million jobs created.

This is the quote I saw on NBC, per job created, not per person. That said I doubt that 3 million jobs will be created