Dwayne McDuffie

Where is the money coming from?
More a statement than a question.

The Dream

I know your question/statement was rhetorical, but it pisses me that this money is ultimately going to come from "we the people." It's another "borrow against the future" scam like Dubya has been perpetrating since he got into office. Yeah, let's give away money we don't have to try and bribe people into not paying attention to the fact that the country has been careening from a budget surplus to economic disaster in the last 7 years.

Smoke and mirrors.

Same old, same old.

PDS

Well, you know, logically, if you have a giant, resources draining, wholly unnecessary war going on (that you started) the best thing to do is give away money that you don't have so that you can pay for more of it with the Visa.

Can we put to rest the lie of Republicans as fiscally responsible. I mean, "tax and spend" at least means you're not paying for it with plastic.

I'm also irked that the Democratic majority in the House and Senate seem to be bending over backwards to make this happen too.

Isn't there ANYONE willing to ask, "So, how are we going to pay for this?"

PDS

It seems, no. But, but we've been conditioned to believe that taxes are a punishment, not the bill for services rendered. So, politically, it makes sense to be able to say, "see, I punished you less!" Even if it just screws things up.

*head-desk*

When I hear this, I'm always left wondering if the speaker doesn't understand the concept of economic stimulus or just doesn't buy into it.

There's a very reasonable argument against it (or the specifics of this plan), but it's not some short-sighted way to buy popularity, either. Of course the money comes from taxpayers, but there's a significant amount of redistribution with it that should make you lefties very happy. Further, and more to the point, if a cash infusion prevents a number of bankruptcies and foreclosures, those are businesses and individuals that can live to pay taxes another day.

The mortgage crunch was first. Those people that foreclosed are still out there recovering. A lot of them started living on credit the moment their mortgage payments surged. If a lot of that debt becomes noncollectable, as it probably will, the credit sector takes a hit and suddenly, everyone's mortgage rates go up. People can't buy the goods they once did. Business loan rates go up, too, so they charge more for goods or cut costs (meaning employees take it in the pants) . Everyone suffers and it puts a further damper on the economy. The tax revenues drop like a stone as a result.

So if you want to look at it and argue about whether the money really goes where it's needed, etc, that's fine - that's an interesting topic - but it doesn't make sense to pretend that it's just a shell game. The economic downside of inaction is much, much worse than the proposed total bill for these rebates.

Maybe you should just assume "the speaker" doesn't buy into it (or, perhaps, doesn't buy into specific instances), rather than assume that they're too dim to comprehend a fairly simple concept like economic stimulus. Just a thought.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be economic stimulus. I still see people claiming they worked. Yet we are on the verge of recession.

My broader point is that in recent years there has been a strong tendency to spend money that the country doesn't have and ignore the potential consequences.



Why does it have to be either/or? Of COURSE it's a way to buy popularity. That's what politicians live for. The cynic in me says that they figure that angle before any other.



"You lefties"? Condescend much?



Yeah, a few hundred dollars is going to make all the difference in the world to people struggling to prevent bankruptcy and foreclosure. Now pull the other one.

Actually, you probably hit the nail on the head with your "another day" stipulation. Because that's about how long it will take for these tax rebates to disappear into the black hole our economy is becoming.

PDS

Didn't Bush do the same thing when he first came into office though? I seem to remember him offering a tax rebate before, and I'm not sure how much it actually helped the economy. I'm also confused why no one is mentioning that first rebate he offered, because if it worked supporters could point and say this did work in the past. If it didn't work (which I'm guessing and I admit I could be wrong) people could point to it and say it was done before and it did not work.

Also, the next tax year that "rebate" had to be paid for. Personally I like to control what I do with my money. I guess I could just save whatever rebate I get, but what about the money in time and energy it will cost to get this measure passed.

I'm not claiming to be an economic expert by any means, it just seems like we're paying present bills with future credit.

The entire premise of your first post was that the proponents of this bill don't know where the money comes from. So, my comment fit the tone of the conversation pretty well, actually.



That's an odd argument, though. It isn't nearly so binary. There's an entire continuum of economic health and taking measures to mitigate a recession can be a good idea even if it's not a full cure.

Not that tax cuts are always the answer, either...



You're right.

That said, deficit spending does have a role at times. You can't just take it off the table.



You're right, it's not either/or. I think your cynicism is having a little too much sway, though.



I don't see "lefty" as a pejorative, any more than the term "liberal".



It's a needle-moving amount for many people. The truth is that it should probably be paid directly to small business to meet the goals, but nobody's going to go for that.

(Not that I can get involved in all the economics discussions, but...) Linguistically speaking, ending with a soft vowel sound like that diminishes the word, making it more easily dismissed. That's the reason that it's mostly female names that end like this (with a 'a', 'ie' or 'y'), and also the reason why, in a media controlled by the Right-Of-Centre, 'lefty' is a familiar term, while there is no equivalent for Right-Wing people (how often do you hear discussions about 'righty' politics?).

So, yes, 'lefty' is a perjorative. 'Liberal' isn't a perjorative in iteslf, but there has been an effort to make it so.

Look at the clip I pulled in message two. There were contradictory studies about whether the majority went towards spending or saving. That's why I was curious about how the mix would be in poll responses. If the population were reflective of this small sampling, the rebates will have minimal effectiveness as a stimulus.

Stephanie

the only thing the bush tax cuts did was delay the recession.

so in the short term it work but since no one did anything to fix the problem(s) (ie having the money to pay for the goverments spending) we are now in this mess.