View Poll Results: Would you support a second stimulus package?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 7.50%
  • No

    68 85.00%
  • Not sure

    6 7.50%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97

Thread: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You are very correct, although I think most people are only counting the ones under Obama, you have a lot of pseudo-conservatives who conveniently forget the one that Bush did.

    Imagine that.
    I don't think there's any political agenda behind "forgetting" the Bush stimulus.

    Simply put, Bush isn't President any more. Given that talk of another round of stimulus quite frequently takes place within the context of the current Administration, it is not inaccurate to refer to the contemplated next round of stimulus as the "second stimulus." It would be the second round attempted by the current Administration.

    It's merely a question of where one starts the counting.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    Jerry aren't you being a tad premature?
    Nope.

    We don't have the money. It's that simple. I don't have to wait years and years and years to know that.

  3. #63
    Professor
    OxymoronP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heart in Brooklyn, body South of Dixie
    Last Seen
    08-23-10 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,175

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    YES!!!

    I am too big to fail, I want a Bailout now.


    THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS

  4. #64
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    When the nation finally discovers that it's simply impossible to generate efficient terawatts of power from nature's blowjobs, how do we restart the industries your Messiah destroyed?
    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I thought a good blowjob involved sucking.
    Blowjobs do not lead to procreation, and are thus unnatural.

    What makes you think Mother Nature herself would be able to give a good one?

  5. #65
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    I didn't support ANY of the stimulus packages -- why would I support another one?

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    A booming economy doesn't mean that we just magically revert to pre-crash economic levels, and everyone who was out of work instantaneously finds a job. 14.3% unemployment was GREAT compared to the previous years. The economy most definitely was booming from 1933-1936.
    Nor does a "booming" economy mean you have 14.3% unemployment, to claim as much is misleading. You could say the economy was "improving" but to say it was "booming" is a complete distortion of language. Unemployment was trending downwards while GNP was trending upwards, this doesn't mean the economy was "booming", not in any sense of the word.

    If a cancer patient's malignancy decreases in size by 10% you can say their health is "improving" but you cannot claim they are "healthy" or that their health is "excellent", because the fact remains that they still have a cancerous malignancy growing on their body. From 1933-1936 the malignancy was decreasing in size but it was still there.

    Furthermore, this entire argument presupposes that the improvement came about as a consequence of the New Deal. How are we to know that the improvement wasn't simply a consequence of the free-market self-correcting IN SPITE of the New Deal?

    The difference is semantics.
    This is such a simplistic and narrow-minded statement. The difference between a government stimulus package and the buildup to a world war is much more than semantical.

    No it isn't. Maybe if you're talking about chump change for some congressman's pet cause, but not when you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.
    This is ridiculous. You're saying that social perception is not key to economic recovery? Is that your position?

    #1 is subjective and irrelevant to the economics of the stimulus.
    The country was unified. That is an objective fact of reality. Moreover, you offered your disagreement absent any reasoning. How is the unification of a country "irrelevant" to economic recovery? Do you honestly think the effects of such a phenomenon are negligible?

    Any stimulus, regardless of its purpose, will provide #2.
    I said real demand, not artificial demand. Building something does not create real demand for products and services if there was never a real demand for the project in the first place.

    Real demand is characterized not only by the desire for a product or service but the ability to pay for it. Just because a state desires something does not mean they retain the ability to pay for it; absent the ability to pay for something there is no real demand, only artificial.

    WWII created real demand for products and services. Not only did we desire these products and services, we NEEDED them (that, in and of itself, is a crucial distinction), and we also had the ability (the willingness) to pay for them.

    And stimuli rarely provide #3...including during WWII.
    Allow me to clarify, I'm not speaking to long-term sustainability on the magnitude of decades, I'm speaking to short-term sustainability on the magnitude of several years.

    The war infused the market with confidence which subsequently encouraged people to hire and spend. That is the difference between a simple stimulus plan and the buildup to a world war. People HAD to hire, and work, and spend, and produce. It wasn't a choice for them. That's why it was sustainable in the short-term.

    You do realize that there is some middle ground between doing nothing and spending 5 trillion dollars per year for the next five years, right?
    Absolutely, but there's no evidence that such a plan would even work. We know that spending roughly 30% of GDP over four to five years CAN result in an economic recovery, but we don't know that it WILL. All you have is assumptions and a misplaced faith in the ability of our corrupt and inept government to spend us out of recession. Not exactly confidence inspiring.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's ridiculous. Just because they can't tell you what the economy is going to do next year doesn't mean that everything they say is irrelevant. I can't tell you if it will be hot or cold next week, but I can tell you that in 2 billion years the earth will be too hot to sustain life.
    It seems you're not aware of the context of my statement.

    Gunner was referencing the opinion of economists who say the spending plan is necessary, I would assume these are the same mainstream economist-types whose Keynesian theory landed us in this boondoggle to begin with.

    Given their inability to accurately gage the effects and efficacy of their previous policy suggestions, I'm thoroughly disinclined to take any further suggestions seriously.

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Actually, this could be considered a 4th stimulus. Don't forget the Bush Tax stimulus checks.....
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  9. #69
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    06-21-16 @ 12:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Actually, this could be considered a 4th stimulus. Don't forget the Bush Tax stimulus checks.....
    Good point. We now have:

    1. Tax Rebate Stimulus of 2008
    2. Wall Street/auto industry/bank bailout of 2008
    3. Economc Recovery Act of 2009


    Now talk of a 4th. If the first 3 did not work, why would a 4th? Seems to me that we should just let these things play themselves out without the government getting involved. Nothing seems to work.

    What are some solutions that may work better, if any?
    "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." -Ronald Reagan

  10. #70
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    09-22-16 @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,777

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    Good point. We now have:

    1. Tax Rebate Stimulus of 2008
    2. Wall Street/auto industry/bank bailout of 2008
    3. Economc Recovery Act of 2009


    Now talk of a 4th. If the first 3 did not work, why would a 4th? Seems to me that we should just let these things play themselves out without the government getting involved. Nothing seems to work.

    What are some solutions that may work better, if any?
    massive cuts in taxes, spending, and regulation.

    Basically, follow the playbook used in the 1921 recession.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •