Our Sponsors
Need a Job?
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I think there should be. The first one was good so the second one should be even better.
Why? All the first so-called stimulus bill ever did was fill the politicians wallets and did not stimulate anything. Our economy is still in the sewer, homes are still being foreclosed on in spite of some of the major financial institutions getting tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers money, people are still out of work because all the jobs are being outsourced to other countries because the labor unions are able to hold a gun to corporations heads and those same corporations are being taxed to death by our government.
If our government really wanted to help our economy they would rein in the labor unions, lower corporate taxes in incentive packages to get the jobs back into this country, and reduce the tax burden on the individual taxpayer with a few good things like repeal the inheritance tax and get rid of so much wasteful government spending like all the welfare payments to people who do not deserve it in the first place – you know, like the drug addicts and alcoholics who just want to stay stoned and not work.
I could go on like this for hours, but I think that you might be getting the idea that I believe that it is just plain stupid to continue spending good money on such a bad idea as government bailouts and stimulus packages that do not stimulate anything!
Really? So how good was it? Did it allow you to refinance your student loan to a lower interest rate? How many homeowners were able to refinance their home loans so they would not be foreclosed on? So just HOW did all those billions of taxpayer dollars stimulate our sinking economy? Since I have not seen any evidence of our economy being stimulated by all that wasteful government spending, I would like you to show me just what exactly was actually stimulated to the point that you make this statement that "The first one was good."
The first one was good … in what way?
More people have jobs because of it.
What jobs, Jared, WHAT JOBS? If more jobs were created, then WHY did congress pass an extension of unemployment benefits?
According to a computer model which uses economic assumptions (which are not based on anything other than other assumptions about what are the proper multipliers) rather than real economic data.
It is not stimulative according to any empirical scientific necessity or study of the actual economy. It is a counter-factual only that claims that more people have jobs versus a world where fewer people have jobs if we didn't do something. And in any case, what stimulus money was spent was not spent in ways that would "create" jobs (ie, by creating work). Some of it still hasn't been spent in fact.
Large amounts of the money was spent on inefficient tax cuts, an AMT patch, unemployment benefits, and state government bailouts. None of these is particularly stimulative. Unemployment benefit extensions are arguably the best part of the package but this is not because of their stimulative features. This does not say much for the benefits of the deal as a result.