On February 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm, David Segal said:
Why are we just discovering now that Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative?

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton handled this country’s finances better than our beloved GW.

I couldn’t possibly disagree more. Clinton’s time in office was a huge economic boom because of what was happening in the free market. Before the Internet bubble burst, the economy was soaring. What did Clinton do? Did he lower taxes to send the economy into dizzying heights and simultaneously create an insurance of sorts against bad times? No, he did the political equivalent of a drunk on a Saturday night – he spent it. How? By imposing the largest tax increase in history And when the bubble burst, it fell upon GW to fix the recession, and he did with his tax cuts. Had Clinton not been so G*dda*n socialist/reckless with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, this country could be experiencing the kind of growth not seen since the 1950’s.

Dope. Jerk. Idiot. The are no words sufficient to describe how irresponsible Clinton was.

And now his blushing bride wants to be the President of the United States.

Call me a skeptic, but this action will have no impact on the overall economy. People spending a few hundred dollars in one shot is not going to cause businesses to go out and hire more employees, or add to their infrastructure to increase production.

I don’t think it’s really meant to stimulate job growth, Jim. It is a government handout that they will turn around and revoke with higher taxes. Except, the higher tax burden will far, far exceed anything pocketed by people with this “stimulus”.

CHINA – well what do you need the money for?

USA – well we need to trick people into thinking we are working to protect our economy and giving them money to buy your tv’s will surely make them forget about our complete failure.

I saw on drudge the other day that a state politician wanted to test elected officials for drug use…may I add psychiatric evaluations also?
I think I’ll just pay off my one cc with it…someone has to be financially responsible.

If you look at the dow. The fluxuation of three hundred points is nothing. The percentage is much smaller then it was in 87 when it dropped. This economic crisis is a manufactured problem by the MSM and the liberals. They are wanting us to believe we need this money.

Because people refused to read the smal print and inform themselves of the bad deals they got into with morgages on homes and SECOND homes. The keeping up with the jones and credit card debt. The entitlement mentality is beiung entrenched into this country and it will cause problems in the future, but right now it is not as bad as being claimed.

right_on said:

How long do you suppose it will take the liberals who supported this “gift” to America, to blame Bush for adding to the deficit?

Why shouldn’t they blame him. He’s the President of the United States of America.

He is going to sign the bill.

I’ll be the first in line to blame him. And I support him.

But I don’t support this.

On February 7th, 2008 at 11:39 pm, Jim M. said:
Call me a skeptic, but this action will have no impact on the overall economy. People spending a few hundred dollars in one shot is not going to cause businesses to go out and hire more employees, or add to their infrastructure to increase production. And given that most production occurs on foreign shores these days, the real beneficiaries will actually be China and Indonesia….

Exactly!

90% of the “rebate” recipients will go to Wal-mart to purchase a Japanese-branded HD TV, made in a Chinese factory.

My stimulus advice – buy some Asian mutual funds.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Republican leaders and President Bush have crafted a stimulus pack…

The proposed federal budget for next year is $3 trillion. A $150 billion “rebate” is about 5% of the federal budget.

Seems like it should be enough for a boost, but consider that the federal government’s budget is based on money it collects in the form of taxes and fees. And taxes are largely based on earnings. So the economy that generates the money for the federal government is several times larger than the budget itself (if the Democrats had their way it would be equal).

Assume that, after deductions, write offs and other reductions in the taxable income numbers the average tax rate for everything collected (individual, corporate, tarrifs, etc) is 25%. That would put the taxable economy at roughly $12 trillion a year. The “real” economy that included ALL income before reduction down to taxable income would probably be North of $15 trillion a year.

That means that the impact of a $150 billion rebate would be in the neighborhood of 1% (understand that these are rough back-of-the-envelope numbers that don’t account for borrowings or other sources of government revenue). I don’t know many CEO’s who will alter their corporate spending patterns for a one time 1% increase in sales.

The stimulus may have a psychological impact on consumer confidence, but will have virtually no impact on the overall economy.

Democrats said Republicans would pay a political price for their opposition. The more expensive proposal would have extended unemployment for 13 weeks for people whose benefits had run out;

Considering that unemployment rates nationally are 4.9% for January 2008, according to http://www.bls.gov/cps/, I don’t think the Republicans have to worry about too big a price.
I do think that the Dems manufactured an issue and the Republicans went along not to look bad and in the end we all pay the price.

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton handled this country’s finances better than our beloved GW.

I think we gave GW a pass because of the GWoT and he took advantage of it. It’s far easier to spend than conserve.

Disappointing.

grrrrrr