• 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!

Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

Would you support a second stimulus package?

  • Total voters
    58
celticlord said:
The New Deal made the Great Depression worse, not better, and postponed lasting recovery by several years.
Click to expand...

I see. Because you say so.

celticlord said:
World War II was not stimulus, but an external increase in demand.
Click to expand...

An "external increase in demand"? What in the world is that? It was the world's GOVERNMENTS that were creating the increase in demand. How is that not a stimulus?
 
Kandahar said:
Uhh "government spending" is pretty broad. Do you mean stimulus spending? One more stimulus, about the same size as the last one ought to do the trick. That's assuming it's as wasteful as the last one...if Congress actually limited itself to projects that actually stimulated the economy, another stimulus about HALF the size of the last one would be sufficient.
Click to expand...

If the last two packages did not work, why would another with at least half of the funds of the first work? Where does that number from?
 
Kandahar said:
I see. Because you say so.
Click to expand...
No, because economists say so. You really should research economics more than just reading the drivel Krugman posts in the New York Times.
Kandahar said:
An "external increase in demand"? What in the world is that? It was the world's GOVERNMENTS that were creating the increase in demand. How is that not a stimulus?
Click to expand...
The US was attacked. War came to America, not the other way around. The demand for soldiers was due to an external event (Pearl Harbor) not some militancy of the US government. The demand for weapons and war material was due to Britain's war with Germany and was greatly increased by Pearl Harbor.

WWII was not an artificial stimulus, but a natural expansion of the need for government spending. War and blowing people to tiny bits are the main reasons we keep governments around.
 
Kandahar said:
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. :roll:
Click to expand...

A 787 billion dollar spending plan that got rammed down the throats of the American people was half-assed? I'd hate to see what kind of damage they'd do if they were actually trying.

The Great Depression?
Click to expand...

I believe the term you are looking for is the "New Deal". If you call ten years of crippling depression a successful stimulus plan then you need to reference a dictionary. Allow me to be of assistance:

Successful:

1. Having a favorable outcome.

2. Having obtained something desired or intended.

So, is that your desired outcome? Ten years of depression?

World War II?
Click to expand...

The American buildup to WWII was not a government stimulus plan.
 
celticlord said:
War and blowing people to tiny bits are the main reasons we keep governments around.
Click to expand...

Somewhere along the way this point got lost. Now the government is expected to fill in all the gaps in our lives. It's quite sad, really.
 
Kandahar said:
Nope, I'd rather have a stimulus bill with some wasteful spending than no stimulus at all.
Click to expand...

Right, this time the bill will consist mostly of “stimulus-inducing-spending” instead of that other kind of spending.
 
G.I. Joe said:
Somewhere along the way this point got lost. Now the government is expected to fill in all the gaps in our lives. It's quite sad, really.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my thought. We have a vast majority of people in this country who are capable of taking care of themselves, but they are forced to take care of people who are too lazy, physically and mentally, to make anything out of their own lives.

Not only is it sad, its really quite pathetic.

I hope this next stimulus does get considered by the White House, it will push so many more people to the right.
 
I am against it, as are 60% of Americans.

Hopefully Congess won't be so stupid as to actually pass something their consitutents so are so broadly against. A second stimulus would be the end of the Democratic-controlled Congress.
 
Jerry said:
I did not support the second stimulus, but it went through anyway, and even though neither of them worked, Obama now wants a 3rd stimulus.

You can't spend your way out of a recession: This is another reason why you weren't supposed to vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

Jerry aren't you being a tad premature? no one is suggesting its an instantaneous fix. I have read many economists suggest it can take a few years to see the effects, good or bad.
 
celticlord said:
No, because economists say so. You really should research economics more than just reading the drivel Krugman posts in the New York Times.
Click to expand...

I have an MBA. You?

celticlord said:
The US was attacked. War came to America, not the other way around. The demand for soldiers was due to an external event (Pearl Harbor) not some militancy of the US government. The demand for weapons and war material was due to Britain's war with Germany and was greatly increased by Pearl Harbor.

WWII was not an artificial stimulus, but a natural expansion of the need for government spending. War and blowing people to tiny bits are the main reasons we keep governments around.
Click to expand...

The reasons for the stimulus doesn't change the fact that it WAS a stimulus. Massive government spending is going to stimulate the economy. Who the hell CARES whether "war came to America" or how "militant" the US government was? That is in no way relevant to the economics of it. Do you think the economic effect of WWII would have been any different if we had attacked Japan first? Do you think the justness of our cause had anything at all to do with the economic effects? Let's not forget that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ALSO had booming economies as a result of their massive government spending.
 
gunner said:
Jerry aren't you being a tad premature? no one is suggesting its an instantaneous fix. I have read many economists suggest it can take a few years to see the effects, good or bad.
Click to expand...

Why is this recession so different from the others in that it is supposed to last a few years? Why wouldn't the economy recover on its own in that time?
 
gunner said:
Jerry aren't you being a tad premature? no one is suggesting its an instantaneous fix. I have read many economists suggest it can take a few years to see the effects, good or bad.
Click to expand...

What the hell do economists know? Where were their crystal balls before the collapse of the housing industry and the financial sector? These nitwits couldn't predict their way out of a wet paper bag.
 
Dav said:
Why is this recession so different from the others in that it is supposed to last a few years? Why wouldn't the economy recover on its own in that time?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the enormity of the crash?

Paul
 
Ethereal said:
I believe the term you are looking for is the "New Deal". If you call ten years of crippling depression a successful stimulus plan then you need to reference a dictionary. Allow me to be of assistance:

Successful:

1. Having a favorable outcome.

2. Having obtained something desired or intended.

So, is that your desired outcome? Ten years of depression?
Click to expand...

We didn't have ten years of Depression. We had four years of Depression under Hoover, and the economy bottomed out almost immediately after the New Deal began. (June/July 1933 was the bottom.) Then we had a successful stimulus program for several years, during which the economy boomed. And in 1936, FDR decided that the Depression was over and reversed some of his spending...which was followed by another brief recession. This, of course, was followed by several more years of massive spending and a booming economy as we prepared for WWII.

Ethereal said:
The American buildup to WWII was not a government stimulus plan.
Click to expand...

Really. How was it not a stimulus?
 
gunner said:
Perhaps the enormity of the crash?

Paul
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that this crash is going to last any longer than all the other crashes in history.
 
Ethereal said:
What the hell do economists know? Where were their crystal balls before the collapse of the housing industry and the financial sector? These nitwits couldn't predict their way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...

Uhh since when were economists required to peer into crystal balls and predict the exact timing of recessions? Most economists prefer to discuss POLICIES. There is a bit more to the profession than what you see on Mad Money.
 
Enough is enough with the spending. Our deficit is going to baloon to the point that it will take five dollars to equal a euro.
 
Dav said:
There is no evidence that this crash is going to last any longer than all the other crashes in history.
Click to expand...

Correct. But, there is NO evidence to suggest it will finish any sooner...than previous crashes. Don't get me wrong i,m not suggesting 'all out bail out' i just feel stimulus in the right areas can soften the decline, but certain industries could do with a serious trimming, and should be allowed to go to the wall.

Paul
 
I'm sorry but you would have to literally either be an idiot or clinically insane to believe that a 3rd stimulus would benefit America.
 
Kandahar said:
We didn't have ten years of Depression. We had four years of Depression under Hoover, and the economy bottomed out almost immediately after the New Deal began. (June/July 1933 was the bottom.) Then we had a successful stimulus program for several years, during which the economy boomed. And in 1936, FDR decided that the Depression was over and reversed some of his spending...which was followed by another brief recession. This, of course, was followed by several more years of massive spending and a booming economy as we prepared for WWII.
Click to expand...

Unemployment was at 14.3% in 1937. I'd hardly call that "booming". Only AFTER we started the buildup to WWII did unemployment reach consistently low levels.

Really. How was it not a stimulus?
Click to expand...

I didn't say the buildup to WWII wasn't a stimulus to the economy, it most certainly was. I'm saying it wasn't a government stimulus plan, and yes, there is a difference.

Perception is arguably more important to economic recovery than the actual spending. WWII provided Americans - employers and employees alike - with three crucial elements for economic growth:

1. Unity of purpose.
2. A tangible and real demand for products and services.
3. A sustainable method for supplying those products and services.

Government stimulus plans lack all three of these components. But let's, for the sake of argument, assume that any old spending will do and that a stimulus plan which mirrors the spending plan of WWII would result in a successful economic recovery commensurate with the recovery of the 1940's.

As a percentage of GDP we'd have to spend around 30-40% over approximately five years in order to replicate the kind of spending that was characteristic of WWII [1].

ReceiptsOutlaysPercentGDP.gif


So, unless you plan on spending approximately 5 trillion dollars per year for the next five years, I don't think you've got much of an argument.

[1] - The National Budget, Debt & Deficit
 
Kandahar said:
Uhh since when were economists required to peer into crystal balls and predict the exact timing of recessions?
Click to expand...

They aren't required to do anything except pontificate and postulate. I won't hold their inability to predict the future against them (I'm a nice guy like that), but so long as they are incapable of such I'm disinclined to take their predictions about anything seriously, hence my derisive attitude towards anyone who supports their personal opinion with the personal opinion of an economist.

Most economists prefer to discuss POLICIES. There is a bit more to the profession than what you see on Mad Money.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they also like to tell people how those POLICIES will work in THE FUTURE. Since you and I both know they cannot predict THE FUTURE we must disregard their advice as nothing more than a self-serving opinion.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Uhh since when were economists required to peer into crystal balls and predict the exact timing of recessions? Most economists prefer to discuss POLICIES. There is a bit more to the profession than what you see on Mad Money.
Click to expand...
Of course they prefer to discuss policy. Nice and safe discussion, especially since they don't bear any accountability for policy.

Of course, since they have no crystal ball and cannot predict the results of their policy pontifications with any greater accuracy than the rest of us, they are of damned little use in dealing with a recession.

They make great historians and passable analysts, but they're useless for just about everything else.
 
Dav said:
There is no evidence that this crash is going to last any longer than all the other crashes in history.
Click to expand...

"...combined." You forgot to say "all the other crashes in history combined."

Little word.

Means much.

There's not a shred of evidence that it's going to be shorter.

Given that your Messiah is doing absolutely everything he can to make it last as long as possible, and it's perfectly possible that we won't come out of it at all.

When he's finished destroying our automobile industry, how does anyone in America start up something to compete with Toyota or Yugo? Tariifs, trade embargos, sanctions? How?

When he's finished destroying the US health care industry, how does it recover? More spending? From what source, since we're spending on someone else's credit now? And spending on what?

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?

Right now, the nation is outsourcing unskilled labor.

What happens when the nation's engineers start learning Mandarin and emigrating?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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?
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Whoa, I was cracking up when I read that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom