Just say No to stimulus package?!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-17-2006
Just say No to stimulus package?!!!
327
Tue, 01-27-2009 - 1:44pm
I see that Republican leaders in the House have urged their members to say No to the Obama economic stimulus package. But, this is no big surprise. The Republican idea of helping the economy is always to give a big tax break to the rich people. The so-called trickle down effect. But Republican economics have put us in the mess we are in right now. It is time to try something different. I urge everyone to contact their representatives and senators to pass the stimulus package. Average Americans are losing their homes, their jobs, and any hope for the future. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Our country is headed for the second Great Depression in US history. Coincidentally, the Republicans brought on the first Depression back then. Many people suffered a long while before FDR’s programs slowly began to kick start the economy once again.
Tax cuts for the rich will not stimulate our economy. Even tax cuts for average Americans will not help us, if we do not have a job to put food on the table.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:33pm

<

 

 

Guild Member since 2009

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:36pm

Always have to read the fine print in those articles...


Excluding the Social Security system, the U.S. government ran a $33.52 billion deficit, breaching the "lockbox" that was a focus of U.S. political debate until the attacks on New York and Washington set back an already weak economy and triggered new pressures in Congress for spending and tax cuts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-09-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:39pm
A bit of a hair-splitting semantics there. The reason the Great Depression is mentioned, is to form a correlation between the current economic situation and the GD. But even if we take the comment verbatim...this is still NOT "the worst economic situation since the Great Depression." The economy Reagan inherited from Carter was much worse...and the fact that no one references that period puts our current "crisis" into perspective.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 4:48pm

<>


How so?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 5:19pm

<


Excluding the Social Security system, the U.S. government ran a $33.52 billion deficit, breaching the "lockbox" that was a focus of U.S. political debate until the attacks on New York and Washington set back an already weak economy and triggered new pressures in Congress for spending and tax cuts.>>





It wasn't exactly "fine print", it was a central part of the article and if I remember correctly, it was in reference to the deficit for 2001. Here is some information though from the other articles I posted in a later post -


Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a
USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998,

Chrissy
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2009
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 5:57pm

<, breaching the "lockbox" that was a focus of U.S. political debate until the attacks on New York and Washington set back an already weak economy and triggered new pressures in Congress for spending and tax cuts.>>


Yea, thanks for bringing that up.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 6:38pm

Surprising, I know, but I basically agree with your three points.


This is a good article from TIME about John Keynes and how FDR finally went with his plan of government spending during the war, and how it worked.

"

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 7:06pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 7:13pm

Yes, and if I also may add you were correct with this comment:

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Wed, 01-28-2009 - 7:16pm

(((You said,

Pages