• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition

Can you explain the difference? The money has to go into the pockets of someone who will in turn spend it thus stimulating the economy.
There's government spending, and then there's actual economic stimulation.

Taxing a business owner so you can pay a person $15/hr to dig a ditch and fill it back up is the former

Allowing a business owner to keep enough of his money to expand his business, allowing for the creation of a $15/hr job within that business is the latter.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain the difference? The money has to go into the pockets of someone who will in turn spend it thus stimulating the economy.

Sure...
Take money from those who earned it to give it to those who don't. And then hope that they go out and buy lots of big screen tv's and american cars.

I hardly see that as a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain the difference? The money has to go into the pockets of someone who will in turn spend it thus stimulating the economy.

The recession is projected to end in 2009, yet only 107 billion of the money is scheduled to be spent this year.

Why do we need to spend the remaining 680 billion?? Oh yeah, it's so the Dems can create a permanent patronage system.
 
The recession is projected to end in 2009, yet only 107 billion of the money is scheduled to be spent this year.

Why do we need to spend the remaining 680 billion?? Oh yeah, it's so the Dems can create a permanent patronage system.

Some of the money is scheduled to be spent in the 2016 Olympics.
 
Show me how it goes into the economy. I will wait.

They will employ people and buy products. Buying products keep the people who make said products employed. They aren't writing a check to critters.
 
Inflation. Robbing Peter to give the perception of having the money to pay Paul.

I agree this will cause inflation.

That doesn't mean the devalued money doesn't go back into the economy though.
 
There's government spending, and then there's actual economic stimulation.

Taxing a business owner so you can pay a person $15/hr to dig a ditch and fill it back up is the former

Allowing a business owner to keep enough of his money to expand his business, allowing for the creation of a $15/hr job within that business is the latter.

If there is no demand for the employer's goods/service, making more goods/service won't matter. Do you think GM's problem is that they can't make enough cars?
 
I agree this will cause inflation.

That doesn't mean the devalued money doesn't go back into the economy though.

It may go back into the economy or it may head out to another nations economy.
But you and everyone else just lost a portion of the value of our money for this junk.

Everyone is paying for this junk.
 
Sure...
Take money from those who earned it to give it to those who don't. And then hope that they go out and buy lots of big screen tv's and american cars.

I hardly see that as a good idea.

That would be tax and spend. This is borrow and spend. That's what our economy has been running on for almost 30 years. The alternative is an economic standstill.
 
The recession is projected to end in 2009, yet only 107 billion of the money is scheduled to be spent this year.

Why do we need to spend the remaining 680 billion?? Oh yeah, it's so the Dems can create a permanent patronage system.

Link please?
 
If there is no demand for the employer's goods/service, making more goods/service won't matter.
You're thinking too simply. There's more to 'exapnding business' than simply making more of the same stuff.

And, of course, you failed to address the point itself -- the 'difference' you asked for.
 
It may go back into the economy or it may head out to another nations economy.
But you and everyone else just lost a portion of the value of our money for this junk.

Everyone is paying for this junk.

This is true. Doing nothing will lead to double digit unemployment and more welfare. It's a catch 22.
 
You're thinking too simply. There's more to 'exapnding business' than simply making more of the same stuff.

And, of course, you failed to address the point itself -- the 'difference' you asked for.

Link to digging ditches and filling them back up?
 
They will employ people and buy products. Buying products keep the people who make said products employed. They aren't writing a check to critters.




Show me where 30 million bucks spent, will stimulate the economy with some 40k a year jobs.


can you do more than speculate please.
 
Link to digging ditches and filling them back up?
No need to provide such a link -- it was an illustration representative of governmental busywork that simply pays someone to do something that does nothing to actually stimulate the economy.

Still wondering about the difference?
 
No need to provide such a link -- it was an illustration representative of governmental busywork that simply pays someone to do something that does nothing to actually stimulate the economy.

Still wondering about the difference?

So your answer is to let those people be laid off and that will stimulate the economy?

Who's being simplistic here?
 
This is true. Doing nothing will lead to double digit unemployment and more welfare. It's a catch 22.

It seems like everyone is dog piling you so I'll let this be my last comment.

I agree that unemployment may be slightly heavy short term but in the long run letting the recession run its course will yield better results.

The economy is unbalanced and it needs to correct itself.
 
Show me where 30 million bucks spent, will stimulate the economy with some 40k a year jobs.


can you do more than speculate please.

People working is a good thing. People who make 40K a year spend money. They pay their mortgages. They make car payments. What is so hard to understand about that?

Do you think unemployed people stimulate the economy?
 
People working is a good thing. People who make 40K a year spend money. They pay their mortgages. They make car payments. What is so hard to understand about that?

Do you think unemployed people stimulate the economy?




30 million taken out of the economy to give a few people 40k jobs....



It's like dumping your last bucket of water on your head to take a drink.




This was a lib pet project, no stimulous about it.
 
It seems like everyone is dog piling you so I'll let this be my last comment.

I agree that unemployment may be slightly heavy short term but in the long run letting the recession run its course will yield better results.

The economy is unbalanced and it needs to correct itself.

I don't mind the dogpile. You don't have to bow out.

It is certainly debateable as to what the ramifications of letting the bubble pop would be. A slow deflation of the bubble will be less traumatic. Many states couldn't handle the increased demand on their resources. I can agree a correction is in order. How we go about that is where the difference lies.
 
30 million taken out of the economy to give a few people 40k jobs....



It's like dumping your last bucket of water on your head to take a drink.




This was a lib pet project, no stimulous about it.

How is 30 mil being taken out of the economy? You are implying that this money will just be put into a savings account and not be spent.

It is a pet project, I can agree. The money will still be spent in our economy.
 
So your answer is to let those people be laid off and that will stimulate the economy?
No. MY answer is evident from my post, and it's got nothing to do with what you said.

The difference has been explained to you. You have failed to address that difference three times.
 
How is 30 mil being taken out of the economy? You are implying that this money will just be put into a savings account and not be spent.

It is a pet project, I can agree. The money will still be spent in our economy.



you have yet to establish that 30 million of our money will be spent in our economy.
 
No. MY answer is evident from my post, and it's got nothing to do with what you said.

The difference has been explained to you. You have failed to address that difference three times.

You claimed this would be taxing people to create jobs. That is false.

People who work buys goods. This creates demand for goods. More demand for goods means that businesses make a profit and then can expand.

So yes, even ditchdiggers help the economy. You can't expand a business with extra tax breaks. Supply isn't the problem. Demand is.
 
Back
Top Bottom