Obama's Stimulus Bill

ZeldaGirl · 02-10-2009, 11:19 PM

I'll be the first to admit, economics is not exactly my strongest suit. And especially as of late, it seems as if the issue is so convoluted that unless you are an economist, it's impossible to determine just how successful the bill will be in terms of actually stimulating the economy. Nevertheless, I wanted to ask everyone else for their thoughts/opinions/judgments on the bill - what do you think about it? What have you heard about it? What do you think is actually true? I've heard from all different sides 'oh it's good', to 'no, it's mostly pork' and the like. So, whaddya think? Can any of you help to make sense of this, or even have any comments and opinions you'd like to share on the matter?

Metal Man · 02-10-2009, 11:22 PM

It's a spending bill to revive the economy, much like those done to remove the Great Depression.

Considering doing nothing and/or ignoring it failed in the Great Depression, I'd say it'll help.

Of course, World War 2 sort of removed the lingering effects entirely. Let's hope that isn't what it takes to remove this one.

Robotazy · 02-10-2009, 11:26 PM

Actually, World War 3 will give Game Designers more ideas.

Also, people probably hate it for all the nonsensible stuff this package is being used for. Maybe.

**Valigarmander** · 02-10-2009, 11:32 PM

I didn't agree with everything in the bill, and honestly even less after the Republicans revised parts of it, but I think overall it should be able to get our economy moving in the right direction.

ZeldaGirl · 02-11-2009, 12:30 AM

^Really - what about the Republican revisions don't you like?

I ask because I think some parts of the bill are superfluous and may fall under the category of 'pork' - but last I heard, Republicans were trying to agree on things to trim down. So, I'm just curious.

t3hDarkness · 02-11-2009, 12:41 AM

So here's the deal. Its a fact that spending money won't cure the economy.

However the alternative is not spending money, everything gets worse to the point of collapsing.

Take you pick.

ZeldaGirl · 02-11-2009, 12:44 AM

Aren't we already on the verge of collapsing?

**Loot** · 02-11-2009, 01:22 AM

I say we switch currency to bottle caps.

***Cosmonautical*** · 02-11-2009, 05:34 AM

The economic crisis has more to do with world trade globalisation than the US itself. Namely, all of the industry up and moved to 3rd world areas. So while Obama's bill(if it's a bill designed to encourage spending) may succeed in its goal of encouraging spending, it's just a solution to keep the wheels turning. If spending inside the US continues to slow, it'll deepen the situation. While it's not a longterm fix, it'll at least slow down the process of collapse.

The real reason why the US was such a huge world power after WWII wasn't so much because it made that much money after war spending - it's that it's one of the only major countries from the time period whose industries weren't negatively impacted in a huge way. US industries were responsible for setting a lot of the world back up.

Now, the economic situation might not've been so bad if were weren't hit by a big energy crisis after the 90's, but the increasing cost of just about everything in the states (because of the increasing cost of our chemical dependencies) basically scared the population out of spending. Bush's economic policy was basically to ignore the downturn until it was too late, and let the next guy worry about it. Personally, if we didn't have a 2 term restriction in place for the presidency I think public officials might be more concientious of the effect their policies will have.

Remember that it was originally Republican officials who pushed to put the limit on the presidential term after F.D.R. led the country through WWII and out of the depression by keeping his presidency for nearly 4 full terms up until the day he died.

***Ace Mercury*** · 02-11-2009, 07:33 AM

Another World War wouldn't really help; one of the reasons that WWII was effective for the US was that there wasn't any way to destroy the industrial backing for the country without a full-scale invasion of the US mainland. Now that all the cool countries have long-range ballistic missiles, it sort of makes that moot.

Personally, I find the concept of macroeconomics confusing. People are treating this as some sort of natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake, when in reality the people are suffering from their own activity in a weird sort of recursive S&M session.

**Valigarmander** · 02-11-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeldaGirl

^Really - what about the Republican revisions don't you like?

I ask because I think some parts of the bill are superfluous and may fall under the category of 'pork' - but last I heard, Republicans were trying to agree on things to trim down. So, I'm just curious.

S'alright. And it's not that I'm bashing Republicans, it's just I don't like a lot of their changes. Mostly it's just things like state aid for education and certain medical aid issues. I can understand most of the party's reservations, but some things I think need to be done sooner than later.

