Stimulus Package or spending package?
The estimated cost of this stimulus plan will be over 1 trillion dollars. Much of it will not stimulate the economy. What the bill actually includes is ridiculous.
If our government is going to shell out this much money on various pet projects and socialist spending programs, we would be better off dividing this number by 300 million Americans and giving every U.S. citizen $3,333.33. A household of four would have $13,000. This would “stimulate” the economy and it would happen much faster.
Update: House GOP offers alternative
3 comments:
What about the fact that the majority of economists advise against "your idea" (put in quotations, because it's actually an idea that has been thrown around quite a bit) because they predict that most would probably not spend it the way it would be intended, therefore not reaching the desired effects.
For example, many families would probably just save the money in anticipation for harder times. For some wealthier families, that amount would hardly make a ripple in their wealth.
It is easy for us uneducated people to make suggestions since we don't exactly how this gigantic financial machine spins, so we can make generalizations like this. But in reality, it isn't as simple as we make it to be.
Ultimately, I don’t think Congress should attempt to stimulate the economy at all. Japan is a good example of this. Tax cuts worked. Stimulus bills (incurring more debt in hopes of getting out of debt) did not.
The point I was making is if we ARE going to go into more debt, let us spend the money in a different way. A way that I believe would be more productive. So in elaboration of the idea, (which I never claimed credit for) I offer the following defense.
“because they predict that most would probably not spend it the way it would be intended, therefore not reaching the desired effects.”
1. You’re right. If money is given directly to individuals there will be no government control over how American’s spend the money, and that is one reason why liberals don’t like this idea. Liberalism seeks to give more control to the government. True Conservativism desires to give more control to the people.
2. Even when the government does attempt to control where the money goes (i.e. TARP) it’s still a mess. Millions have been spent in ridiculous ways.
“For example, many families would probably just save the money in anticipation for harder times.”
1. Do you really think people are going to stick three grand in their mattresses?
Even if they do save the money, if it is placed in a savings account, it will incur interest, which means someone else has borrowed or invested it, which equals a plus for the economy. If they simply “sit on it” in their checking account, I doubt it will be long before it is spent.
“It is easy for us uneducated people to make suggestions since we don't exactly how this gigantic financial machine spins, so we can make generalizations like this. But in reality, it isn't as simple as we make it to be.”
1. Kudos to you here. (However, I wouldn’t call myself uneducated, and I doubt you are either, but neither of us are economists so, you are most likely right. I can not fully understand how our economy works, but quite frankly, I’m not sure politicians in Washington know either.)
2. I agree with you that this mess is not simple, but true conservative principles are. Lower taxes frees individuals to spend or invest, and liberates companies to hire and expand. I believe more money directly in the hands of taxpayers would help our economy more than the bill President Obama is currently pushing for.
Thank you for reading, and sharing your thoughts. I welcome them anytime.
Good points. However, I disagree about Japan. I don't think Japan lets its economy run untouched. For example, why would they employ one of the lowest interest rates on some of their loans (less than 1% percent). Also, some economists have argued that perhaps Japan purposely deflates the value of their currency, therefore increasing the already ridiculous demand for their product (after all, we Americans seem to jump on any opportunity where we can "get more bang for our buck"). You're right -- the Japanese economy and overall corporate culture may seem more objectively off-hands than the US. However, I think that in a different perspective, they are just as hands-on as we are. Perhaps we just have to learn how to stimulate our economy like they do.
Some economists argue that many people will not even put their money into savings or checking accounts, and instead just cash them and keep the cash. And even if they did, and there are some reaching benefits of that as you suggested (i.e. someone is borrowing or investing that money), wouldn't it have the same effect as just giving the money to the companies/banks in the first place?
Of course, you will continue to have many very valid counter-points as well. It just always boggles my mind how much of a circular argument this subject ends up being.
Post a Comment