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 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97

Thread: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

  1. #81
    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 Alex View Post
    What are some solutions that may work better, if any?
    There's some excellent discussion concerning this in the economics forum:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...elp-banks.html (Toxic asset program may be too late to help banks)

  2. #82
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    Fine, we'll say the economy was improving. Which is really what we need to look at in terms of policy. Even the best policies in the world aren't going to result in everyone getting suddenly hired. In fact, the only policies that could do that would be draconian and frightening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    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?
    We don't, but the timing is quite coincidental. The stock market crashed in 1929 and Hoover did nothing for the next four years...as the economy sank deeper and deeper. Then we had the New Deal and within a few months the economy had bottomed out...followed by several years of government spending and a recovering economy. Then FDR turned conservative in 1936 and cut back some of his spending on the advice of his advisors...and in late 1937 through 1938, we had another recession. Then we had a buildup to World War II, and the economy recovered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    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.
    In both cases the government is pumping a lot of cash into the economy by buying something it deems will be beneficial to society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    This is ridiculous. You're saying that social perception is not key to economic recovery? Is that your position?
    I'm sure perception has some effect on the economy...but hundreds of billions of dollars in new demand has a pretty sizable effect too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    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?
    Yes, they are negligible. The fact that everyone agreed that we needed to fight a war is irrelevant in terms of economics. The government paid a lot of cash demanding a lot of goods/services, which resulted in a lot of formerly unemployed people being hired.

    And let's not forget that prior to Pearl Harbor, there WAS a lot of disagreement over whether we needed to go to war. Yet the recovery started well BEFORE Pearl Harbor, as we ramped up production in preparation for war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    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.
    What if you're building tanks to crush Germans or bombers to kill Japs? There's no "real demand" for those products most of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    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.
    Whether or not we "need" something is subjective and irrelevant to the economic stimulus side of the equation. That might come into play years after we spend the money, but it doesn't effect the state of the economy now.

    The short-term economic result of the stimulus would be the same whether we had taken all of those tanks to fight a war in Europe, or sent them to Antarctica and set them on fire.

    As for the ability and willingness to pay for these products...we had nowhere NEAR the ability/willingness to pay for WWII. Yet the economy still boomed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    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.
    I don't understand. They had to hire, work, spend, and produce because the government was giving them a lot of money to do so. How is that different from now?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #83
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,779

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    We don't, but the timing is quite coincidental. The stock market crashed in 1929 and Hoover did nothing for the next four years...as the economy sank deeper and deeper.
    revisionist lies

    Rexford Tugwell: "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

    The truth is Hoover spent more in 4 years on public works projects then were spent in the previous 30 combined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoover
    We might have done nothing.........That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic.
    The do nothing president was Harding, which is why the recession of 1921 is never discussed.

  4. #84
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    revisionist lies

    Rexford Tugwell: "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

    The truth is Hoover spent more in 4 years on public works projects then were spent in the previous 30 combined.



    The do nothing president was Harding, which is why the recession of 1921 is never discussed.
    OK, well I shouldn't say Hoover did nothing. What I mean is he did relatively little compared to FDR.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #85
    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 ARealConservative View Post
    The do nothing president was Harding, which is why the recession of 1921 is never discussed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    OK, well I shouldn't say Hoover did nothing. What I mean is he did relatively little compared to FDR.
    And it is a damn shame Hoover didn't do nothing. Had he emulated Harding and done nothing, the economic horror show of FDR's New Deal might never have been attempted.

  6. #86
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    A series of tax cuts would be the most beneficial course of action. Each progressive cut in taxes would act as a little confidence boost while simultaneously freeing up more money without risking inflation. Confidence and more money minus inflation, that cures recessions.
    Real questionable. A series of tax cuts without corresponding increases in assets will result in inflation. Furthermore, giving people back small amounts of money won't increase confidence. Remember the tiny Bush tax cuts that effectively did nothing? How do you not risk inflation by increasing the money supply with no corresponding increases in asset values?

    The beneficial course of action is to reduce the insane burden on healthcare on private businesses, eliminate the corporate tax and actually have a stimulus that spends money at a fast rate. Not a paltry 3%.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #87
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    And it is a damn shame Hoover didn't do nothing. Had he emulated Harding and done nothing, the economic horror show of FDR's New Deal might never have been attempted.
    A discussion that ignores the issue of free trade is highly suspect. Blaming FDR without dealing with the high level of global trade at the time and the subsequent dirty trade wars that happened before is extreme bias.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #88
    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 obvious Child View Post
    A discussion that ignores the issue of free trade is highly suspect. Blaming FDR without dealing with the high level of global trade at the time and the subsequent dirty trade wars that happened before is extreme bias.
    Henry Morgenthau blamed FDR as well as himself, and he was there.

    Regardless of the global situation, the New Deal was a failure, it wasted US dollars and prolonged the slump in the United States. That's not bias. That's history.

  9. #89
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Doing a half-assed job and getting half-assed results doesn't mean that you should stop trying, it means you should do it right.



    The Great Depression? World War II?
    Just to jot this in, FDR's Great Deal (Big Deal, whatever) caused the depression to linger on and i think that in balance the opening up of markets with the war going on undid the depression and if we had opened up the markets to begin with ( or never let them close) there would be no war. and even if we just opened up the market when the depression began and then went to war it would have been obvious that the affect of the war was a weight on the economy. Although it is likely we would have been in a better position still to fight the war and come war's end we would have been in a better position to dictate terms in the conclusion of the war.
    Last edited by Shadow Serious; 07-11-09 at 09:18 PM.

  10. #90
    Reactor Janitor
    Joby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Olympic Peninsula
    Last Seen
    08-11-16 @ 01:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,276

    Re: Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

    Hell ****ing yeah!

    To stimulate the economy, the military not only reinstates all enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses that were evilly taken away, we double all of them.


    man that was some bull****. there's budgeting, then there's being cheap and throwing billions down the drain while being cheap.
    down for you is up

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 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
  •