I can't go into it much right now because I have school in ten minutes, but you get the basic idea.

ZeldaGirl · 02-11-2009, 03:38 PM

^I wasn't offended or anything, I'm not Republican.

So, I guess an agreement was finally reached and is expected to be sent to Obama. It has a lower price tag than before, but still maintains Obama's tax cut and his school construction push.

Agreement announced in race for stimulus bill - Yahoo! News

Any more thoughts?

Kil'jaeden · 02-11-2009, 05:47 PM

I have serious doubts that this will have any good effects in the long run. We don't need money dumped into the economy, we need some worthwhile jobs. They say this will help create jobs, but the money is limited, we aren't taking in any money right now, and all our industries are in decline, so whatever happens things won't change with some money until the big problems are solved.

**Crazyswordsman** · 02-11-2009, 05:57 PM

They should've cut a lot of it out. A lot of it went to unneeded stuff, such as the National Endowment for the Arts (which is at the bottom of the list).

Frankly, I would've loved a $500 billion dollar plan, with 20% going to infrastructure (50 billion to highways and 50 billion to mass transit, including high speed rail), 20% going to education, 10% going to police, 10% going to fire, 20% going to health, 10% going to the military, and 10% going to tax incentives for doing things that will make the country greener and-or create American jobs. Anything beyond that is unnecessary.

We don't need massive spending and we don't need blanket tax cuts. Both parties need to go back to basics here with this stimulus.

I'm just happy they kept the passenger railroad stuff in, although frankly there should've been more to it. Not necessarily from the highway funds or any infrastructure funds, but more rom things like National Endowment for the Arts stuff or grants to private organizations and stuff like that. You don't have to be a conservative to oppose big spending - liberals do, too - it's just that we prefer "smart government" which so far, this isn't. -CSM

Sim Kid · 02-11-2009, 10:50 PM

I really don't mean to criticize republicans at all, but can you name a better solution if the Stimulus bill is juts gonna fall flat on its face?

Really, it's not perfect...nothing is, but it's better than just sitting on your ass and letting unemployment rate falling to 80% except for bankers and politicians.

**Crazyswordsman** · 02-12-2009, 08:40 PM

36% OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IS GOING TO TRANSIT! That's better than I hoped. -CSM

Sim Kid · 02-12-2009, 10:41 PM

You seem to really love the transit funding, CSM.

Do you perhaps take the bus to and from school or around town like I do, CSM? (I'm justh oping the asswipes running our town don't kill the bus system. ._.)

**Crazyswordsman** · 02-13-2009, 06:11 AM

I take the bus to the train and commute to work that way. And the state runs the bus system. -CSM

Sim Kid · 02-13-2009, 07:31 PM

The state may run it but the idiots running my town said "Okay guys if you vote to kill the bus system, you'll have less taxes."

Except for the fact that the second you implement a bus system in the first place people are gonna start becoming dependent on it. Not to mention how many unemployed bus drivers, stranded commuters, and old people who can't afford dial-a-ride* standing on your front door hoping you get shipped off to Guam in chains.

*Dial-A-Ride out here basically requires you to be rich or in a border-line coma before you can actually use them.

Bomby · 02-13-2009, 07:33 PM

I am against a stimulus bill unless I get a check.

02-10-2009, 11:19 PM	#1
ZeldaGirl Awesome member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Why do YOU want to know...? Gender: Posts: 15,896 Thanks: 1,130 Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,046 Posts	Obama's Stimulus Bill I'll be the first to admit, economics is not exactly my strongest suit. And especially as of late, it seems as if the issue is so convoluted that unless you are an economist, it's impossible to determine just how successful the bill will be in terms of actually stimulating the economy. Nevertheless, I wanted to ask everyone else for their thoughts/opinions/judgments on the bill - what do you think about it? What have you heard about it? What do you think is actually true? I've heard from all different sides 'oh it's good', to 'no, it's mostly pork' and the like. So, whaddya think? Can any of you help to make sense of this, or even have any comments and opinions you'd like to share on the matter?

