Thursday, January 24, 2008
Economic stimulus package
President Bush and the House of Representatives proposed their economic stimulus package today. If the Senate passes it, many taxpayers will receive a tax rebate. It is quite surprising that the President and House could agree so quickly. Senator Harry Reid , however, does not seem all that impressed with the proposal. I wonder if tax rebates would actually stimulate the economy to get it out of a recession. If every taxpayer receives an extra $600, would all of them (or even the majority) spend it immediately? I would think a lot of people would have some sense and rather save or invest the money since a recession is a difficult time. If so, then the money would not be fed back into the economy and an alternate plan might be necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm thinking most people wouldn't be wise enough to save it for harder or more important times or goals. I think 2/3 of the populous will use it for buying that new tv they wanted, others, the poorer, will use it to pay bills. I'm not sure what rich people will do with it. Pocket change? Just the same, I'm interested in what we shall do as Americans.
Obviously if we received a tax rebate it would help the economy some. Think about how many people during a recession could use $600 extra dollars to spend on things they haven't been able to buy due to their financial status. It might not boost America out of the recession completely, but it could definatley stimulate the economy.
I have only one concern really. With the war in Iraq, our problems with such things as fixing New Orleans still, American/Mexican boarders, health care...Where is this $600 times America coming from?
I for one am just very, very happy to be getting some extra cash. This doesn't change the way I feel about George W. Bush. But I do forsee spending in my future.
I'm happy I'm getting some money from the government instead of the other way around. However, I too wonder where this money is coming from. Wouldn't it be smarter to give the money to only a portion of the people, the people that would actually spend it. If you give money to the rich they invest it because they can already buy everything they need. If you give it to the poor they pay bills with it, but I don't think that helps the economy. The only way the poor will help stimulate the economy is if the amount is significant enough to where they'll have money left over after they pay bills. Even then, whose to say they won't save it. The middle class is the only class that I feel is likely to stimulate the economy with this extra money. However, many I think will save it because they know a recession is on its' way. It kind of funny that we won't spend money because of a recession, but spending money can pull us out of the recession.
Stimulus to your pocket means a cut to maybe one or more of your programs.
>Where is this $600 times America coming from?
We're going to borrow the money for it.
>Wouldn't it be smarter to give the money to only a portion of the people, the people that would actually spend it.
This is what they are doing.
>The only way the poor will help stimulate the economy is if the amount is significant enough to where they'll have money left over after they pay bills. Even then, whose to say they won't save it.
Saving money does nothing to stimulate the economy and can, in fact, hurt it. Spending money helps the economy because more spending leads to more economic growth, more tax revenue, more profits, higher salaries, fewer layoffs, etc.
>Stimulus to your pocket means a cut to maybe one or more of your programs.
Probably not. It'll mean a bigger deficit and debt. Nothing will be cut because of the stimulus, although Bush has separately suggested cuts.
Mr. Q, over the years I have seen the government perpose a program or idea, all the while knowing that they would be cutting other benefical things. This only makes me think that they had to rob Peter to pay Paul. I do now know that this type of thinking is in-fact a logical fallacy way of looking at things.How do we know it's not true?
It's a simple matter of reading the text of the bill. There are no program cuts associated with it directly or indirectly. Also, there are no new revenue sources associated with it. That means we are borrowing the money to pay for it.
Were can someone find the text bill for now and the ones perposed for the future.
ALso Mr.Q, thank you for telling me how and were to edit my post. My next question is can this be done for my responses as well? If so could you please tell me how?
>Were can someone find the text bill for now and the ones perposed for the future.
You can find the text of any current bill by going to the web site of the Congress. You can't see the text of any future bill until someone actually proposes it.
>My next question is can this be done for my responses as well?
No, you can't edit old comments. You can only delete them and repost them.
Post a Comment