Jump to content
kerpen

Will the federal stimulus bill make things better or worse?

Will the federal stimulus make things better or worse?  

456 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the federal stimulus make things better or worse?

    • Better
      257
    • Worse
      200


Recommended Posts

Yes. Bailout has issues. How severe? Your guess is as good as that of a nobel prize economist. We are in uncharted territory of ridiculous government bailouts... the New Deal was nothing compared to this..........

 

Ankur, this is silly. Obviously, this isn't just the great depression all over again, I'll give you that. But I think it is silly to say all our guesses are the same. There are guesses based on something factual, and other guesses based on absurdities.

 

And while this isn't the great depression, we can often look towards that era to understand the effects of macroeconomics. To wit, let's look at Dean Baker's recent response to a claim that the New Deal made things worse:

 

"While the basic argument has the form of a no evidence counter-factual assertion (e.g. the good fairy of the market would have set things right, if only Roosevelt didn't get in the way), the discussion is contradicted by the known facts of the era. Roosevelt's New Deal Agenda lowered the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1933 to 10 percent in 1937. None of us would be happy with 10 percent unemployment, but it is difficult to complain about policies that reduced the unemployment rate by an average of almost 4 percentage points a year. The annual growth rate over these four years averaged 13.0 percent. It is always possible that the magic of the market would have done better, but there is no reason that we should believe so.

 

Schlaes is correct in pointing out that things turned bad again in 1937. The Blue Dogs of the Roosevelt era won sway and got Roosevelt to cut spending and raise taxes. This threw the economy back into a serious recession, just as any good Keynesian would have predicted."

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=02&year=2009&base_name=the_washington_post_prints_mor

 

We have to stop the tide of unemployment, or things will get worse, and worse exponentially quicker. Then we will be talking seriously about a second Great Depression. My fear would be that the stimulus will not do enough (spend enough) to reduce unemployment rates by a high enough rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes, it was an exaggeration... my point was only to suggest that no one *really* knows what is going on. We literally ARE in uncharted territory. Its not just lending which is drying up in the well, its the fact that Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme has a return of -100% while the government's return on the bailouts is greater (or lesser?) than -1000%, and still climbing (or falling?). So many government actions are incredibly short sighted and in the impetus of "doing something" to appease the citizens, the government we elected is leveraging our future for the present. There are, of course, ways around this without leveraging our future...

 

I dont think the new deal was so terrible... and I do think remedial steps need to be made to prevent unemployment from reaching double digits. But the remedial steps need to be a different variety... such are reversing stem cell research policies, expanding on grant budgets doled out by the NIH, etc. Granted, its not an immediate impact on the growing problem, but its a policy that doesnt trade our future for the present. I think letting some banks fail and get hacked up by regulators is a very good thing, both economically and for consumers.

 

I think that the banks are still suffering from excesses. Executive pay is absurd. Even their bonus structure is patently silly. I find it incredibly ironic that the same industry which suggests detroit autoworkers to take an across the board pay cut to save their jobs would neverdo the same for themselves... and to do so with tax payer money is even more absurd.

 

But I also dont think that 5% unemployment is such a terrible thing.... because economically speaking, its actually somewhat desirable. Granted we are at 7% now, and its sure to creep towards double digits, but the idea that low unemployment is desirable is actually economically silly.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to respond in more detail to your post later (particularly on the issue of unemployment) but I wanted to point out something rather obvious but significant: the bailout and the stimulus plans are different things.

 

I know you are going to post that obviously you know that (indeed, it's a point so obvious one almost feels they shouldn't bring it up) but then I challenge you to reread your last post. The conflation of some rather obvious and very understandable anger at the bailout with the stimulus plan occurs throughout your post. Indeed, most of your examples and most of the objects of your attacks are the examples and objects of the bailout, not the stimulus. I'll get to the rest later, but arguing that TARP is stupid is different from arguing that the stimulus is stupid, and conflating the two will end up to creating a stupid conversation at the end.

 

PS, my real economic plan is this one here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/an-alternative-economic-strategy/ I'm not with Krugman, I'm with his wife. And if you doubt this strategy, just read your Georges Bataille. (I'll leave it up to all of you to decide how sincere I am).

Edited by TheScuSpeaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS, my real economic plan is this one here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/an-alternative-economic-strategy/ I'm not with Krugman, I'm with his wife. And if you doubt this strategy, just read your Georges Bataille. (I'll leave it up to all of you to decide how sincere I am).
How very Stalinist of you :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my previous post early in the thread, I clearly illustrate that the objective of the stimulus bill is to provide an 'economic feeder system' to get money back to the banks. Giving money to citizens gives them a 'choice' in the manner in which they spend it.

 

For consumers who are not so poorly off:

they may choose to hold onto it (thus not contributing to the economy), spend it (and marginally impact the economy) or invest it (and who knows what it does in this investment market, speaking broadly).

For the consumers who are not faring well:

they will choose to hold onto it (thus not contributing to the economy) or spend it on paying down debt to save the house, car, etc (thus giving it right back to the banks). They arent planning on spending it on a new vacation or new clothes!

 

Because the stimulus package is targeted at the lower income citizens, the functional choice is to either have no impact on the consumer economy or send it right back to the banks and delude Wall Street into thinking that consumer debt is down while federal debt skyrockets.

 

Analysts love to point out weak consumer spending as a problem.The problem with the American economic system is not that consumer spending has gone down. The problem is that for the last two or three decades, we have been 'consumer spending' on a credit card, building up balances that most citizens have no hope of paying back. The average credit card debt alone has gone up by 3K per household in the past five to eight years. During the 'good times' debt is going up!!! And foolishly, credit card companies (like Bank of America) kept increasing credit limits. The same people who dont build up a cash reserve for a three to six month 'emergency fund' (i.e. in case of health problem, unemployment, etc) are off buying a big screen TV on their credit card! I feel no sorrow for such individuals.

 

The reality is that it would take a sum much, much greater than the $500-$1000 tax rebates to get the consumers out of the hole that most of them dug for themselves.

 

Really wish you had been convinced by Guy Risko and the rest of the Binghamton squad to come down to Pennsbury. We would have had a helluva lot more fun with this in person....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really wish you had been convinced by Guy Risko and the rest of the Binghamton squad to come down to Pennsbury. We would have had a helluva lot more fun with this in person....

 

Guy's good people, and I was happy to hear that my squad was going to judge a HS tournament, but I didn't hear a thing about it until last thursday, and by then I had already made plans for that weekend I couldn't break. I was actually kinda bummed I missed out going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully you dont go too far such that you cant make it next year? Would be a terrible shame us being so close proximally and never having met despite being two of the actual old timers.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one really knows how it will turn out, but that might be because the bill was over 1000 pages long, and no one has read it in full. That's a lot of pork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pork will not be the reason the bill fails the long term.

i fully expect by the end of the obama administration, that the federal foreign debt will far in excess of GDP. its very frustrating to know that ten cents of every tax dollar you pay is going overseas to other countries who are financing our spending spree. and after obama, it will be more like 15 cents... or maybe more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur, while I will never claim to be as brilliant an economic analyst as you or Kerpen, there are some fundamental things wrong with your critique of the stimulus. First, you seem to be an advocate of things that will benefit YOU. Stem cell research, NIH grants, regional transportation. I am not saying those are bad things, but why are they any better than more tax breaks for green energy companies or investments in school construction?

 

Secondly, this idea that giving money back to people is a bad thing if they decide to save the money or pay down debt is ridiculous. Let's say they save the money... doesn't that increase our savings rate, which has us in this situation in the first place? Too much debt? Too little savings? That money doesn't just sit under the mattress usually. That money gets put into banks, which in turn are supposed to lend it out to businesses and help jump start the economy. Have they done this? Of course not. But more on that later.

If people pay down their mortgages or credit card debt or student loans, that is also a good thing, right? Less debt. Fewer banks in trouble. Less need to bail them out in the future, right?

 

Third, I agree on the foreign debt. But Obama has a plan to reduce that debt. Do I think he can do it in 8 years? Not on your life. but he is at least paying lip service to it and has a better chance of doing so than his GOP predecessor. I think it's funny that the last two "tax and spend" liberals in the White House have been the ones to actually implement some sort of deficit reduction plan, while their more fiscally conservative counterparts have been responsible for balloning the deficit (and the debt) to record levels.