02-11-2009, 05:34 AM	#9
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	The economic crisis has more to do with world trade globalisation than the US itself. Namely, all of the industry up and moved to 3rd world areas. So while Obama's bill(if it's a bill designed to encourage spending) may succeed in its goal of encouraging spending, it's just a solution to keep the wheels turning. If spending inside the US continues to slow, it'll deepen the situation. While it's not a longterm fix, it'll at least slow down the process of collapse. The real reason why the US was such a huge world power after WWII wasn't so much because it made that much money after war spending - it's that it's one of the only major countries from the time period whose industries weren't negatively impacted in a huge way. US industries were responsible for setting a lot of the world back up. Now, the economic situation might not've been so bad if were weren't hit by a big energy crisis after the 90's, but the increasing cost of just about everything in the states (because of the increasing cost of our chemical dependencies) basically scared the population out of spending. Bush's economic policy was basically to ignore the downturn until it was too late, and let the next guy worry about it. Personally, if we didn't have a 2 term restriction in place for the presidency I think public officials might be more concientious of the effect their policies will have. Remember that it was originally Republican officials who pushed to put the limit on the presidential term after F.D.R. led the country through WWII and out of the depression by keeping his presidency for nearly 4 full terms up until the day he died. Last edited by Cosmonautical; 02-11-2009 at 05:51 AM.

02-10-2009, 11:22 PM	#2
Metal Man Fairy-Slaying Maniac Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: 1592 Miles Away From Here Gender: Posts: 18,062 Thanks: 148 Thanked 683 Times in 482 Posts	It's a spending bill to revive the economy, much like those done to remove the Great Depression. Considering doing nothing and/or ignoring it failed in the Great Depression, I'd say it'll help. Of course, World War 2 sort of removed the lingering effects entirely. Let's hope that isn't what it takes to remove this one.

02-10-2009, 11:26 PM	#3
Robotazy PRESS ANY KEY TO PANIC! Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: A Tiny Shed Gender: Posts: 16,483 Thanks: 529 Thanked 1,254 Times in 897 Posts Blog Entries: 46	Actually, World War 3 will give Game Designers more ideas. Also, people probably hate it for all the nonsensible stuff this package is being used for. Maybe.

02-10-2009, 11:32 PM	#4
Valigarmander The Bee's Knees Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The land of rain and trees (Oregon) Gender: Posts: 29,755 Thanks: 1,649 Thanked 5,700 Times in 2,580 Posts Blog Entries: 20	I didn't agree with everything in the bill, and honestly even less after the Republicans revised parts of it, but I think overall it should be able to get our economy moving in the right direction.

02-11-2009, 12:30 AM	#5
ZeldaGirl Awesome member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Why do YOU want to know...? Gender: Posts: 15,896 Thanks: 1,130 Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,046 Posts	^Really - what about the Republican revisions don't you like? I ask because I think some parts of the bill are superfluous and may fall under the category of 'pork' - but last I heard, Republicans were trying to agree on things to trim down. So, I'm just curious.

02-11-2009, 12:41 AM	#6
t3hDarkness Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: I weep oily black tears of joy. Gender: Posts: 7,590 Thanks: 119 Thanked 418 Times in 306 Posts Blog Entries: 5	So here's the deal. Its a fact that spending money won't cure the economy. However the alternative is not spending money, everything gets worse to the point of collapsing. Take you pick.

02-11-2009, 12:44 AM	#7
ZeldaGirl Awesome member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Why do YOU want to know...? Gender: Posts: 15,896 Thanks: 1,130 Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,046 Posts	Aren't we already on the verge of collapsing?

02-11-2009, 01:22 AM	#8
Loot Apparently I'm a mod? Join Date: May 2001 Location: LEGITIMATE BUSINESS Gender: Posts: 13,208 Thanks: 236 Thanked 1,237 Times in 659 Posts	I say we switch currency to bottle caps.

02-11-2009, 07:33 AM	#10
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 23,275 Thanks: 568 Thanked 3,297 Times in 1,582 Posts Blog Entries: 1	Another World War wouldn't really help; one of the reasons that WWII was effective for the US was that there wasn't any way to destroy the industrial backing for the country without a full-scale invasion of the US mainland. Now that all the cool countries have long-range ballistic missiles, it sort of makes that moot. Personally, I find the concept of macroeconomics confusing. People are treating this as some sort of natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake, when in reality the people are suffering from their own activity in a weird sort of recursive S&M session.

