Can someone explain why this is called a "stimulus"

[dalmations202]

Stimulus Payment Information


"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a
very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India .
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and
Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .

And none of it will help the American economy.



We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

But it´s a global crisis. Market protecion can make things go even worse.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But it´s a global crisis. Market protecion can make things go even worse.

So in every country men should spend more money on prostitutes and alcohol.



Create more jobs because of the proof of supply and demand.



Makes more sense than $825 billion to me.

[mcsluggo]

David brooks makes a much better case for the argument espoused in this thread (by avoiding the whiny "my panties hurt" partisanship)

Cleaner and Faster

By DAVID BROOKS-- Published: January 29, 2009

Throughout 2008, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist, built the case for a big but surgical stimulus package. Summers warned that a “poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” So his proposal had three clear guidelines.

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

Summers was proposing bold action, but his concept came with safeguards: focus on the task at hand, prevent the usual Washington splurge and limit long-term fiscal damage.

Now Barack Obama is president, and Summers has become a top economic adviser. Yet the stimulus approach that has emerged on Capitol Hill abandoned the Summers parameters.

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in. Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money. By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs.

But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements.

Second, by pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor with a few-hundred-million-dollar shortfall will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.

Third, the muddle assures ideological confrontation. A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.

Fourth, Summers’s warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

Fifth, new government expenditures on complex matters are being designed on a hasty, reckless timetable. As readers may know, the policy I am most passionate about is pre-K education. Yet I fervently hope that the Head Start expansion is dropped from this bill. A slapdash and shambolic expansion could discredit the whole idea.

Wise heads are now trying to restore structure and safeguards to the enterprise. In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.”

The best course is to return to the original Summers parameters — temporary, targeted and timely — thus making the stimulus cleaner and faster.

Strip out the permanent government programs. Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day. Make the short-term stimulus bigger. Many liberal economists have been complaining it is too small, so replace the permanent programs with something like a big payroll tax cut, which would help the working class.

Add in a fiscal exit strategy so the whole thing is budget neutral over the medium term. Finally, coordinate the stimulus package with plans to shore up the housing and financial markets. Until those come to life, no amount of stimulus will do any good.

This recession is scary and complicated. It’s insane to try to tackle it and dozens of other complicated problems, all in one piece of legislation. Leadership involves prioritizing. Those who try to do everything at once will end up with a sprawling, lobbyist-driven mess that does nothing well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/op...ml?ref=opinion

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

So in every country men should spend more money on prostitutes and alcohol.



Create more jobs because of the proof of supply and demand.



Makes more sense than $825 billion to me.

On that note - what about legalizing/taxing marijuana?

How much money would that raise per state (not to mention the money it would save not having to house the 1% of our national population that currently reside in our overcrowded prison system)?


Just tossing ideas out there...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

On that note - what about legalizing/taxing marijuana?

How much money would that raise per state (not to mention the money it would save not having to house the 1% of our national population that currently reside in our overcrowded prison system)?


Just tossing ideas out there...

I am not saying I am for it, but if this really is the home of free choice --

why not go ahead and tax legal prostitution, tax the snot out of many drugs, etc.

I have been to Amsterdam. All I ask for is that "IF" it is proved that a drug (alcohol) is the reason for the crime, the sentence be automatically doubled and no parole. Steal for drug money (double the sentence - no parole). DWI -- double sentence, no parole. Black Market drugs -- life in prison or death sentence.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I am not saying I am for it, but if this really is the home of free choice --

why not go ahead and tax legal prostitution, tax the snot out of many drugs, etc.

Yeah, this may be a conversation for another thread, but I'm all for legalizing/taxing EVERYTHING across the board...

(although a heroin-shooting prostitute such as myself might be a tad biased...)

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yeah, this may be a conversation for another thread, but I'm all for legalizing/taxing EVERYTHING across the board...

(although a heroin-shooting prostitute such as myself might be a tad biased...)

I agree with this.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yeah, this may be a conversation for another thread, but I'm all for legalizing/taxing EVERYTHING across the board...

(although a heroin-shooting prostitute such as myself might be a tad biased...)

I think, if we're to go along with this line of thought, that they should tax online gambling first, and see how that goes.

Even an extremely reasonable tax on that would increase revenue a boat load and enable congress to cut taxes fairly (i.e. for every American, including those working smarter and harder than most) across the board.

[TrippleT123]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Stimulus Payment Information


"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a
very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India .
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and
Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .

And none of it will help the American economy.



We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

we only get around 15-20% of gas from middle eastern countries!

[dude1394]

Ouch...double ouch.. With a stroke of a pen...I just borrowed 60,000 from my kids. The baby boomers are REALLY putting their mark on the country. With the on-going ponzi scheme and this robbery...they should be proud.

I was sitting here with my two older grandsons and when word came that the bill had been approved by the Senate I said, “congrats boys, you just went about $30,000 into debt tonight”. Of course that spurred an instant response - “What!?”. And then we had a nice little talk.

http://www.qando.net/wp-content/uplo...rk_sb0317d.jpg

A bill full of wasteful, unfocused spending with money we don’t have and we’ll be lectured soon about “fiscal responsibility” and “sacrifice” by the profligate yahoos that put this mess together. Can’t wait.

~McQ

[dude1394]

Holy Mackeral..this guy will say anything. My party got theirs...now let's tighten our belt.

http://deanesmay.com/2009/02/18/obam...of-the-sudden/

WSJ: Obama to Shift Focus to Deficit

With a $787 billion stimulus package in hand, President Barack Obama will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year.

He has scheduled a “fiscal-responsibility summit” on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country’s surging long-term debt crisis.

The long-term deficit is indeed a major problem, one that needs to be addressed. I’m glad to see Obama raising the issue, and I hope he follows through with real entitlement reform rather than making a lot of noise and then failing to actually pass anything, or temporarilly patching the deficit with tax increases.

But if Obama’s serious about fiscal discipline, he should have started by not asking Congress for the spendulus.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Holy Mackeral..this guy will say anything. My party got theirs...now let's tighten our belt.

http://deanesmay.com/2009/02/18/obam...of-the-sudden/

how can you be critical of any effort to reduce spending? even if you were against the stimulus package, reducing other spending programs is positive.

or maybe you merely wish to be the guy who is against anything obama does regardless....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

how can you be critical of any effort to reduce spending? even if you were against the stimulus package, reducing other spending programs is positive.

or maybe you merely wish to be the guy who is against anything obama does regardless....

Good grief mavie...can theOne say anything, anytime no matter how hypocritical and you not call him on it?

I guess I just don't understand what a hypocrite is anymore...maybe theOne by definition cannot be a hypocrite.

He's just tripled the debt and then wants to lecture us on fiscal responsibility. I sorta wish he had taken his own advice about 1trillion dollars ago.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Good grief mavie...can theOne say anything, anytime no matter how hypocritical and you not call him on it?

I guess I just don't understand what a hypocrite is anymore...maybe theOne by definition cannot be a hypocrite.

He's just tripled the debt and then wants to lecture us on fiscal responsibility. I sorta wish he had taken his own advice about 1trillion dollars ago.

it's not "hypocritical" to form a plan to try and lower federal spending.

you've made it a damned if you do, damened if you don't. if he acted nonchalant about the spending levels you'd yell about that.

criticize him if they don't come up with any cuts. criticizing obama for publically stating the need places you in the ridiculous category.