BF2S Forums U.S.:Great Stimulus Package is your own money?

They are still gonna make up that money in lost taxes, plus probably 200% interest.

It's easy to print money.


This stimulus will have no effect.

And if Hillary or Obama get elected, they're going to make Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge when it comes to spending. They won't do anything to help our debt situation.

The last democrat left the US economy in good shape.

They are also using I.O.U's on social security, in addition to loans from China..


When the government starts wondering why the economy is going to shit they need only look at their own example.

Reciprocity wrote:

these stimulus things have been proven pointless.  people pay off debt, that doesn't help the economy.

People will be more likely to spend it than pay off debt. It will stimulate the economy, just not ours.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And if Hillary or Obama get elected, they're going to make Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge when it comes to spending. They won't do anything to help our debt situation.

The last democrat left the US economy in good shape.

With a Legislative Branch dominated by the other party.

Checks and balances.

FEOS wrote:

Bagel_Bites wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And if Hillary or Obama get elected, they're going to make Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge when it comes to spending. They won't do anything to help our debt situation.

I disagree. They intend to end the Iraq War and that alone would offset whatever extra spending they bring to the table. The current Republican candidates love to talk about cutting spending, but have no intentions of ending the war until we can declare victory. That said, the worst case scenario would be if Obama or Hillary wins, and they DON'T end the war.

News flash: The war won't end when a Democrat gets elected. Even if they started the day after they were inaugurated, it would take the majority of their term--if not longer--to pull all the troops and equipment out. Then there's still Afghanistan and other CT ops going on worldwide.

However, if you look at the cost of their combined promises on the campaign trail, there's no decrease in spending (actually an increase even if you remove Iraq from the equation) and there's no way they could raise taxes high enough to cover it.

Ergo...more expensive. But only if they intend to keep their campaign promises.

Like anyone ever intends to keep campaign promises.

Dilbert_X wrote:

News flash: The war won't end when a Democrat gets elected. Even if they started the day after they were inaugurated, it would take the majority of their term--if not longer--to pull all the troops and equipment out.

I reckon they could be out in a year if they tried. How long did it take to get in?

The better question is how long did it take to mobilize the invasion force and the follow-on forces? De-mobilization, particularly under combat conditions, takes longer.

Dilbert_X wrote:

With a Legislative Branch dominated by the other party.

Checks and balances.

I see, so for the balanced budget under a Democratic President the US has the Republicans to thank?
I can't see how a Democrat could do any worse than Bush.

You've missed the point. The balanced budget before had checks and balances to thank. The problem with the budget under Bush was the rubber-stamp Congress.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You've missed the point. The balanced budget before had checks and balances to thank. The problem with the budget under Bush was the rubber-stamp Congress.

Was Congress not dominated by Republicans for all of Bush's first term and a large chunk of Bush's second term? It seems the Republican Party as a whole are to blame for the mess in which the US economy now lies.

Hence my "rubber stamp" comment.

It's a stupid and pointless measure. Economic stimulus my ass. "It's a bipartisan plan," yeah whatever.

Honestly it would be better if they had actually just printed the money. At least then we would have the same amount of currency devaluation (due to an increase in the money supply; which happens with debt created-money too) without the self-inflicted wounds of interest & debt. An utterly common move by the Congress and the Executive branch. Utterly moronic.

It's OK to print money you know. It's better than a Nation borrowing (pa-lease don't bring up Germany or Nazis, after WWI, you're clueless, and I am moody like usual, so I wont bother explaining why your opinion on Germany's inflation problem and solution is bullshit). The only problem with printing money ahead of work/work product is that it might NOT be tied to an actual economic stimulus program (thus actually creates wealth, increases the GDP) and well, encourages ACTUAL WORK and therefore the creation of a WORK PRODUCT!

These political dingbats simply don't care. They don't. There is no way they cannot know that the problem is deeper? No way. I have to assume they just don't fucking care. So doing something political like this instead replaces having a real plan of action. It's a variation of borrow and spend. Here they borrow and HOPE you SPEND. Their theory (hope) that this is a viable economic stimulus package will prove pointless, you'll see. It doesn't remotely address the Jobs/Industry/Economic prosperity issue. (<-- That's a big nut to crack. And, there is not a single individual on the political horizon, nor a political-party, with an actual plan).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-02-11 11:58:39)