phileysmiley wrote:

gries818 wrote: I'm confused... is there an error in your post? Wouldn't it help the economy if the rich invested their money? No, that isn't the point. The idea is that the #1 problem in the economy is that people are not spending. Almost everyone agrees on this point -- spending drives the economy, not investing. If people spend more, it puts more cash flow into the economy, through purchases and sales, which keeps retailing alive, which keeps manufacturing alive, which keeps people working, which is the engine that drives the economy. A stimulus package is meant to get people to spend. Remember when Bush sent those checks out? They were meant to serve one purpose -- to get people to spend, in order to stimulate the economy and get it moving again. The people who backed the stimulus specifically stated many many times that they did not want people to save this money or invest it or even use it to pay bills. They wanted people to go out and spend it. There is virtually no disagreement on this point -- the best way to get the economy moving is through increased spending. The idea behind tax cuts is to put more money in people's pockets for one purpose -- to spend it, not to save it or invest it. Saving and investing are good things to do, but it is spending that keeps the economy going. If everyone saved and invested as much as they had and did not spend it, the economy would grind to a halt -- which is exactly what has happened.

Ok, I understand.

By the way, it's interesting to note that largely people didn't not spend the first stimulus and it did not have the effect on the economy that was intended. So why are Obama and Congressional Liberals pushing another?

Doing the same failed thing twice and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, eh?

gries818 wrote:

By the way, it's interesting to note that largely people didn't not spend the first stimulus and it did not have the effect on the economy that was intended. So why are Obama and Congressional Liberals pushing another? Doing the same failed thing twice and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, eh?

I think that it could have a positive effect on the economy if they do it right. If they got another stimulus check out right now so that people received it before the holiday season, it would likely increase spending as people would probably be more likely to spend it on things rather than save it or pay bills. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen before next year, so I'd agree that it's going to probably be just as useless as it was before.

gries818 wrote:

By the way, it's interesting to note that largely people didn't not spend the first stimulus and it did not have the effect on the economy that was intended. So why are Obama and Congressional Liberals pushing another? Doing the same failed thing twice and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, eh?

Well, first of all, you're incorrect about what "Obama and Congressional Liberals" are "pushing." The word "stimulus" means a lot of things, and just because they are talking about a "stimulus package" doesn't necessarily mean doing the same thing Bush did, just sending checks to people.

Please give them a little more credit than to think they'd do the same thing and expect a different result. They are YOUR representatives, after all. Hopefully they are at least as intelligent as you.

That said, the "stimulus package" most people are talking about, which includes "non-Liberals," would infuse money into the economy by creating jobs. Most people are talking about a public works program a la the WPA which helped bring us out of the Great Depression. Even Republicans support this.

Bottom line:

Quote:

So why are Obama and Congressional Liberals pushing another?

They aren't. The "stimulus package" they are proposing is not the same thing. It's not about sending checks to people and hoping they will spend them. Obviously if they didn't do it before they aren't going to do it if the same idea is attempted.

I was listening to Bloomberg TV today before work and they just happened to be talking about the next stimulus package that politicians want to get pushed through. From what they were saying, this stimulus isn't going to be for people to go out and spend or save. What they are looking to do with this stimulus is put money into businesses and states to attempt to spur job growth. They want to send the money to states and companies that will help with infrastructure growth, which is basically what I was saying they need to do a little bit ago. It's how we kept the economy going out of WWII. All the people that were working in factories and in the military either stayed where they were or went to work on roads, parks, or some other place within the country. Rather than millions becoming unemployeed, they were just diverted. If the stimulus is actually enacted properly and targeted to the right areas, it may actually work this time and kickstart the economy some.

imnuts wrote:

I was listening to Bloomberg TV today before work and they just happened to be talking about the next stimulus package that politicians want to get pushed through. From what they were saying, this stimulus isn't going to be for people to go out and spend or save. What they are looking to do with this stimulus is put money into businesses and states to attempt to spur job growth. They want to send the money to states and companies that will help with infrastructure growth, which is basically what I was saying they need to do a little bit ago. It's how we kept the economy going out of WWII. All the people that were working in factories and in the military either stayed where they were or went to work on roads, parks, or some other place within the country. Rather than millions becoming unemployeed, they were just diverted. If the stimulus is actually enacted properly and targeted to the right areas, it may actually work this time and kickstart the economy some.