 

Fourth, I don't know why you are laying this at Obama's feet. Where were you when GW started that idiotic war and LIED about the amounts being spent. How in the world do you NOT include the cost of the wars into the federal budgets? How do you not? Especially if you are supposed to be a fiscal manager who demands responsibility and accountability? How do you cut taxes for the wealthy while you are writing even larger checks for a war that is making those same corporations even richer?

 

Fifth, at least Obama isn't telling people to take this stimulus and go out and buy a big screen TV as did GW. Obama is telling people to pay their rent and buy their children some milk.

 

Seventh, do I like the fact that corporations are getting bailed out? No. But we all know that barring the bailout, these corporations will simply lay off people, plunging us even deeper into economic decline.

 

Eighth, why do you think it is OK to have 5 percent unemployment? That's absolutely ridiculous. Sure, it makes it so that corporations can get labor cheaply. But why should labor be cheap? So goods are cheap? So we can consume more? No. There should be a job for every person who wants one. Maybe their jobs don't produce anything for sale, but they should have work of some sort. The very fact that you and anyone else believes five percent of the US working age population should be without a job is the reason we are in this mess in the first place. Greed and a typical capitalist view of people as commodities. And its particularly galling that the same people who want there to be 5 percent unemployment don't want unemployment insurance or any government assistance, even when it is GOVERNMETAL POLICY FOR THEM TO BE OUT OF WORK!

 

Ninth, the ultimate reason the USFG can borrow money to give our economy (and the world's) time to recover is that honestly... who is going to call in that note? Seriously? If let's say China calls in what's due and the US can't pay, what's China going to do? Invade? Right. The US will pay it back when the economy rebounds. That's what the USFG can do. Is it the best way to handle things? No. But I don't think that we need to punish the little guy when the problem was caused by the people who can financially survive these downturns. The banks get the bailout funds and instead of loosening up credit, they tighten even further. Instead of ensuring the viability of their institutions and the safety of their customers' money, they go on excursions to vegas. That was a failure of government that i doubt Obama makes.

 

Finally, in a perfect world, everyone would pay their share of taxes, we'd stop the earmarks and silly military spending. We'd invest in schools and health care so that we have an educated and healthy workforce capable of great things. If we can kick start the economy, we can pay back the debat and lower taxes. If we don't, then there is a long world of hurt coming our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, you seem to be an advocate of things that will benefit YOU. Stem cell research, NIH grants, regional transportation. I am not saying those are bad things, but why are they any better than more tax breaks for green energy companies or investments in school construction?

 

Absolutely not. I just list things I am familiar with. You will never find ANYONE more in favor of investments in schooling. By the time I am done my current degree program, I will have been in college for twenty years. And I might still have an MBA to go... I am all for upgrading some of our infrastructure, increasing funding for police departments, aerospace development (duane hyland will like this), paying teachers more and investing in protecting our natural resources.

That being said, I am of the opinion that R&D is the one thing which the US can use to its advantage in the coming century. I think it is absolutely critical that we increase our investment in R&D and draw research away from other nations. How about a new tax policy offering corporations deductions on taxable income for r&d expenditures, with emphasis on doubling the allowances for the 'importation' of research. Its not as if corporations pay that much tax to begin with, but think of the far reaching implications of drawing research into the US!

 

 

Secondly, this idea that giving money back to people is a bad thing if they decide to save the money or pay down debt is ridiculous. Let's say they save the money... doesn't that increase our savings rate, which has us in this situation in the first place? Too much debt? Too little savings? That money doesn't just sit under the mattress usually. That money gets put into banks, which in turn are supposed to lend it out to businesses and help jump start the economy. Have they done this? Of course not. But more on that later.

If people pay down their mortgages or credit card debt or student loans, that is also a good thing, right? Less debt. Fewer banks in trouble. Less need to bail them out in the future, right?

 

To quote (most likely improperly) a classic movie: A little revolution now and then is a good thing, no? The only way to cause real, meaningful change in the way business is conducted is to let banks fail. Not even 1 year removed from gas prices which caused heartburn for Detroit, and stagnated the entire economy through inflation, gasoline demand is increasing again and sales of fuel efficient vehicles are down.

Just because banks have money doesnt mean that they want to lend it (case in point the first round of bank bailouts which didnt increase lending a lick). Just because the people may increase saving doesnt mean that the nation increased its savings rate because we are borrowing to save, especially when it means that it wont add to the bottom line (in terms of growth) and it will require increased taxes in the future (across the board) which will ultimately cut long term savings and erode the value of everyone's net worth.

