chuckwoww Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Didn't daddy try this in '92? Bush calls for $145 billion economy plan By ANDREW TAYLOR and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Bush, acknowledging the risk of recession, embraced about $145 billion worth of tax relief Friday to give the sagging economy a "shot in the arm. " Bush said such a growth package must also include tax incentives for business investment and quick tax relief for individuals. And he said that to be effective, an economic stimulus package would need to roughly represent 1 percent of the gross domestic product â?? the value of all U.S. goods and services and the best measure of the country's economic standing. White House advisers say that, in current terms, 1 percent would amount to around $145 billion, which is along the lines of what private economists say should be sufficient to help give the economy a short-term boost. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/economy_stimulus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 That would be a lot of barfines and LT's for me if I got my share of the pie. :thumbup: HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted January 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 We should put you in charge of the Federal Reserve Hugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Would be nice if it does show up in my mail box, but I am not going to wait around for the mail man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 It figures BushCo would go for the stupidest move, tax cuts. That's all Republicans seem to know. Even if their own fiscal experts tell them differently. Not that I am a huge fan, but I do think Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a far sight better than Mr Bubble, Alan Greenspan. Note the following from the his congressional testimony of couple of days ago: [color:blue]A fiscal initiative at this juncture could prove quite counterproductive, if (for example) it provided economic stimulus at the wrong time or compromised fiscal discipline in the longer term....To be useful, a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible within the next twelve months or so. ....Any fiscal package should also be efficient, in the sense of maximizing the amount of near-term stimulus per dollar of increased federal expenditure or lost revenue. Finally, any program should be explicitly temporary, both to avoid unwanted stimulus beyond the near-term horizon and, importantly, to preclude an increase in the federal government's structural budget deficit.[/color] This is remarkably clear and direct, especially for those of us used to 18 years of impenetrable Greenspan-ese. Bernanke is saying, as clearly as he can, that a temporary economic downturn shouldn't be used as a cynical excuse to pass new long-term tax cuts or to make existing tax cuts permanent. Not only would that have no effect on the economy right now, but it would likely make future economic problems even more intractable. In other words, Bernanke isn't nuts: he thinks tax cuts reduce revenue and make long-term deficits worse. What's more, unlike Alan Greenspan, he has the guts to say so in plain English instead of disingenuously tap dancing around the issue and then pretending later that he had done as much as he possibly could have to endorse fiscal discipline. At least that's progress. Or was until BushCo fucked it up again . And of course I'd love to see if Mr. Bernanke can explain, in plain English, why he has so drastically increased the money supply. I don't think he has the guts to do that... Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 In other words, Bernanke isn't nuts: he thinks tax cuts reduce revenue and make long-term deficits worse. What's more, unlike Alan Greenspan, he has the guts to say so in plain English instead of disingenuously tap dancing around the issue and then pretending later that he had done as much as he possibly could have to endorse fiscal discipline. At least that's progress. Or was until BushCo fucked it up again . And of course I'd love to see if Mr. Bernanke can explain, in plain English, why he has so drastically increased the money supply. I don't think he has the guts to do that... Regards, SD Bernanke is trying to explain long term economic cycles to people with the attention span of gnats. He doesn't want to lower interest rates because he knows people will just see it as an excuse to borrow more...so he prints more money. The tax rebates will mostly go straight down to Walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Vote buying. Remember when they last did something like this and there were people on forums like this cockily bragging about banking their cheques. Same types will probably fall for it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 The tax rebates will mostly go straight down to Walmart. Just about what I was saying to my wife last night. $1600 (which some pundits predict I would receive) isn't a great deal of money to me. However, for the average Walmart shopper in my area, they would probably get a fraction of that if based upon their income tax bracket. Some of those would probably go buy some shoes, food, clothes, etc. for the family. Others on "smokes" and booze and drugs. I really don't know what I'd spend it on. Maybe a new camera body? Maybe donate it to some charity? Maybe a week-long trip over to Arizona for baseball Spring Training. But, like BKKtraveller, not waiting for the mailman. There does seem to be bi-partisan support for some kind of return to workers some of their taxes paid. Which is a good thing, as the various levels of government are as hungry for our money as any heroin addict is for their next fix. And is probably wasted at a rate of at least 30%. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 As far as I can see this is all just a way of helping out the creditors....and buying a few votes. Hard to see it stimulating the economy for more than a few days...unless the idea is to stimulate the Chinese economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 If I receive $800.00, who will pay for it? And how many people will I have to pay $800.00? Next they will be giving away free buses that only go to walmart. I went to the restaurant I normally eat breakfast at and could not sale my $800.00 check for a breakfast. I couldn't even get a cup of coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.