|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2003 : 16:25:31
|
Bush's new stimulus package has been advertised as costing over $600 billion over 10 years which has me a bit worried. I thought stimulus was supposed to be a short term injection of cash into the economy. This "cost over 10 years" talk has me really worried. Are they saying they expect the current economic conditions to last at least 10 years? I mean hell, they would need a "stimulus package" that lasted so long unless that was the expectation right?
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2003 : 20:13:54 [Permalink]
|
| Well gee, Bill O'Reilly says, instead of helping individuals, we need to throw money at big business in order to promote long-term growth. Because, you know, corporate execs would never take advantage of the investing public. And we can just pray for the starving families. I mean, we've probably said "God bless America" a few billion times in the last year-and-a-half, we oughta be at least partly blessed by now, don't you think? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
 |
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 22:44:31 [Permalink]
|
Bush is a 'one trick pony.' When he came into office, we were having our first in decades of buget surpluses, his solution, tax cut. With the surplus solved and a fading memory, and now facing an 'economic downturn,' solution, tax cut. The "stimulus package" will return to those making $25K or less, exactly zip, squat, nada. You can rest assured, no matter our economic condition, Bush will champion a tax cut for good Americans, maybe not the riff-raff thou. Why do ya think all us hard working folks voted for him and his party, in the first place?
|
 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 08:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Bush's new stimulus package has been advertised as costing over $600 billion over 10 years which has me a bit worried. I thought stimulus was supposed to be a short term injection of cash into the economy. This "cost over 10 years" talk has me really worried. Are they saying they expect the current economic conditions to last at least 10 years? I mean hell, they would need a "stimulus package" that lasted so long unless that was the expectation right?
@tomic
It's Reagan's Supply Side economics which collapsed under it's own weight in 1990 all over again. This package was one of the reasons why I voted against Bush, Jr in 2000. The other reasons related to foreign policy and religious freedom.
Like the Adamses, the Bushes will have a one term Presidency for the son. Or at least we can hope for that.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 08:20:12 [Permalink]
|
| Yep Valiant Dancer hit the nail on the head, its the old trickle down economics of Reagan and Bush Sr. which is really a republican economic strategy more than anything. The only problem is that the money never seems to trickle down so the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 09:54:00 [Permalink]
|
Tax cuts - the old GOP fix-all
GWB takes office, we've got something of a budget surplus. What to do? Tax cut! Reason? Hard-working middle-America deserves some of their money back.
GWB year 2, we've got something of a recession. What to do? Tax cut! Reason? We gotta get these rich folks spending again. Hard-working middle-America? Be patient! Long-term growth and all, dontchaknow. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 14:27:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Yep Valiant Dancer hit the nail on the head, its the old trickle down economics of Reagan and Bush Sr. which is really a republican economic strategy more than anything. The only problem is that the money never seems to trickle down so the poor stay poor and the rich get richer.
Well, the first requirement of being an ideologue is to become immune to empirical learning. If your cherished theory is pretty enough, neatly packaged and nicely tied up with ribbons, who cares what happened the last time you tried it, trot it out again!
IIRC, the commies had quite a knack for that kind of thinking, and it contributed so much to their success.
Of course, an alternate hypothesis would be that our Glorious Leaders are well aware that their proposal would have less effect at jump-starting a consumption-based economy than it would at channelling great gobs of goodies to the tiny caste which they themselves inhabit, and that that is exactly the effect that they want.
How to tell which? There are plenty of blind worshippers of ideology in high places and also plenty of evidence (insert corporate scandal of your choice) that the behavioral norm of the 21st century aging-yuppie-scum CEO class, when faced with the possibility that the party might end soon, is "grab what you can with both meathooks and to Hell with everyone else". |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