 

 

Third, I agree on the foreign debt. But Obama has a plan to reduce that debt. Do I think he can do it in 8 years? Not on your life. but he is at least paying lip service to it and has a better chance of doing so than his GOP predecessor. I think it's funny that the last two "tax and spend" liberals in the White House have been the ones to actually implement some sort of deficit reduction plan, while their more fiscally conservative counterparts have been responsible for balloning the deficit (and the debt) to record levels.

Agreed. I dont think its Obama's fault that we are stuck in this position. I am always of the opinion that in good times, you raise taxes to put the brakes on growth/inflation and pay down debt so that in bad times, you have the ability to borrow and spend to stimulate the economy and provide the right economic incentives to drive the economy towards econo-socio-political goals (such as sustainable energy infrastructure, infrastructure for public mass transit, etc). Dont you think it would be great if we could spend 200 billion dollars on funding public transportation initiatives right now? Too bad we cant afford the price tag at the moment....

 

Fourth, I don't know why you are laying this at Obama's feet. Where were you when GW started that idiotic war and LIED about the amounts being spent. How in the world do you NOT include the cost of the wars into the federal budgets? How do you not? Especially if you are supposed to be a fiscal manager who demands responsibility and accountability? How do you cut taxes for the wealthy while you are writing even larger checks for a war that is making those same corporations even richer?

 

I am not laying it on Obama. I am blaming Obama for not doing enough up front to rein in spending. Right now, his philosophy is spend spend spend and we'll fix it soon... but those tough cuts are political dynamite later. They always are. I was always criticizing the war in Iraq. I didnt criticize the war in Afghanistan because I think had all our efforts been focused in Afghanistan, we would have been able to deal a severe blow to Islamic facism and splintered the Iranian regime.

 

Fifth, at least Obama isn't telling people to take this stimulus and go out and buy a big screen TV as did GW. Obama is telling people to pay their rent and buy their children some milk.

 

Right, but at the same time, most consumers arent having a hard time paying their rent and buying milk. The problem isnt consumers not being able to get by... the problem is that our economy isnt moving in the right direction... and the right direction being sound economic policy and responsible growth.

 

Seventh, do I like the fact that corporations are getting bailed out? No. But we all know that barring the bailout, these corporations will simply lay off people, plunging us even deeper into economic decline.

 

See point on the right tax structure. Or maybe tax incentives for R&D... or something better. Saving failing banks is not the idea of 'keeping jobs in America'...

 

Eighth, why do you think it is OK to have 5 percent unemployment? That's absolutely ridiculous. Sure, it makes it so that corporations can get labor cheaply. But why should labor be cheap? So goods are cheap? So we can consume more? No. There should be a job for every person who wants one. Maybe their jobs don't produce anything for sale, but they should have work of some sort. The very fact that you and anyone else believes five percent of the US working age population should be without a job is the reason we are in this mess in the first place. Greed and a typical capitalist view of people as commodities. And its particularly galling that the same people who want there to be 5 percent unemployment don't want unemployment insurance or any government assistance, even when it is GOVERNMETAL POLICY FOR THEM TO BE OUT OF WORK!

 

If you have full employment, you have unlimited inflation which will ultimately erode the position of the worker. Full employment = worst situation for workers AND companies. And for your information, I am someone who thinks 5% unemployment is perfectly normal AND that the government SHOULD provide unemployment insurance (for a specified period of time) and other assistance. The thing you fail to realize is that approximately FIFTY MILLION people change jobs every year. So the labor situation is always in flux... people are making financial moves which are best for themselves in the labor market. The number you should be looking at is the average time an unemployed person is looking for a job - not the unemployment number in a vacuum. What is bad is having 10% unemployment with a 6+ month average job search time. Even in the previous shallow recession, the average job search time was about 3 months, which is really short if you think about it.

In most industries involving skilled work, at the minimum, the average time it takes to hire an employee is about 2 months. Figure you post a job, get applicants in 2 weeks, interview over the next 2 or 3, and spend a month in negotiations, pre job screening, drug testing etc before your new employee starts the new job. So a 3 month wait time isnt bad... but a 6+ month wait time is lengthy. If you have 50 million job changes and it takes a month or two to start a job, then its perfectly understandable that at any given point in time, you have about 3-5% of citizens as 'unemployed' because unemployed is defined as people of working age/ability and currently actively searching for work.

