<p>Oh Mini…I love the Konka idea…but we have ONE TV already and DH says one is enough.</p>
<p>thanks, barrons, but I don’t see anything in the article that demonstrates that tax rebates stimulate the economy, particularly since the '01 rebate was quickly followed by a massive tax cut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I realize that people lie to pollsters; I, too, am of the Mike Royko philosophy. But, the data that exists do not support the tax rebates, although Mr. Poulson’s anectodal data do. hmmmmm</p>
<p>“Oh Mini…I love the Konka idea…but we have ONE TV already and DH says one is enough.”</p>
<p>Probably one too many (oh no! oops, I let that slip out, now I’ve gone and done it, Homeland Security is coming after me AGAIN, help! water! no, please, not waterb! pray for me! thump, thump, 1, UUGGHHHHHaaaaaaaaahhh.)</p>
<p>"Tune into our next scheduled presentation - “Waking Up in Uzbekhistan, Volume 3”</p>
<p>I don’t know if this stimulus package will perform as desired, but I can see that there are times when it makes sense to borrow to stimulate the economy, just as sometimes it makes sense to borrow to fund a war of national survival, or a non-recurring natural disaster, etc. The right stimulus at the right time can be the ounce of prevention which prevents or lessens the impact of a very costly recession.</p>
<p>The problem is that under the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations we’ve been borrowing in good times and bad. All of that borrowing not only is robbing Peter (i.e., our kids) to pay Paul (i.e., the wealthiest current Americans) - the cost of paying the interest is already the #3 item in the budget. This has been my big issue with those who say that as long as the annual deficit is “only” 3% of the GDP or so, that’s OK - it’s “handleable.” The accumulated weight of all that borrowing and the extra cost of borrowing for an actual emergency eventually becomes “unhandleable”, even if the current situation calls for it. </p>
<p>And here we are.</p>
<p>^ And the Dems want to add universal health care on top of it…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I’m looking for, Kluge. Research data to support that hypothesis since a ressession is both a) natural, & b) re-occuring. All economic reports seem to indicate that such stimuli are of no value.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well…we’ve been “borrowing” ever since the second kid started college. I can tell you…it hasn’t “stimulated the economy” in this household ONE BIT.</p>
<p>From Robert Reich, former Clinton Cabinet head, and now prof/lecturer at Berkeley:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?sq=Berkeley&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?sq=Berkeley&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=print</a></p>
<p>He didn’t say they did and did not say the didn’t. However combined they seemed to help perk up things. It’s mostly psychological anyway as is much of the economy. Even if you use it to pay down debt, if that makes you more likely to consume more later it has helped give you a positive psychology. People want to think the govt is doing something and that mere appearance of action can help.</p>
<p>And come on, Robert Reich? It could be raining money and if Bush were in charge Reich would say it could have rained more or it rained less in poor areas.</p>
<p>^ That’s true. If the stimulus provides a sustained economic boost, which is its intention, it will be like an investment in the economy. The government is transferring funds to the consumers that drive a larger part of the US economy. GDP could also be stimulated via the government holding onto the money and spending it itself…but that takes longer. The government is betting that the increased economic spending will lead to more tax dollars for it to spend in the future…</p>
<p>This is all how it’s supposed to work in theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm, mini, if you had watched your TV, you would have learned that our former friend in the war on terrorism Uzbekistan kicked us out for trying to interfere with its internal affairs. So, no Uzbekistan for you this time. May be some other exotic destination. ;)</p>
<p>I’m not claiming expertise here, but I think that how an economic stimulus package of this nature might be designed to work is partly psychological, on two levels. First, since it’s billed as “free” money some people might be more inclined to spend it in the way that stimulates the economy than they would with “regular” money: by buying goods and services in the local economy, which has a ripple effect as the waitress then spends her tips, etc. The second is that by “doing something” the government creates the impression that the “problem” has been “solved” which could give consumers more confidence in the economy (i.e., the continuation of their jobs) which in turn encourages spending and staves off things like hording, etc., which feed a recessionary spiral. In that sense it doesn’t matter exactly what the government does so long as it is perceived as doing something. It could be seen as a preventative measure against economic overreaction to negative economic news by the general public </p>
<p>Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. All I know is that it seems to make a lot more sense to me than running a deficit in a healthy economy does - and we’ve done that for 22 of the past 27 years.</p>
<p>^^ Don’t disagree, Kluge. But, doesn’t that same logic then conclude that borrowing money from our grandkids today for something that “maybe works” is similar to fools-gold?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Does this mean that if my AGI (couple filing jointly) is LESS than $150,000, we’ll get the full $1200? If so, I can go out for more than one pizza!!!</p>
<p>thumper, and if you have dependent kids, you might even get extra 6 $50-dollar pizza parties per kid.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, “maybe works” is a step better than “Let’s make Leona Helmsley’s dog a few million dollars richer” in my book. I think the real reason for running deficits in the three last R administrations was to “starve the beast” - the philosophy which had the dual goals of helping rich people now and keeping anyone from helping the weak and poor in the future. The intended purpose of the stimulus package is actually to help the nation as a whole. If it works, it might be worthwhile. There was no valid reason for most of the previous deficits run up in the past 30 years.</p>
<p>Bunsen…the dependent kids are over 17. BUT will we really get $1200…really?? Maybe I’ll need to rethink the pizza idea (unless maybe we get the pizza in Rome).</p>
<p>With the Euro-Dollar conversion, $1200 may be what you need for pizza in Rome. </p>
<p>Yes thumper1, that is exactly how I read the AGI limits.</p>
<p>Woohoo!!!</p>