Trillion$ For Years To Come

[UNTflyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama says the nation probably faces huge deficits for years to come, but heavy spending is needed now to spur the economy. Obama said Tuesday the deficit appears on track to hit $1 trillion soon. Speaking to reporters after meeting with top economic aides, Obama said: "Potentially we've got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on."

He wants Congress to approve a stimulus plan of about $775 billion.

The federal deficit was about $455 billion when the last fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, 2008.

[meangreendork]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama says the nation probably faces huge deficits for years to come, but heavy spending is needed now to spur the economy. Obama said Tuesday the deficit appears on track to hit $1 trillion soon. Speaking to reporters after meeting with top economic aides, Obama said: "Potentially we've got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on."

He wants Congress to approve a stimulus plan of about $775 billion.

The federal deficit was about $455 billion when the last fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, 2008.

That spending needs to be watched so it doesn't go to pad exec pocketbooks and so it actually does go to stimulating the economy.

[MDH]

Well, I hope that the federal money from this point on has more oversight. The things the banks are doing with the TARP money is nothing short of criminal.

[UNTFan23]

That spending needs to be watched so it doesn't go to pad exec pocketbooks and so it actually does go to stimulating the economy.

I'd be more worried about earmarks for pet projects.

[MDH]

I'd be more worried about earmarks for pet projects.

Billions going to banks to help liquidity but only to be used by the banks for investment purposes is wrong. Bank of America spending $7 Billion of TARP money on Chinese bank stock??? Every bank I hear about making investments with the money I'm making a mental note of to never do business with.

[DeepGreen]

Anything the federal government has their hands in is criminal.

[Coffee and TV]

Anything the federal government has their hands in is criminal.

The military?

[Censored by Laurie]

The military?

As a card carrying member of the Republic of Texas Militia...I bet he'd say yes.

[GreenMachine]

The military?

I was in the military and that's not only a yes but a HELL yes!

[UNTflyer]

When I was in high school, my parents both worked for Grumman. I once saw an itemized breakdown of the manufacturing cost of an F-14. One of the things I remember is that Grumman charged the federal government $40 per rivet. A tire was something like $7900. The pilot seat was in the neighborhood of the cost of my current house.

[Baby Arm!]

I got an idea! Instead of the government taking in all this money (taxes) just to hand it out to banks, companies and manufacturing... Why don't the just tell us to keep our money, and distribute it ourselves by patronizing these or any companies we deem deserve our money!

I know, I know, it will never work. Sounds too much like free enterprise, capitalism, and a bunch of other bad words.

[greenminer]

Tax the BCS.

[Cerebus]

I hope every one realizes that high prices don't cause inflation, inflation causes high prices.

Inflation refers to an increase in our fiat money supply. Each of those new dollars devalues the others, so they are worth less, and things cost more in that currency.

They government is about to create a TIDAL WAVE of new dollars. Prepare for the price of everything to rise.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Prepare for the price of everything to rise.

Freedom ain't free.

[meangreendork]

I got an idea! Instead of the government taking in all this money (taxes) just to hand it out to banks, companies and manufacturing... Why don't the just tell us to keep our money, and distribute it ourselves by patronizing these or any companies we deem deserve our money!

I know, I know, it will never work. Sounds too much like free enterprise, capitalism, and a bunch of other bad words.

Hey that works. Take $750 billion and write out an equally shared check to every American taxpayer. Let's see what happens with that. Man, I bet that'd be awesome.

I did the math:

The current US population is about 305,620,000. If you divide up the $750billion for each person that's an American citizen (not even taking into account that many of these are children, or otherwise non-taxpaying individuals), that's like $2500 per person. I'd take that $2500 and probably turn part of that into a CD or something relatively safe. Take the rest, save it up, and then spend it on a car later on.

That $2500 is probably more than that if the $750b is split to taxpayers only.

[UNTflyer]

Hey that works. Take $750 billion and write out an equally shared check to every American taxpayer. Let's see what happens with that. Man, I bet that'd be awesome.

I did the math:

The current US population is about 305,620,000. If you divide up the $750billion for each person that's an American citizen (not even taking into account that many of these are children, or otherwise non-taxpaying individuals), that's like $2500 per person. I'd take that $2500 and probably turn part of that into a CD or something relatively safe. Take the rest, save it up, and then spend it on a car later on.

That $2500 is probably more than that if the $750b is split to taxpayers only.

And if you were to allocate that money proportionally to tax payers, the rich would get 90% of it... those damn rich people! Always getting tax breaks and investing and creating jobs... it's so unfair! Where's my government cheese?!

[meangreendork]

And if you were to allocate that money proportionally to tax payers, the rich would get 90% of it... those damn rich people! Always getting tax breaks and investing and creating jobs... it's so unfair! Where's my government cheese?!

It beats having it handed out to random banks. This'd actually bring the sort of recovery as opposed to where the bailouts are going now. On the other hand, the money from this fictional taxpayer bailout may just end up being spent on vacations, big ticket purchases, and other things that don't involve serious finance. Either way, better that it goes to the taxpayer.

[Censored by Laurie]

The AP tried to do a study to find out where the bank bailout money went...the most recent result I've heard is that the banks are basically refusing to answer. Anyone have anything else on this?

Also...according to New York Magazine, the Economist Magazie is in support of a macroeconmic stimulus. Not sure where I wanted to go with that...I've never read the Economist...but have gathered their views typically slant right.

Without delving to deep into economical stuff that bores the pants of me...so far this whole bail-out thing seems like a giant cluster-f.

[NT03]

The AP tried to do a study to find out where the bank bailout money went...the most recent result I've heard is that the banks are basically refusing to answer. Anyone have anything else on this?