 

Ninth, the ultimate reason the USFG can borrow money to give our economy (and the world's) time to recover is that honestly... who is going to call in that note? Seriously? If let's say China calls in what's due and the US can't pay, what's China going to do? Invade? Right. The US will pay it back when the economy rebounds. That's what the USFG can do. Is it the best way to handle things? No. But I don't think that we need to punish the little guy when the problem was caused by the people who can financially survive these downturns. The banks get the bailout funds and instead of loosening up credit, they tighten even further. Instead of ensuring the viability of their institutions and the safety of their customers' money, they go on excursions to vegas. That was a failure of government that i doubt Obama makes.

 

No. China can say no to letting us borrow more from them. That will tank the dollar overnight. And you're not getting the dangers here. The total foreign debt is approaching GDP. Total debt is on the order of four times GDP. When interest payments get so absurdly high, then you have no choice but to cut out government's ability to provide essential functions for its citizens.

And FYI, the vegas trip was planned way in advance, and it would have cost as much to cancel as it did to attend. At that point, there is no reason to cancel.

 

Finally, in a perfect world, everyone would pay their share of taxes, we'd stop the earmarks and silly military spending. We'd invest in schools and health care so that we have an educated and healthy workforce capable of great things. If we can kick start the economy, we can pay back the debat and lower taxes. If we don't, then there is a long world of hurt coming our way.

 

If we borrow trillions of dollars to do it, there is a possibility of killing the economy for a decade or more while the dollar crashes and the purchasing power is horrible, resulting in massive inflation and workers suffer more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do most people do when they are in debt? The cut down on spending. Or they practice "fiscal responsibility." Obama is spending wildly, hoping that what he's doing will work. My generation will be the one dealing with the debt he's accumulating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do most people do when they are in debt? The cut down on spending. Or they practice "fiscal responsibility." Obama is spending wildly, hoping that what he's doing will work. My generation will be the one dealing with the debt he's accumulating.

 

 

 

Well this is - surprisingly - a point of strong consideration for the federal government. The spending that you advocate should be cut is in some very very controversial areas of American life: health care/ SS and federal pension/ highly supported public groups/ education etc. It could be the case the in the long run the costs associated with maintaining these respective areas as they are in the status quo will only increase ceteris peribus (all things the same...sorry i just felt the need use this effectively).

 

 

Additionally, your generation will be paying debts accumulated from more than just the Obama administration (I think we know who im alluding to). The entire US financial landscape will be one held together by chinese and european rubber bands and sticky tape. The question for this current administraiton now is: what to keep? Which is not always an easy question to answer considering that Americans are a very spoiled bunch - hence our trends in federal taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this is - surprisingly - a point of strong consideration for the federal government. The spending that you advocate should be cut is in some very very controversial areas of American life: health care/ SS and federal pension/ highly supported public groups/ education etc. It could be the case the in the long run the costs associated with maintaining these respective areas as they are in the status quo will only increase ceteris peribus (all things the same...sorry i just felt the need use this effectively).

 

 

Additionally, your generation will be paying debts accumulated from more than just the Obama administration (I think we know who im alluding to). The entire US financial landscape will be one held together by chinese and european rubber bands and sticky tape. The question for this current administraiton now is: what to keep? Which is not always an easy question to answer considering that Americans are a very spoiled bunch - hence our trends in federal taxation.

 

 

Ummm, Obama's deficits are going to make Bush's deficits look like a picnic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a picnic in iraq.

 

Do you pickle your Red Herring, or just make them into anchovies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, Obama's deficits are going to make Bush's deficits look like a picnic.

 

 

 

Yea once again this is nothing that is news Ankur. O really? Picking up the shattered pieces of decimated consumer confidence, billions in debt to foreign nations, a recalcitrant overseas military effort and lack of formidable budget management/planning are going creat more deficits that we havent seen in this country in almost eight decades? *gasp*

 

Moreover, there is no amount of US hardpower that couldve thwarted the violence created on the Afghani border without at least minor intervention in Iraq, especially considering that the Iraqi govt was guilty of escalating violence along its own borders.

