The Associated Press
If you squint, she almost looks like Ed McMahon handing out a Publisher's Clearing House prize.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 2 weeks 6 days ago
Will the stimulus checks actually stimulate the economy?
President Bush said tax rebates will start going out Monday, earlier than previously announced, and should help Americans cope with rising gasoline and food prices, as well as aid a slumping economy. Those first rebates will be directly deposited into people's bank accounts. The Internal Revenue Service had been saying direct deposits wouldn't start until next Friday. Bush said paper checks would begin going out on May 9, a week earlier than previously announced. The stimulus was passed with support from Republicans and Democrats -- but can it actually breathe life into the economy?
Thoughts
Do what we can
Submitted on April 28th, 2008 by milehi5ohWell... I haven't a clue how this is going to help the overall economic health of our country.
I have a family of four so I'll be getting the $1,800. I'm going to be buying lumber and concrete and building a dog run in the back yard and maybe a new grill.
The rest I'll put into savings. But that's my situation. I have the fortunate ability to have a decent job, that isn't at risk for being cutback and pays decent. I also have about $8,000 in debt not counting the $35K for my truck.
I can cover regular expenses, groceries, mortgage, gas, utilities, healthcare and pay above min payments on credit cards. But even if I cut back on the card payments it wouldn't leave enough to do anything that costs more than $100.00-$200.00 on any given month.
This stimulas check allows me to build the dog run that I wouldn't be able to without it or really having to pinch pennies.
In the this recession type of period, I would wage that a majority of Americans are going to be saving it to prepare for even higher gas and food prices or pay on overdue bills. I don't think a lot of people are going to be buying unneeded items with it.
the predictable slippery slope ...
Submitted on April 28th, 2008 by John 2000of underhanded democratic 'leaders'. It pretty much mirrors their Iraq pathology.
1) enable 'bi-partisan' support
2) vote
3) prematurely call it a quagmire and bellyache until the cows come home ... encourage recipients not to spend it.
4) say that more is needed because it isn't enough ...
5) tie it to approval of continuing troop support
6) vote to spend more
7) quibble and condemn results
8) claim leadership
It is, quite simply, tragic.
Thanks for the link
Submitted on April 28th, 2008 by rom12921The United States routinely issues Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds. Any individual or entity can buy these IOU's. The issuer (US) determines rates, maturities and terms.
"Borrowing from China", while accurate since the Chinese government buys US Gov't bonds, is misleading. This implies China has some rights or has defined borrowing terms - not the case. The bondholder can collect interest, wait til maturity or sell the bonds.
"...spending more money than we bring in..." is really the issue.
Re: Borrow from China
Submitted on April 28th, 2008 by JoelHi rom:
Here's a pretty good primer on the topic. Basically, since we're deficit spending -- spending more money than we bring in in tax revenues -- the money to pay for stuff has to come from somewhere. In this case, we're borrowing a whole lot of it from China.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/fa...
borrow from China?
Submitted on April 28th, 2008 by rom12921please explain this borrowing
Duh?
Submitted on April 26th, 2008 by AnonymousLet's see, we borrow the money from China, then all go to Wal-Mart, and buy Chinese crap with it. And that's helping our economy how?
so, so flawed
Submitted on April 26th, 2008 by justibleWait, so the lib position is that since we're so far in debt, this won't work? If paying down debt means freeing up one's regular income (about which the very same article says the opposite is true!) then, well, it should work, but simply take a little longer.
The article also says 17% of people intend to use the money for "regular expenses". That makes no sense. If I give you $20 and you use it on your electrical bill, what happens to the $20 you wold have used for that bill? Duh. You spent it on something else. 100% of the money will either be spent on "new" expenses, saved, or used on "old" expenses (i.e. debt). Short of flushing it down the toilet or sending it out of the country to relatives, that's how it works if it stays in the country.
Neither article was worth reading.
typical dem response
Submitted on April 26th, 2008 by John 2000vote to support the intent then undermine the result.
All too one sided...
Submitted on April 26th, 2008 by IronguyI love this place but today's topic leaves a lot to be desired for.
The republican side seems week on this subject. Their talking about video games for crying out loud. It would have been better to choose an article that helps explain how the money you spent on goods would help the economy. The article that was chosen though seemed to touch said subject lightly. It more or so compared video games to one another.
This Subject clearly favors the democrats. After all, responsibility over leisure is the mind set of most Americans. We would all like to sit down in our big chairs with a fancy new game or TV and what not. But we can't do that while we know we have bills to pay, debt to get rid of, and a chance to ease our economic load.
The best case scenario I can see is that, this money the government gives the people will be able to subdue most of their debt. Once then, they can begin the process of earning and KEEPING the money they make. However though, I feel doubtful that even this base case scenario will happen. Most American's have a debt greater than 5,000 bucks.