Also...according to New York Magazine, the Economist Magazie is in support of a macroeconmic stimulus. Not sure where I wanted to go with that...I've never read the Economist...but have gathered their views typically slant right.

Without delving to deep into economical stuff that bores the pants of me...so far this whole bail-out thing seems like a giant cluster-f.

story

abcstory

Edited January 14, 2009 by NT03

[Monkeypox]

Saying it were an equal $2500 paid out to me, you know what I would do? I would pay down some of the debt I'm working on. Yep, that's right. It would go right back to those banks. So you'd have the same payout to them (at least as far as I'm concerned), except I'd actually get the credit back. This way, I'm getting to pay them twice.

[meangreendork]

Saying it were an equal $2500 paid out to me, you know what I would do? I would pay down some of the debt I'm working on. Yep, that's right. It would go right back to those banks. So you'd have the same payout to them (at least as far as I'm concerned), except I'd actually get the credit back. This way, I'm getting to pay them twice.

Hey now, that means it benefits everyone. Downside is that this is never gonna happen. But yeah, I'd probably CD the money or invest it or pay some stuff down.

[oldguystudent]

I too did the math and came up with the approximate figure of $2500 when they first announced this bailout. My initial reaction was also to just cut everyone a check. Then I recalled the advertisements in the last couple sets of free checks the government sent out (2001 and 2008). While we sensible people would either invest the money or pay down existing debt, too many people took that $300 check and...ready?...put it as a down payment on a $1500 TV thus creating even MORE consumer debt. If they had simply pissed the money away on some trinket that cost exactly $300, it would've been great. Money in motion is indeed stimulating to the economy, but when millions of people use it to increase existing consumer debt, more defaults are a mathematical certainty, and the securities wrapped up in that debt are sure to crash.

So, what to do with the money? Man, I don't know. If you just let people keep it by not collecting taxes, I don't know that it would be all that great for the economy either. If the wealthy with 90% of the tax money just kept it, I don't believe the so-called trickle down economic theory takes place in reality. I think a lot of that money just gets holed up somewhere safe and never sees the light of day.

I never know which side of the fiscal fence to sit on. You go to the left side, collect a bunch of money from the wealthy, redistribute it to the poor in the form of entitlement programs, and you deincentivize both rich and poor from ever being productive. Remember that back in the days of Eisenhower through Johnson, the top tap bracket was 90%. Where's my incentive to work harder with that? I sit home eating cheetos, making babies and watching Jerry Springer? For free? And you pay me? Why the hell would I look for a job?

On the other hand, you go all invisible hand of the free market, and it's only a matter of time before the 98% of the foolish population and their money are soon parted by the 2% not so foolish segment of the population. You think that 2% is gonna just hit the reset button and give it all back? Then what happens to the "fools"? No safety net. Just let them roll over and die?

For me, I just keep chugging right along and hope to God that I've got enough to feed myself a pittance of stale grits and an occasional boiled egg when I'm too old to work and social security is long since dead.

[meangreendork]

I too did the math and came up with the approximate figure of $2500 when they first announced this bailout. My initial reaction was also to just cut everyone a check. Then I recalled the advertisements in the last couple sets of free checks the government sent out (2001 and 2008). While we sensible people would either invest the money or pay down existing debt, too many people took that $300 check and...ready?...put it as a down payment on a $1500 TV thus creating even MORE consumer debt. If they had simply pissed the money away on some trinket that cost exactly $300, it would've been great. Money in motion is indeed stimulating to the economy, but when millions of people use it to increase existing consumer debt, more defaults are a mathematical certainty, and the securities wrapped up in that debt are sure to crash.

So, what to do with the money? Man, I don't know. If you just let people keep it by not collecting taxes, I don't know that it would be all that great for the economy either. If the wealthy with 90% of the tax money just kept it, I don't believe the so-called trickle down economic theory takes place in reality. I think a lot of that money just gets holed up somewhere safe and never sees the light of day.

I never know which side of the fiscal fence to sit on. You go to the left side, collect a bunch of money from the wealthy, redistribute it to the poor in the form of entitlement programs, and you deincentivize both rich and poor from ever being productive. Remember that back in the days of Eisenhower through Johnson, the top tap bracket was 90%. Where's my incentive to work harder with that? I sit home eating cheetos, making babies and watching Jerry Springer? For free? And you pay me? Why the hell would I look for a job?

On the other hand, you go all invisible hand of the free market, and it's only a matter of time before the 98% of the foolish population and their money are soon parted by the 2% not so foolish segment of the population. You think that 2% is gonna just hit the reset button and give it all back? Then what happens to the "fools"? No safety net. Just let them roll over and die?

For me, I just keep chugging right along and hope to God that I've got enough to feed myself a pittance of stale grits and an occasional boiled egg when I'm too old to work and social security is long since dead.

It's this exact set of scenarios that you have kind of ride the fence between fiscal policy types for. Really, both sides of the fence are there and can be used to keep the other in check while also making up for their weaknesses. Seriously, so many people think we HAVE to be one way or the other when our economy has really operated at its best when both systems are used in balance. That may have to lean one way or the other depending on the situation, but you can't lean too far one way.

[Coffee and TV]

those damn rich people! Always getting tax breaks and investing and creating jobs... it's so unfair! Where's my government cheese?!

I get that Reagan is a god to some of you dittoheads, but in reality his whole economic theory wasn't as awesome as advertised. It was decent, but you should look a little more at history and a little less at "isms" to find out the truth.

[LongJim]

Then what happens to the "fools"? No safety net.

"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? I have been forced to support the establishments I mentioned through taxation, and God knows they cost more than they're worth. Those who are badly off must go there."

Just let them roll over and die?

"If they'd rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."