 

I have to make this last edit just to let you know how I feel about your ability to give economic analysis. Though I agree with you in certain areas I feel like youre missing the big picture. No part of this economy is getting better by being overly conservative with government spending, and you concede this to a degree. Is it really that we should encourage the funding of bipartisan research efforts in health/medicine, or post secondary education? If the answer is yes then the same "growth" you speak of comes at a cost, and that cost is efficiency which you seem to ignore in the majority of your analysis. Efficiency does not always entail growth and vice versa and if this economy is going to rebound particularly in the area of employment, efficiency does not in any way entail employing 95% of the labor force at a $6 + minimum wage.

Edited by Elegant Universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you miss MY big picture. Obama has not cared to cut pork, and has not cared to cut out programs which are simply NOT needed. If he was doing that while increasing deficits, I can say "ok, he is trying to target problems while not losing sight of the massive debt problem". But he isnt. He is just spending away willy nilly like there will be no knock on the door later by a creditor.

 

I am for a lot of government programs, but not as long as we are paying for $30 hammers and $90 toilet seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you pickle your Red Herring, or just make them into anchovies?

 

i feel like history should note things thusly:

 

Bush deficit*

Obama deficit**

 

 

* Paid for Iraq and tax cuts for billionaires, bailout financial institutions with no equity returned

** Put down payments on education, health care, infrastructure, bail out financial institutions with no equity returned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any down payment on healthcare which doesnt focus on the massive shortage of healthcare workers is guaranteed to fail. Flushing money down the toilet in the name of a good cause doesnt mean its money well spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stim package =/= Bailout

 

Stimulus package is a fancy term for turning citizens into intermediaries between government and industry. In this economic climate, most everyone will take their stimulus and use it (as opposed to saving it), often on paying down the debt they are accumulating (i.e. paying the banks who caused such a mess). This does several things - a) convinces people that the balance sheets for banks are improving and B) fools people into thinking that the government isnt bailing out banks by borrowing our future.

 

 

As I said before.... from today's front pages:

 

 

WASHINGTON – Most people say they plan to use this year's tax refund to pay bills, deciding in this sour economy to be more frugal with their annual windfall.

 

Fifty-four percent of those receiving refunds said they intend to pay off credit card, utility, housing and other bills, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Monday. That compares with 35 percent who said the same thing a year ago.

 

Only 5 percent, about the same as a year ago, said they planned to go on a shopping spree.

 

.....

The poll found that those making less than $50,000 a year were much more likely to use their tax refunds to pay bills or buy everyday items than those making more. People making more than $100,000 a year were more likely to use their refunds to go on a vacation.

 

Among the poll's other findings:

 

• 31 percent of those receiving refunds said they will use at least part of the money to pay credit card bills, compared with 17 percent a year ago.

 

• 19 percent said they will use their refunds to pay utility bills, compared with 10 percent a year ago.

 

• 17 percent said they will use their refunds for rent or mortgage payments, compared with 7 percent a year ago.

 

• 11 percent of those receiving refunds said they would use them to go on vacation, a slight increase from a year ago.

 

• 5 percent said they planned to use their refund for a down payment on a car, also a slight increase.

 

• 4 percent said they would use their refunds to buy stocks or bonds, about the same as a year ago.

 

• 8 percent of those who owe taxes said they were very likely or somewhat likely to use a credit card to pay their tax bill.

 

The AP-GfK poll was conducted April 3-7 and involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,002 randomly chosen adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the entire sample. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for those who have already received or expect to receive a tax refund from their 2008 taxes.

 

 

 

Its about empiric at this point that a stimulus does little to nothing to 'stimulate' the economy. Its just a feeder system of 'free market' redistribution of dollars from government to the failing credit industries. Its a politically viable solution to the problems caused by government directly giving an additional 500 billion or so to banks.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do no agree with the stimulus bill it's way to expensive. but i do agree with the idea of the stimulus. I agree with the fact that we are actually doing something . That our vote isn't disregarded in the poll. The whole idea behind the economic stimulus bill is that it helps us in the long run or near future. and we can all see that doing nothing has not helped the economy in any way. I do agree that it was to much money and it will lead to higher taxes. but it's start to something that will acually help us.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...