02-11-2009, 03:38 PM	#12
ZeldaGirl Awesome member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Why do YOU want to know...? Gender: Posts: 15,896 Thanks: 1,130 Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,046 Posts	^I wasn't offended or anything, I'm not Republican. So, I guess an agreement was finally reached and is expected to be sent to Obama. It has a lower price tag than before, but still maintains Obama's tax cut and his school construction push. Agreement announced in race for stimulus bill - Yahoo! News Any more thoughts?

02-11-2009, 05:47 PM	#13
Kil'jaeden Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: in your mind Gender: Posts: 2,132 Thanks: 21 Thanked 146 Times in 99 Posts	I have serious doubts that this will have any good effects in the long run. We don't need money dumped into the economy, we need some worthwhile jobs. They say this will help create jobs, but the money is limited, we aren't taking in any money right now, and all our industries are in decline, so whatever happens things won't change with some money until the big problems are solved.

02-11-2009, 05:57 PM	#14
Crazyswordsman This key doesn't work. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 10,791 Thanks: 1,019 Thanked 686 Times in 467 Posts	They should've cut a lot of it out. A lot of it went to unneeded stuff, such as the National Endowment for the Arts (which is at the bottom of the list). Frankly, I would've loved a $500 billion dollar plan, with 20% going to infrastructure (50 billion to highways and 50 billion to mass transit, including high speed rail), 20% going to education, 10% going to police, 10% going to fire, 20% going to health, 10% going to the military, and 10% going to tax incentives for doing things that will make the country greener and-or create American jobs. Anything beyond that is unnecessary. We don't need massive spending and we don't need blanket tax cuts. Both parties need to go back to basics here with this stimulus. I'm just happy they kept the passenger railroad stuff in, although frankly there should've been more to it. Not necessarily from the highway funds or any infrastructure funds, but more rom things like National Endowment for the Arts stuff or grants to private organizations and stuff like that. You don't have to be a conservative to oppose big spending - liberals do, too - it's just that we prefer "smart government" which so far, this isn't. -CSM

02-11-2009, 10:50 PM	#15
Sim Kid Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: The state of Denial Gender: Posts: 8,884 Thanks: 80 Thanked 198 Times in 122 Posts	I really don't mean to criticize republicans at all, but can you name a better solution if the Stimulus bill is juts gonna fall flat on its face? Really, it's not perfect...nothing is, but it's better than just sitting on your ass and letting unemployment rate falling to 80% except for bankers and politicians.

02-12-2009, 08:40 PM	#16
Crazyswordsman This key doesn't work. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 10,791 Thanks: 1,019 Thanked 686 Times in 467 Posts	36% OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IS GOING TO TRANSIT! That's better than I hoped. -CSM

02-12-2009, 10:41 PM	#17
Sim Kid Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: The state of Denial Gender: Posts: 8,884 Thanks: 80 Thanked 198 Times in 122 Posts	You seem to really love the transit funding, CSM. Do you perhaps take the bus to and from school or around town like I do, CSM? (I'm justh oping the asswipes running our town don't kill the bus system. ._.)

02-13-2009, 06:11 AM	#18
Crazyswordsman This key doesn't work. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 10,791 Thanks: 1,019 Thanked 686 Times in 467 Posts	I take the bus to the train and commute to work that way. And the state runs the bus system. -CSM

02-13-2009, 07:31 PM	#19
Sim Kid Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: The state of Denial Gender: Posts: 8,884 Thanks: 80 Thanked 198 Times in 122 Posts	The state may run it but the idiots running my town said "Okay guys if you vote to kill the bus system, you'll have less taxes." Except for the fact that the second you implement a bus system in the first place people are gonna start becoming dependent on it. Not to mention how many unemployed bus drivers, stranded commuters, and old people who can't afford dial-a-ride* standing on your front door hoping you get shipped off to Guam in chains. *Dial-A-Ride out here basically requires you to be rich or in a border-line coma before you can actually use them.

02-13-2009, 07:33 PM	#20
Bomby You just freaking blew Joe Biden's mind! Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: WHAT?house Gender: Posts: 19,491 Thanks: 513 Thanked 1,449 Times in 849 Posts Blog Entries: 5	I am against a stimulus bill unless I get a check.