Yes, exactly what I said above. This stimulus package is about creating jobs, not handing our checks. The major objection to this is that some believe it will take a long time for it to kick in. In other words, the length of time it takes from the moment a project is initiated until people are actually pouring concrete can be years. But I don't believe that at all. Look what happened when the Minneapolis bridge collapsed. There were construction workers building a new bridge within weeks. After a major fire damaged a section of I-95 in Philadelphia and the entire viaduct in that area had to be rebuilt from scratch, they were on the job within hours, tearing apart the concrete and steel and building an entire new road. As long as we aren't talking about building brand new bridges and highways, it can be a matter of weeks until workers are fixing roads and bridges and pipes, etc.

There were already several road construction projects that were planned across the country that were supposed to occur this past summer, but most were put off or cancelled due to the extremely high oil prices which drove the price of asphalt up significantly. I know that they started some work on I76 and I476 here early in the summer and everything pretty much stopped until part way through September, and now they're back to working on it. I95 in DE was also just refinished in the past 2-3 months as well. I'm sure there are probably several other projects that could have been started but weren't, they just need to find where they are and get to work on them. Unfortunately, I feel like the places with the highest unemployment could also be places where jobs won't necessarily be availble.

imnuts wrote:

There were already several road construction projects that were planned across the country that were supposed to occur this past summer, but most were put off or cancelled due to the extremely high oil prices which drove the price of asphalt up significantly. I know that they started some work on I76 and I476 here early in the summer and everything pretty much stopped until part way through September, and now they're back to working on it. I95 in DE was also just refinished in the past 2-3 months as well. I'm sure there are probably several other projects that could have been started but weren't, they just need to find where they are and get to work on them. Unfortunately, I feel like the places with the highest unemployment could also be places where jobs won't necessarily be availble.

I think top priority are the crumbling bridges. The numbers are staggering -- thousands of bridges in imminent danger of collapse. Hundreds of thousands close to it, but still in use. Obama also wants to bring broadband lines to every part of the country that doesn't have them. That shouldn't be too difficult. Laying narrow pipes or stringing cables on already existing poles isn't nearly as complicated as rebuilding roads and bridges.

phileysmiley wrote:

imnuts wrote: There were already several road construction projects that were planned across the country that were supposed to occur this past summer, but most were put off or cancelled due to the extremely high oil prices which drove the price of asphalt up significantly. I know that they started some work on I76 and I476 here early in the summer and everything pretty much stopped until part way through September, and now they're back to working on it. I95 in DE was also just refinished in the past 2-3 months as well. I'm sure there are probably several other projects that could have been started but weren't, they just need to find where they are and get to work on them. Unfortunately, I feel like the places with the highest unemployment could also be places where jobs won't necessarily be availble. I think top priority are the crumbling bridges. The numbers are staggering -- thousands of bridges in imminent danger of collapse. Hundreds of thousands close to it, but still in use. Obama also wants to bring broadband lines to every part of the country that doesn't have them. That shouldn't be too difficult. Laying narrow pipes or stringing cables on already existing poles isn't nearly as complicated as rebuilding roads and bridges.

I can agree with fixing the bridges and roads, but bringing broadband to every part of the country should be very low on the list.

Broadband today is considered vital communications and trade infrastructure, like telephone lines, roads, harbors and railways.

gries818 wrote:

I can agree with fixing the bridges and roads, but bringing broadband to every part of the country should be very low on the list.

Most places that don't have broadband internet also don't have basic cable service or phone lines that have been updated in likely half a century or more. If they're going to run new lines in an area, they might as well take everything all at once and update everything. Think of how many more people could get connected and put money into the companies running the lines if this were done.